Wikileaks

A place to talk about anything. Stocks, politics, or your neighbors who won't turn down that music.
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Re: Wikileaks

Postby Spence » Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:08 pm

Eric wrote:Oh, and can we three agree that war = socialism?


All you have to do is ask other national socialist's like Hitler and Mussolini.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Re: Wikileaks

Postby Eric » Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:26 pm

Spence wrote:
Eric wrote:Oh, and can we three agree that war = socialism?


All you have to do is ask other national socialist's like Hitler and Mussolini.


My point is that when conservatives say that government is inefficient because the market does things better, they are totally oblivious to the fact that war is a government program that is uncompetitive and funded by the same means as any welfare distribution. And it accounts for the biggest spending in the total budget every year and suffers from similar deformities.

Basically it's just mass-scale corporatism.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Re: Wikileaks

Postby Spence » Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:33 pm

Yes, but protecting our freedom and national interests are the primary function of the Federal government.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Re: Wikileaks

Postby Eric » Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:40 pm

Spence wrote:Yes, but protecting our freedom and national interests are the primary function of the Federal government.


I agree that that is the point in principle, but I see no reason why the government has to be continually engaged in foreign conflicts to the extent that America is currently. The corporatism is undeniably a factor (military-industrial complex). The point isn't always securing freedom. Iraq was no threat to the United States.

All that I would ask is for there to be a little skepticism. It is presupposed from the get-go that, "America = good / Anti-American = bad" when really neither of those properties are contingent upon each other. The other issue I have always had with neoconservative thought is the idea that when saying the American government inadvertently brought 9/11 upon it's subjects, the neoconservative will conflate the government with the citizens. The people are not the State.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Re: Wikileaks

Postby Spence » Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:53 pm

Eric wrote:
Spence wrote:Yes, but protecting our freedom and national interests are the primary function of the Federal government.


I agree that that is the point in principle, but I see no reason why the government has to be continually engaged in foreign conflicts to the extent that America is currently. The corporatism is undeniably a factor (military-industrial complex). The point isn't always securing freedom. Iraq was no threat to the United States.

All that I would ask is for there to be a little skepticism. It is presupposed from the get-go that, "America = good / Anti-American = bad" when really neither of those properties are contingent upon each other. The other issue I have always had with neoconservative thought is the idea that when saying the American government inadvertently brought 9/11 upon it's subjects, the neoconservative will conflate the government with the citizens. The people are not the State.


The stability of the middle east is in our national interest and that is why we went to Iraq. We may have attacked the wrong country for long term stability, but that is why we did it.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
WoVeU
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 6074
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:55 pm
Location: New Braunfels, Texas
Contact:

Re: Wikileaks

Postby WoVeU » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:37 am

The fine art of Biblical interpretation can take you anywhere you want it to go. The Early Church was most certainly pacifist (Turtellian, Origen) as was Jesus himself. "But he flipped over tables!" Yeah, well that's not physical violence.

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matt. 5:38-39)

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Luke 6:27-28)

Put your sword back in its place...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52)

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9)

I'm going to go ahead and read this as: "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person unless they happen to be from another country, because Platonically anthropomorphizing nations and equivocating that with the people who are represented by nation-states means it's okay to kill them even if you've never met them."[/quote]

Yes, interpretation can take you....those are interpretations you cited already. Then your rendering gets you another derivative away. Further, you can Google all you like...read the whole thing from Genesis to Revelation, then preach to me. Well read it 3 times (KJV) and research Hebraisms and Jewish culture and get back to me.
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
R. Reagan

User avatar
Derek
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6002
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:04 am
Location: Brooks, GA
Contact:

Re: Wikileaks

Postby Derek » Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:51 am

Eric, I cannot agree that war equals socialism. I don't know how you would arrive at that.

There are things the guv-mint does well...putting men on the moon (which they only managed...private enterprise put us there), taking over another country....but managing my retirement they are not so good at.

War is no more socialist than the FAA, a very necessary regulating body for public safety....this is NOT socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Image
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.

The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.

See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.

- John Madden

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Re: Wikileaks

Postby Spence » Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:45 am

Eric is right that war is a government endeavor. There are somethings that the government was meant to do under our constitution. Finding where that line is drawn is the trick. That is where mostly good people disagree.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Re: Wikileaks

Postby Eric » Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:13 am

Yes, interpretation can take you....those are interpretations you cited already. Then your rendering gets you another derivative away. Further, you can Google all you like...read the whole thing from Genesis to Revelation, then preach to me. Well read it 3 times (KJV) and research Hebraisms and Jewish culture and get back to me.


I know plenty about Christianity, thanks.

