From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Apr 27 2005 - 04:21:44 BST
Platt
> Christianity never "wielded power" for 2000 years. That's what I mean by
> your distortion of history.
Ok, quibble me over a few hundred. And then let's get into whether the transfer
of power was total or partial. I'd say the "christian church" held power from
the end Emperor Julian until the Age of Reason. So, that's about 360CE until
its decline around the time of Copernicus, 1500CE. So, if we think power
transferred immediately and without struggle, that's about 1200 years. If we
consider that church supported monarchies dominated Europe until we broke from
the crown, in 1750 (say), that's another 250 years of strong albeit weakening
power. So, that's roughly 1500 years of power. Ok, you win. I won't say two
thousand any longer, I'll say one thousand five hundred years.
> Your assumption is that all governments, whether Christian or secular, are
guilty of initiating brutality on a scale equal to modern secular
> communism. That's patently false.
Again, you patently continue to amaze me. "Patently false" in your distorted
"need-to-believe" world, maybe. But I won't argue, I'll let anyone who stumbles
on this pick up "The Columbia History of the World" and judge for themseves.
> I have admitted to the brutalities of Christianity in the Middle Ages.
> You have yet to show how Christianity initiated mass murder before or
> after that. In fact, Christianity was instrumental in bringing down the
> brutal Roman Empire.
And maybe you should read some history on how this was accomplished. It was not
through charity work and alms for the poor.
But sigh. And double sigh. And triple sigh. "Christianity" did not "invent" mass
murder. You are so fond of twisting my words, that you ignore even the simplest
of statements. I'll say it sloooooow....
"Mass murder"... brutality... has been historically employed... by static social
patters.... concerned with reifying that power....
I have said.... I don't hold "religion" responsible.... I hold power
responsible... but whether "secular" or "religious"... historically that
power... has acted the same...
Did I ever say Christianity as a "spiritual concept" has not guided people to
good acts.... NO... and what kills me is that YOU KNOW THAT... but you continue
to deliberately distort to serve, god knows what end.
So, for those keeping score... to highlight yet again the absurdity of your
tactics....
Christianity as a spiritual principle, i.e. "spirituality", is not "brutal".
Power structures, as evidenced historically IN ANY BOOK ON HISTORY you care to
pick up, such as the static church, have acted historically through brutality,
xenophobia and other deceptive tactics (that you love to employ so much) to
consolidate its power.
You really blow my mind. I mean, there you are, thinking "no one else here must
read history, so I can make distort it to serve my own ends, and nooooo one
else will notice".
But let's not argue any longer. Let's just say that anyone who reads this, who
may be wondering "who is right", should pick up a book, any old book, on
history, read it, and decide for themselves. Agreed?
> Oh my God. You compare Bush to Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot?
> That's worse than DMB lumping Pat Robertson with Hitler. Have you no
> understanding of the checks and balances that prevent any American
> president from attaining unbridled power? Can you not grasp the reality
> that in order to attain Marx's goal of eliminating economic inequalities
> that a concentration of political power is necessary, providing an open
> invitation to dictators?
Checks and balances??? Oooohhhh... you mean dismantling that stupid liberal
judiciary, and supporting the attacks on liberal judges.... oh yes, I see...
You mean wanting to pass laws to abolish fillibustering, now that they are not
the ones who want to do it??? Ohhhh.... right.....
I compare the anti-intellectual sentiment of Bush, and the current feverishly
cling to social patterns and villify intellectualism (present company as prime
example), to be quite similar to other such regimes, yes. A comparison is not
an equation, you know, just pointing out similiarities... oh, ooopps,
historical comparison, ie. thinking, is antithesis to the whole "patriotic"
clining to static social codes, sorry.
> Your approval of Marx suggest support for dictatorship since his vision could
not possibly be carried out except by a totalitarian government, as the history
of the 20th century proves. .
Simply more evidence that you rely on McCarthian soundbites about Marx. Maybe if
you read him, the rest of us would take your ridiculous criticisms, and
distorted history, more serious. As it is, you only prove to scream and yell
"FEAR" over that which you know nothing. But you do yell it loud, I'll give you
that.
> This is hilarious. You berate me for not reading Marx, then refer me to an
article in Wikipedia to explain Marx. I suggest you read the "Communist
Manifesto" and tell me what in it you disagree with.
I referred you to Wikipedia to show that even a child could've (and would've)
done a simple search to make sure they knew what they were saying before saying
it... "Dictatorship of the Proletariat proves Marx called for
totalitarianism"... please.
Or are you used to arguing with people who don't even know how to do quick web
searches for your soundbites?
> Are you saying Marx was an anarchist? Is that what "beginning" readers are
supposed to conclude?
Gee... if you were so versed in Marx to know so well what he stood for, then you
should be able to answer this. Was he an anarchist, Platt? Give me some
citations to support your answer.
> What is about terrorists that you don't fear? And what, pray tell, is
> "actual morality?" Maybe we ought to start a new thread on that!
I fear anyone who uses terror tactics against unwitting civilians. Whether
flying planes into buildings, or dropping napalm on crowded civilian streets.
My "fear" is governed by intellectual reason and a belief in people, not
governments. And my allegiance is certainly not to "the state", but to the
principles it is supposed to be based on.
What is "actual morality"? I dunno. But if everyone who "claimed to be acting in
the name of morality" was in fact doing so, we'd have no use for the word
"morals", would we.
> I find your "win for rational-secular idea of freedom" unsupported by fact.
