the dynamite politics thread

[Villain]

]Don't all of you see this entire quarrel is pointless? How about we just accept each other's beliefs and make some cookies?[/font]

Agreed on the accepting and cookies -part, but I actually found a rather huge positive point in this quarrel - I need to learn to express myself better. My previous five posts on this thread I had to make to correct false assumptions and rather fundamental (bad pun intended) misunderstandings, based upon some careless wordings of mine and things I had left unexplained, believing they were obvious to the reader. Had I expressed myself better from early on, I guess I could have used these hours for something much more important (like say, watching anime, or reading... or god forbid, finishing my graduation thesis I'm supposed to work on every night and day, as it should be ready in less than two weeks). Even with highly intelligent people on the receiving end, it seems that internet-communication can really twist your thoughts behind your words, unless you are very careful.

Thus, a valuable lesson to me.

-Villain

 

[hyena]

@ville: it's not the internet, it's political debate. looking for inaccuracies in the opponent's wording is one of these daily bread type of things, pointless as it might be. by the way, i find your idea of curbing the right to reproduce at three totally scary, but we'll have time to talk about this after all these theses (ha!) are over and done with.

@fireangel: i was thinking of "utopian" in terms of "not compatible with human nature as we know it" more than "not compatible with the current balance of power(s)". in the former case, history doesn't really ever turn the tide around, but of course a huge debate can be opened on what "human nature" is. in the latter case, of course you are right, but envisioning the conditions under which your ideal could realistically be brought to life is a part of the process and it sort of takes the utopian element out of the question.

 

[Villain]

as an alternative to learning to read, i could try take all of your posts by the word, instead of the passages you assume need closer examination.

Uh, how about you actually tried to see the whole picture I try to paint instead of taking wild guesses of how it might look like based on some glimpses I have given to you in the distant past and guessing the rest? I know for sure that I wasn't doing too good a job at making that picture clear, but you could have asked some clarifications, before you started drawing huge conclusions about my thoughts by yourself.

At the beginning of this discussion, you had the picture that I was a left-wing supporter, who wanted every religious person and everyone who had opinions that differed from mine killed, isn't that right? Did it ever occur to you that the picture might not be very accurate?

Again, I admit it is my fault that I have never properly tried to explain my whole political stance here (unlike, say, Hyena has) and instead have just stated a few hasty comments to some issues, but it appears you just took Salmy's opinions, mixed in a few prejudical assumptions and added my anti-religiousness and anti-americanism as flawor. Not my taste of cooking, really.

I am not all against making assumptions about others and I certainly do it often myself, but usually I (at least try to) leave some room for doubt before forming an opinion on someone based on just assumptions.

But again, I found the whole issue valuable in the sense that I really need to make myself clearer in the future - my sincere thanks for (apparently accidentally) pointing that out.

-Villain

 

[Salamurhaaja]

oh, i will. but perhaps you should read a commentary to the ten commandments - something your hate frenzy might have prevented you from doing in the past - so that you can find out how the prohibition against killing people was aimed at personal enemies, and had nothing to do with wars. the killing of your enemy in a war was not considered murder, and there is nothing in the ten commandments that forbids wars. there is nothing in the bible that forbids wars, in fact. so you're possibly referring to the gospels or the teachings of jesus christ, i don't know.

Um, excuse me, but the commandment is:
Thou shalt not kill.

That pretty friggin clear to me. Don't kill. No matter what.
Btw, the bible speaks nothing of murder, it only speaks of killing.
To me, war is nothing but killing, therefore the commandment is
against it.

 

[rahvin]

That pretty friggin clear to me. Don't kill. No matter what.
Btw, the bible speaks nothing of murder, it only speaks of killing.
To me, war is nothing but killing, therefore the commandment is
against it.

again, read some commentaries on it. you haven't read the original version and you don't know what the original choice word for "kill" is. the fact that the english version is "pretty friggin clear" doesn't really mean, i must say, a "pretty friggin thing".

edit: to be more precise, it is widely known that a good translation in english of the sixth commandment is "do not commit murder". murder - the hebrew (or was it aramaic?) word for it - is understood to mean the act of taking the life of someone else willingly and for personal reasons linked to the victim. self-defense and executing a battle-leader's command don't qualify. after all, it's pretty obvious if you read any part of the bible, that killing in war was not frowned upon by the lord, but instead solicited around and about the same time as the commandments were revealed to moses.

 

[Salamurhaaja]

Yes, well, I guess it's nice to make these commentaries to justify your actions.
It's kinda like editing your post after someone noticed a poop on it.

And what the heck is this thing about pretty friggin clear?
I thought that is a pretty friggin clear sentence.

 

[rahvin]

Yes, well, I guess it's nice to make these commentaries to justify your actions.
It's kinda like editing your post after someone noticed a poop on it.

i don't understand your point. the commentaries are meant to be possible interpretations of the word rasah, hebrew for "murder", and its possible significance in the context. they're not necessarily made by christian scholars, and it puzzles me to even think about which way you would accuse them to be biased for. it's beyond me to see why you would assume that everything is clear without need to look for interpretations that make more sense in accord to when/how/why documents like the bible have been written.

pages have been compiled about whether the word was used to specifically mean that a believer should not kill at all, or just in certain sets of circumstances. whose actions should the commentaries justify? they're the result of linguistic and historical research meant to assess what the content of an historical document implies. really, all this bashing without even knowing what you're bashing anymore seems very immature to me.

 

[Villain]

to be more precise, it is widely known that a good translation in english of the sixth commandment is "do not commit murder". murder - the hebrew (or was it aramaic?) word for it - is understood to mean the act of taking the life of someone else willingly and for personal reasons linked to the victim. self-defense and executing a battle-leader's command don't qualify. after all, it's pretty obvious if you read any part of the bible, that killing in war was not frowned upon by the lord, but instead solicited around and about the same time as the commandments were revealed to moses.

