´óÏó´«Ã½

"Onward Christian soldier, marching as to war...."

As to war....or marching (or skulking) to war? Who in the world is better qualified to answer that question than the people who lived in Northern Ireland during the past 400 years?

Bottom Line is Christianity is morally and spiritually bankrupt. Theologians are myth believers.

princessnewsjunkie: Most theologians would probably agree with you. And yet, I'm not ready to throw the Infant out with the bath water. Though the church fails him time and time again, the teachings of Yeshua bar Yusef remain rock solid.

Again my moniker was replaced by the word "you" in entry #1. ´óÏó´«Ã½'s software gone haywire again? Why don't they outsource their IT to India, things would be much better. I've known ten year olds who could manage a web site better than ´óÏó´«Ã½'s track record has been.

#4
Marcus,

Everyone, assuming they have signed in, sees their own comments as 'you'.
I fail to see the benefit to anyone. I don't like it. I think it's clumsy and unnecessary.

Scotch-git;

Although my screens reads;

"You are currently signed as MarcusAureliusII"

just below the blue bar that says comments when my browser is set to accept cookies, just like yours displays your moniker or any other registered poster's does, it is changed and has been changed on one other blog I checked and probably every single ´óÏó´«Ã½ blog I post on. It seems to me this was done by a hacker. I've contacted ´óÏó´«Ã½'s blog comment screen asking them to correct it.

I strongly suspect that this has been done by or on behalf of someone who posted on another ´óÏó´«Ã½ blog site, was banned from all of them and has reappeared under different monikers, the most recent ones starting with the letter "U" followed by a string of numbers. He blames me for having gotten him banned but in truth, it was his own perpetual tirade of racist comments that probably led the monitors to ban him from posting at all. That ´óÏó´«Ã½'s blog site is vulnerable to an outside attack of this type shows that it is not well protected. You can hardly wonder how long it will be before it is successfully hacked to where the content of people's postings will also be altered or deleted.

I'm you too.

-H [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

As I only discovered this late last night and just commented to the web site contact screen this morning, it will be interesting to see how long it takes for ´óÏó´«Ã½ to respond or how persistent I will have to be. It will be a good test of them. Anyone want to take bets on how long it will take them to fix it? At one point they had software problems that lasted for several years. It's just a nuissance but then this particular poster was like a gnat or some other insignificant insect that was merely annoying.

I blog therefore I'm you.

Anyway, maybe it's a good thing we've been side tracked, has anyone any idea what Slavoj's on about. :-)

No one, to date, has actually mentioned him, I was going to but I took the kids for ice-cream instead.

MarcusAurelius`Dream.

So satan said `Fellows I`m giving a warning,
I`m expecting MarcusAurelius down here this morning.
`Now I`LL tell you straight and I`ll tell you clear,
`We are too blasted good for that fellow down here!`

`Oh satan!Oh satan!Marcus cried,
`I Heard what you said while waiting outside.
Oh give me a corner-I`ve nowhere to go!`
But satan said`No, a thousand times no`.

And he kicked Marcus out and he vanished in smoke...
Just at that moment Marcus awoke.
He was lying in bed all covered in sweat.
Crying `Doctor oh doctor it`s my worst dream yet.
`To Heaven I won`t go, I know very well,
But it`s damned hard lines to be kicked out of hell!`.

A Protheroe.

Peter, who really cares? If you subtitle your book "Paradox or Dialectic?", you are automatically in gobbledegook territory, and the GAS factor takes a nosedive. I think I'll write a book called "The Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary Event from a Feminist Perspective", followed up by "Postmodern Dialectic Considerations of the Internal Fluidic Structure of Cepheid Variables - Implications for the Development of Toasters."

Let's all Google "Sokal" and be done with it.

[Can I have a 99? - no sprinkles :-)]

As a Christian how come you will never see Mohammed commented in the same derogatory fashion, as at the start of this thread.Double standards by the PC ´óÏó´«Ã½.
YOU BET YA.

Peter

Taking the kids for ice cream instead.....

You shoulda stayed home and had a look at this guy.

Here's a taster, have a lick, and enjoy.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

ukwales #12, sadly my #14 shows that you are right.

Wales 10,

Good pome,

#8. MarcusAureliusII


"Anyone want to take bets on how long it will take them to fix it?"

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ can't stop you being you.
Nor can they alter, alter ego.
Unless you becomes U

The Monstrosity of Mohammed

J

Ukwales

The only reason there is a law called *inciting religious hate* is because British government has pandered to the Muslims.