Of course you do.
> Because men are "endowed by their Creator with liberty" puts God right at the
center of freedom.
And where was this principle during the 1500 years of church power? You continue
to avoid that question. Although I understand why.
In other words, your right and mine to liberty comes from
> God, not from a government permit based on some rational-secular idea,
> whatever that may be.
Uh huh. And why when the "christian church" held power for 1500 years did this
"right" not manifest itself at all???
Or, if it comes "from God". Please tell me where in the bible God mandates
representative democracy and "liberty", and if so, why did the church ignore it
and support monarchies until, oh, around 1776?
I'll wait, but three times asking pretty much means you ain't gonna answer, are
you?
> Or scaring and misleading people with leftist propaganda such as you and
> liberal friends employ. Two can play the game of hysterical accusations,
> if that's your idea of "critical thinking.".
"Leftist propaganda"?? Are we back to that red herring again?
> > [Arlo said]
> > > > The brutality of the past two thousand years that occured "in the name
of religion", has been replaced (through a transference of power) to brutality
occuring "in the name of fill-in-the-blank". What history shows us, is that
power structures, then and now, are not guided by "morals".
> >
> > [Platt]
> > > Again, I suggest you read some history.
That the best you can do? Well then, please enlighten me.
How do you feel your reading of history has shown that "brutality" emerged with
the advent of "secularism"? What history book do you get that from?
> Well, suppose you spell out for us what "being moral" is. Would part of
> it be to abolish private property as Marx recommends?
Ask the Amish. They find it quite moral. Or do you think the Amish are immoral?
> > [Arlo]
> > Marx saw "private property" as a focus on materialism that removed us from
our humanity. In many ways, it is quite parallel to Jesus' refuttal of wealth
and material possession, and is evidenced (again) by the Amish quite nicely. We
can talk about that too, if you'd like. With regard to material possession,
Jesus and Marx are very similar.
>
> So your do favor abolishing private property?
No, as I've said before (and you know it), I don't. I favor restructuring the
dialogue to put rampant consumerism as less important than human concerns. I
own a Harley. How much more evidence of "private property" do you want?
> Let's argue about the following soudbite direct from Marx's "Communist
> Manifesto:" "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in
the single sentence:Abolition of private property."
Okay, and let's start with the Amish, since they are the closest real world
example we have to this Marxist principle in practice. Do you feel they are
immoral? If not, why? Is Amishism a despotic tyranny (in this case a religious
tyranny) keeping people from the "morality" of "private property"?
> > [Arlo]
> > Of course, you can't answer. I expected as much. Despite what the founders
"claim", where do you find "democracy" in any historical period of christian
domination? I can answer that for you, Platt. "Nowhere".
>
> See my previous post showing how the foundations of democracy come
> straight from Christian theology.
Hey! You ignored my question! Imagine that!
I'll try again, then why was it not once, not in one instance, brought into
existence during the 1500 years the church held power?
Why is it a "greek" term? Why did Franklin use the Iroquios as the only real
world example of such a system????
> THAT dialogue as you call it as phony as a three-dollar bill. People do
> not buy goods and services "without regard or thought to support the
> wealth acquisition of corporate America." They spend their earnings on
> what they value for themselves, their families and their friends.
You have really got to be kidding? Your continual use of xenophobic tactics
surrounding my entire example, shows how manipulated the dialogue is by
materialist and wealth-fixated interests.
> Your statement "without thought" reflects the leftist view that Americans are
too stupid to know what's good for them
Which is why we have a mutlibillion dollar advertising system in this country,
Platt. Because people need to be told what to buy, and how buying things will
make them attractive, popular, cool people. Or do you think advertising is not
deceptive and manipulative, but merely "informative"?
, which of course by your lights
> was the reason the majority reelected George Bush.
Not stupidity, no. I am friends with many people back home who are Bush
supporters, and in every case its out of xenophobic distortions of right-wing
propaganda. Fear of muslims, fear of blacks, and fear that my guns will be
taken away. You can toss in some other things, like "liberals are commies"
(which is xenophobic as well, but more deliberately distortive), but these were
the big three among people I know.
Hate terrorists. Hate welfare (which is nothing but "blacks" living off other
people's money). The liberals will take my guns away.
Stupidity? No. Fear? Absolutely.
> With the stupidity of the average God-fearing American being the prevalent
belief among liberal elites
And thankfully, that same "God" eased up on the wealth-fixation and material
acquisition stuff that Jesus was against. Luckily that same God "hates
homosexuals", but loves the idea that his people can drive around in Lexus'
while people freeze to death on the streets of our cities each year, or are
starving right now.
Yeah, "God fearing"... Give me a break. More like "God manipulating".
> it's little wonder the left is losing ground among the electorate
> and that your dream of a great collectivist Utopia where everybody in the
neighborhood willingly shares a snowblower will never happen, unless by
dictatorial fiat.
You are actually happy that noboby willingly shares a snowblower.... Why how
Christian and utterly materialistic of you. Jesus would be proud, he'd hate if
people willingly shared things with one another. In fact, didn't Jesus condemn
Paul for suggesting that they share? Saying, "And ye shall not share, for thy
father in heaven wants though to acquire material possessions and keep them
from thy commie neighbors."
> > I'm going to move this over the thread DMB started, if you'd like to start
> > a "private property" thread, we can do that.
>
> Need reinforcements? OK by me.
That's it. You got me. :-)
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 27 2005 - 12:49:33 BST