Ah, are there any more of these commentaries about the commandments? Can you fuck your envious neighbor's wife p) if, say, you do not know her personally? Or perhaps if your cattle-leader told you to do so? Damn, being a pious Christian might be fun after all! :Spin:

-Villain (going to bed now...)

 

[rahvin]

@villain: well, for once you're hitting slightly closer to home than in the past three pages. yes, surprise surprise, the commandments are meant to apply to people inside the community of believers, so while you still cannot commit adultery (it is a threat to the community itself, not just the third parties involved), you can probably steal cattle belonging to another community or covenant, whose members are accidentally not believers of your same god. i'm glad i'm shedding some light over these facts of the early days of christianity (and judaism), but really, you should probably take the time to do some reading on the subject.

anyway, this is a snippet of one of the commentaries you so despise:

The Meaning of Rasah. Rasah probably had a specialized meaning, possibly in connection with the killing (whether premeditated or accidental) of anyone in the covenant community, especially that which brought illegal violence. The sixth commandment therefore protected the individual Israelite within the community from any danger. Only God had the right to terminate life; murder was an abrogation of his power that ignored humanity's created nature and value in the sight of God. God had to be propitiated since the covenant relationship had been broken (Num 35:33). Murder deprived God of his property (the blood of the victim Lev 17:11, 14), which apparently passed to the control of the murderer (2 Sam 4:11). Thus, the murderer's life was ransomed. Underlying this was the dictum in Genesis 9:6 concerning the sanctity of life. The murderer had to receive a penalty consistent with this law (lex talionis) to purge the evil from their midst (Gen 4:10-11; Deut 21:8) and to deter others (Deut 13:11; 17:13; 19:20; 21:21). Rasah did not cover the subject of killing in war or capital punishment, which were done only at the command of God; thus, they were not in the same category as murder.

from http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T491

 

[Salamurhaaja]

Ah, so this is not the word of god given to Moses by god in stone tablets.
So in other words if you're a christian you can do pretty much anything you
like, well, isn't that all divine and fucking holy shit.
What a bunch of hypocrites (but I knew that already anyway).

And why the hell would you believe in a dude whose words can so easily be
manipulated? You really are weak little sheep.

 

[Hitori]

You people get way too wound up compared to the probable outcome of this.. I suggest everyone just calm down and have a cookie and some tea.
I was gonna contribute to the discussion but I dont like the style so have fun without me

this has become extremely silly. on BOTH sides.

 

[hyena]

@salmy: don't get us mixed up: rahvin does not believe in god, but he does believe in languages, since he studies them. i, on the other hand, do believe in god and am not as proficient in languages.

as for the "you can do what you want because commentaries/priests/whatever are going to accommodate your choice eventually", no you can't. first of all, there's lots of behaviors that remain prohibited, no matter the specific interpretation: i am not supposed to kill out of a desire for personal revenge, full stop. i'm sorry about that, by the way, but i won't try to change it.

moreover, i always say that if it is true that god created mankind with the ends that are described by judaism/christianity, ie to give men happiness, then it should also be true that each of us has a built-in mechanism making them anguished whenever they do something that is contrary to the laws of god. in more direct words, everyone has a conscience, and if you do something evil you're going to suffer for it right away, no matter the justifications. i guess that each religious person has the duty to try and ascertain to the best of their ability whatever the bu god wants from them, no cheating.

 

[Dark_Jester]

Yeah, for some reason this feels like its degenerating into an Off-topic style religious argument. Lets stop, now.

 

[Villain]

@villain: well, for once you're hitting slightly closer to home than in the past three pages.

Well, that's quite a feat, especially considering that for the past three pages I did nothing but state and explain my subjective opinions so that you wouldn't need to guess their content and misquote me all the time. Is this "hitting slightly closer to home" implying that you actually know the content of my subjective opinions better than I do (which was the whole reason for the previous argument we had, if you already forgot)? Or do you just mean that this interests you more than my subjective opinions?

To the unpleased audience: I do apologise for the stupid content of this recent show, but I just hate to be misunderstood, misinterpreted and misread. Anyways, I hope that is now over and done with.

-Villain

 

[Dark_Jester]

No problem, all is forgiven

 

[Northern Lights]

(Before everything stops, regarding languages and translations, I just want to suggest a theory about a different part of the Bible, namely the New Testament: having studied classic greek, I was taught that the word "parthenos" can mean both young girl and virgin, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the girl in question is both a young girl and a virgin, it can be either or. If so, the virgin Mary might not have been a virgin after all, and catholicism will need to reconsider her position as their favourite saint.
Now you may have tea and cookies.)

 

[rahvin]

Ah, so this is not the word of god given to Moses by god in stone tablets.

technically, it is. stone tablets, however, are a less-than-perfect medium like any other, so there still is a need for interpretation. we must not forget that murder is a culture-dependent concept. you cannot define it without knowing the framework it's supposed to be working in, and considering the number of cultures that have succeeded since the time the bible was written, if there is any absolute value in the commandments (or the word of god altogether) it certainly needs to be adapted.

And why the hell would you believe in a dude whose words can so easily be
manipulated? You really are weak little sheep.

i do not believe in a dude or dudette of any persuasion, and i feel a philosophical discussion about my stance on the subject would be rather inappropriate.

 

[t.a.j.]

if it were the word of god, meant for all faithful, it would be universally understandable and clear. The very fact that it can be interpreted differently without malicious intent very much suggests that it's just another piece of culturally relevant writing.
I at least would be very wary of a god that seems to be unable to get his message across, no?

 

[Salamurhaaja]

@t.a.j.
My point exactly.

 

[Wolfman Von Jones]

assholes