Those who won't practice violence get abused because we are *supposed* to love our enimies, and be non violent.
Seems to me the double standards is very relevant and I agree 100%.

A lot of it comes down to money and fear.
If people start riots it costs the government economically, and also a lot of votes due to fear.
So non violent people get crushed, an unfortunate consequence of world economology, and religious violence, tolerated by society.

Until society steps up in numbers, religious violence will have it's way.
It took us thirty odd years to take a stand against the violence in this country (N Ireland).
I hope the vacum that exsists will be filled with a strong stance for peace, rather than a religious mutation which has a thirst for our freedoms and blood.

J

J

S&M

´óÏó´«Ã½ cannot stop anyone from being themselves and apparently they can't stop hackers either. They had it repaired within a few hours but whoever hacked them has simply done it again. They have not solved their underlying vulnerability. I was surprised at how quickly it was repaired, within a few hours but it is clear that the hackers have easily outsmarted ´óÏó´«Ã½'s IT group. Based on a long track record of incompetence, that isn't much to crow about. They should be outsourced to someone who knows what they are doing. That may take more than civil servant wages.

I just watched this on youtube not sure what to make of it.

Funny how people take a subject out of wider perspective and focus on it to the exclusion of those which give it context. They look at one tree without ever considering the forest. Where does Zizek talk about the monstrosity of Marxism. While Christianity may have given us the dark ags, the inquisition, the crusades, and countless cruelties and individual crimes beyond number, Marxism led to humanity facing the prospect of permanent worldwide enslivement or the end of the human species through global nuclear war to prevent such enslavement. Only the grit, determination, and certainty that they would not allow themselves to be enslaved put Christian Americans in a position where they would have chosen the later course for everyone. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a warning to Marxists that they should harbor no hopes, be in no doubt that their dream of worldwide socialism would not be allowed to come to fruition through their own wars of liberation. Zizek may have valid points about Christianity but he is more than equally vulnerable by being a defender of a just as contemptable alternative doctrine.

If Christ said love your neighbour as your self, then you go out to kill, enslave and abuse others, whose fault is that? Yours or Christ's? People have been given free will to do good or evil. It's your choice. If someone goes for evil while calling themselves a Christian, it would show that they are obviously not Christian! The same can be said for terrorists and Muslims. The name of Christ has been hijacked - read the New Testament for yourselves and enjoy the Good News!

Nobody is saying it's the fault of Jesus. He had no idea, of course. People are people, and the one great evil that needs to be exterminated from out society is the evil of "belief". It is not more "faith" that we need, but more DOUBT.

BTW, Mark, the Japanese weren't commies. We're in the noughties, not the eighties now, and Ronnie Reagan is no longer with us.

If it's not more of the monstrosity of faith we need, but doubt, what is it we should doubt in?

Helio

Its surely not 'belief' but ideology which hijacks the belief. There are plenty of examples we can find where Christianity cowtowed to governments etc... Clergymen in the UK justifying the killing of Germans while their counterparts in Germany encouraged them to kill British soldiers.

As Zizek points out, in 40's Japan, the monks who were total pacifists up to that point, did their bit to encourage the Japanese war effort with only a handful of objectors.

Religion in its purest form, to help the widow and be kind to the orphan, isnt really the enemy. Its just a tool, a very powerful one, used by the ideology.

Heliopolitan,

You have a very good point.Bertrand Russell said"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt".
There is nothing worst than a cocksure Chirstian being superior & pushing
his belief arrogantly.I am not super intelligent and have many doubts.I have Been a Christian for a while now sometimes hanging on by my finger tips,but I will not let go,had so many prayers anwsered for me to turn back would be a betrail.Christ said I am telling you the truth,& its his & his alone promises I hold to.I cant remember who said I love your Christ but am not to keen on Christians,some times I have to agree with that one.I dear say I will get some flack over this post,but if I dish
it out as in post #10 I deserve it!!!.
Regards..

UKW, you may get there yet. Doubt is not betrayal, as I found out myself at Gethsemane. RJB, belief is a very easy thing for ideology to hijack - even easier than a plane. Doubt, OTOH, is a resilient little fighter, and will always stand you in good stead. It's OK, you can even doubt *that* if you want :-)

-H

I'm afraid I've been something of a persistent sod with this question, but the 'professional' doubters on here are so reluctant to answer it; I'll try again though, in a slightly different way.

What are the (what are your) limits on doubt?


Helio

"Doubt is not betrayal, as I found out myself at Gethsemane."

Yea, Jesus spotted the same thing.

Peter, there is no limit on doubt. When you "know" something, you attach a degree of confidence to its truth value. In principle, the only values that are out of bounds are zero percent and 100 percent.

Work with that, and you'll do fine :-)

-H

Heliopolitan;

"BTW, Mark, the Japanese weren't commies."

Their ideology was just as bad and the crimes they committed both in number and cruelty and barbarity were every bit as horrific. They were also as fanatical and commited as al Qaeda. If you don't know it or believe it then you need to read a lot more about the history of the war in the Pacific theater and about the Japanese empire. Japanese themselves learn very little abou it which is dangerous for both them and their neighbors.

Yes I know. But it still helps to be accurate. Human behaviour is a multifaceted thingumydoodle. Here, was anyone else totally put off by all the blinkin' nose-rubbing etc? Is this something that some people affect, just so that everyone thinks they are Really Smart or something? And the T-shirt! Even worse than Dawkins' Hawaiian effort.

Something Must Be Done.

#24 - Heliopolitan -

"...the one great evil that needs to be exterminated from out society is the evil of "belief". It is not more "faith" that we need, but more DOUBT."

The statement ... 'It is not more "faith" that we need, but more DOUBT'... is itself a "belief".

So what's really nagging away at me is this: should we doubt this "belief"? If we are faithful to our "belief" that what "we need is less belief and more doubt", then we should we also doubt that "belief" itself?

In other words, my friend, you have contradicted yourself.

You cannot promote doubt without also doubting your belief that we need more doubt.

(Or perhaps you are just being selective in the beliefs that should be doubted? Perish the thought!)

I did find it off putting, but stuck with it and found myself looking at some of his other stuff. Some of his theories are far fetched, many agree on that. However, he has a talent for taking complex metaphysical language and spelling it out simply and, at times humorously. He also made me think, not a bad talent to have for a philosopher, I suppose.

I loved what he said about how in Victorian times, the poor were seen as vulgar. Now it is the rich who are vulgar. Too true. Zizek led me to look at other socialist commentators.

The notion that we are in the last times (if the present form of rampant Capitalism continues.) The fact that never before have we had so much surplus capital on one side, so much dormant or unused labour on the other side, and so much social need in the middle. And how stupid and absurd that state of affairs is.

And where is all the money? Who has it? How come there is so much info on us, on every part of our lives - yet so little info on them?

How mentioning 'class' is such a dirty word today. Why? Because its the one thing THEY dont want you to discuss.

I actually quite enjoyed listening to these guys.

#33 - this has been posted by "you" according to my browser.

It was actually posted by "logica_sine_vanitate".

LSV, chill - this is a new beeb thing; the rest of us still see your moniker, if not any logic! You say I have contradicted myself. That would only be the case if I was pumping dogma. But I am not. I am pointing out how we should approach things. The converse reveals the absurdity of the faith position. If I say, "everything I say is true!", you have no reason to believe me. If I say "doubt everything", you still have no reason to believe me, but you can work out for yourself what the more productive approach is. As it is, I am pretty darned sure that Christianity contains numerous falsehoods. Those make it interesting, but they cannot be seen by dogmatists. Faith blinds, and it spoils all the fun.

Oh, why do I bother? You'll learn, some day.

#2 - princessnewsjunkie -

"Bottom Line is Christianity is morally and spiritually bankrupt. Theologians are myth believers."

Bottom Line is Princessnewsjunkie has made a dogmatic statement completely free of any supporting evidence.

Maybe this is the new scientific approach?

Hey ho. I suppose this is, after all, the postmodern age where subjectivism reigns.

Take a leaf out of helio's book, and start "doubting". Then you might pause and think before expressing your "beliefs".

#36 - Helio -

"You say I have contradicted myself. That would only be the case if I was pumping dogma. But I am not."

DOGMA: a belief, principle or doctrine or a code of beliefs, principles or doctrines. (that was from Collins English Dictionary)

Heliopolitan: "the one great evil that needs to be exterminated from out society is the evil of "belief". It is not more "faith" that we need, but more DOUBT."

Sounds like you're pumping a dogma to me. You've made a pretty sweeping statement - "the one great evil" - wow! We have a moral philosopher in our midst.

You say that I will learn "some day". Please elaborate on what I will "learn some day". And please explain what it is that will convince me of the mysterious thing that I will learn?

You have me intrigued...

#35 logica

According to my computer geek friends, seeing "you" for your own postings is the result of a software change made at ´óÏó´«Ã½. If you set your tools to block all cookies and refresh your screen, you will see that your postings appear under your usual moniker the way everyone else sees them and the way we all used to see them. If you set it to accept cookies, it will appear as being posted by "you." Too bad ´óÏó´«Ã½ didn't tell anyone they had made this useless and foolish change. I thought someone had hacked ´óÏó´«Ã½ and changed my moniker. Try it and see if that isn't true. As I said, ´óÏó´«Ã½'s IT department should be outsourced to India or someplace else where they know what they are doing and how to run a web site. These guys have the worst track record for sheer technical incompetence of any web site I've ever visited. If there was a category for it in the Guinness Book of World Records, they'd win it hands down.

Can others also still not see the 'murder by prayer' thread or is it just my account that is having trouble?

#40 - Peter -

I'm also having trouble with that thread. (And I also notice that the preview button has disappeared. Come on Beeb, pull yourselves together will you!!)

Can we start a discussion here I wonder?

I'll kick it off...

I don't agree with the title of the thread. It's not what they did which killed their daughter, but what they didn't do. It's called a "sin of omission". People can blame "prayer" if they like. As a Christian I see no conflict between prayer and medicine. And if "prayer" is something entirely useless, then it can hardly be so efficacious as to kill a child.

PK

´óÏó´«Ã½ IT does it again. It has not been accessible for comments since it was posted. Don't look so shocked. IMO, for them it's par for the course. There are no standards for their performance. If the blog site works in part some of the time, that's good enough for ´óÏó´«Ã½ management. Same for their so called journalism.

Marcus

"If you set your tools to block all cookies and refresh your screen, you will see that your postings appear under your usual moniker the way everyone else sees them and the way we all used to see them. "

Actually, Marcus, if I set my preferences to block cookies and then refresh the screen I am automatically signed out, and then, on re-entering my name and password, I find I unable sign in at all.

The Monstrosity of Cookies.

"Faith blinds, and it spoils all the fun."

On the contrary, the blind faith of others has provided me a lifetime of fun already, and I'm still under 30! Ah, to ponder the joy still ahead of me as I joust in the arena of ideas, the amphitheaters of controversy, the fora of belief! Polemic - my sport of choice - is made richer by the participation of those with blind faith!

JW

On another thread you accused me of arguing, not with you, but with a caricature of yourself. Your post #45 fits exactly the cariacature in my mind.

My image of you was that you were not just ill informed about U.S. foreign policy and its effects, - "blind" if you like - but arrogantly so. I genuinely didnt detect any empathy for the plight of others in you, and you appealed to Brian to back you up that you were in fact a caring person. He didnt.

Your above post doesnt help.

You can string a sentence or two together, no doubt about that, but your derision and ignorance of the basic goodness of millions of people who have blind faith is an example of the 'vulgarity' I mentioned above.

"Jousting in the arena of ideas", "Polemic - my sport of choice" Lol!

Why dont you put polemic on the back burner for a while and "joust" in the "reality" of people's lives? Let a bit of despair and hopelessness inform your precious ideas.

termorrow

"Actually, Marcus, if I set my preferences to block cookies and then refresh the screen I am automatically signed out, and then, on re-entering my name and password, I find I unable sign in at all."

Yes, maybe so but when you visit the site with cookies blocked, you will see yourself as others see you. That may be one of life's most painful lessons...and the first step to self improvement....or suicide. My happy thought for the day.

RJB-

Have you no sense of humour? I was referring to the dynamics of debate. Young-earth-creationists are more fun to debate than science-driven-evolutionists, for example, because they believe what they do "blindly". I'm expressing a personal enjoyment of the dynamics of debate. Learn to smile sometimes, jellybean. It'll help you.


"you appealed to Brian to back you up that you were in fact a caring person. He didnt."

Why would I appeal to Brian, who doesn't know me personally, to confirm whether I was caring or not? No, I asked him if he agreed with you that my political comments on that thread lead logically to the conclusion that I don't care about the plight of millions of human beings. He said he thought you were wrong. Look it up. (You seem to be saying that only pacifists can be caring people. I'd be interested to know if that's what you believe, though I have no real desire to reopen that thread with you!)


"You can string a sentence or two together, no doubt about that, but your derision and ignorance of the basic goodness of millions of people who have blind faith is an example of the 'vulgarity' I mentioned above."

Where did I challenge their "basic goodness"? I said they were fun to debate with! This is a perfect example of the above...