Eric, I cannot agree that war equals socialism. I don't know how you would arrive at that.

There are things the guv-mint does well...putting men on the moon (which they only managed...private enterprise put us there), taking over another country....but managing my retirement they are not so good at.

War is no more socialist than the FAA, a very necessary regulating body for public safety....this is NOT socialism.


Derek, the point I'm trying to make is that the government is not competitive and it is funded by the same means as the picture you displayed here. Whether or not it is "necessary" is besides the point. The war-making apparatus of the government is socialist because it is funded by involuntary means. It's the same thing that happens when government gets its hand into the banking industry and selectively bails out "private" banks. They have their hands in the arms industry and it turns into a colossal iron triangle. The fire departments are socialized, the school system is socialized, the police are socialized, etc.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

User avatar
WoVeU
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 6074
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:55 pm
Location: New Braunfels, Texas
Contact:

Re: Wikileaks

Postby WoVeU » Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:03 pm

Matthew Ch.5, the Sermon on the Mount, is always a favorite for heathen who'd like Christians to assume the position of a rug, whilst they shine up their boots that are made for walking. But they do as Satan himself does, a little twist here or there mostly done with a nicely broadcasted interpretation and summation for the people. There are 2 things that prevent the broad application of the Beatitudes. Firstly, who is he addressing?

1And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

The Disciples. That is the 12. But aren't all Christians disciples? Yes. But these are "The" Disciples, 12 (the number of judgment) called from (set aside) the multitude (other followers...disciples.) Christ is applying some counterpoint to general thought and tradition, grabbing the disciples attention, and saying you being set apart (to whom much is given, much is required)..if you'd be perfect, "try this on" (pick up this cross.) And he is drawing a line in the sand, he is giving counterpoint to those aforetime charged with the law, lawyers, scribes, priests, Pharisees and Saducees. Saying to them, that which you have heard (from these aforementioned) did lay the burdens on the people and yet fell far short and did them not, and yet they were greatly puffed up. So, he is saying, put on mercy, grace, goodness, and righteousness to this level...and be NOT haughty. Saying, for in doing things, even to this level, you are rewarded for it above and beyond in the Kingdom of Heaven. AND thus setting themselves doubly apart from those given charge before. And he is speaking to the leaders of the Church (ref. verse 1) yet not the masses...the Church. (If us general Church people did this with all of those outside of the Church, we would surely be two fold more the children of Hell. For we would be a servant to the world and hate the Lord for making us subject to the world in that manner. They would have everything and we would have nothing...so then who would we reverence? Who we love? No man could serve two masters...)

So to take this and say or imply something like "never make war against those who are not in the Church but are pure enemies who seek your ruin" is absolutely ridiculous. And I have said nothing that can not be found repeatedly in the Gospels. And like any study, disregarding audience, time, place, and subject will always leave any real meaning behind. And you can't read 50 sentences from a novel and really glean the whole story. Paul Harvey made a career out of taking a few pieces from a really good story to set up a perception. Then he'd reach in and pull the whole thing out and it was like magic. Harvey is gone, but we have all kinds of Harvey Paul's running around.
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
R. Reagan

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Re: Wikileaks

Postby Eric » Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:11 pm

Ah, I get it. So this case is slammed shut. The entire school of Christian pacifism of Tolstoy, Turtellian, Bonhoeffer, etc. can be reduced to a very simple literal misunderstanding. How convenient.

As I see it, I tend to agree with the pacifists on this score. It seems to me the central message of Jesus of Nazareth was to use nonresistance for a number of reasons. First, it probably would take the vengeful person by surprise as in when they see you use peace as a tool of power over them rather than them using power over you. Secondly it is in line with the whole point of the crucifixion, that Jesus did not resist his execution. Thirdly, the pacifists think that God is the only person who has the authority to judge people and/or take action against them. And fourthly, why not universalize the message? If it's such good advice at spreading the word, I don't see why your common "disciple" can't apply the things learned in the Beatitudes. If not, then you may as well ignore most of the Beatitutdes. Your interpretation is one amongst many.

I even disagree with the way you presented that. Sure it says that, but clearly the book of Matthew is suggesting that the people heard the discussion and wanted to apply these messages to their life. Right after his sermon is finished, there are "great multitudes" following him.

And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: 2


And that comes after Jesus' long quote is entirely completed. There are many arguments I see for non-pacifism, but yours is not one that I see used very often.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

User avatar
Derek
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6002
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:04 am
Location: Brooks, GA
Contact:

Re: Wikileaks

Postby Derek » Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:24 pm

Eric wrote:
Derek, the point I'm trying to make is that the government is not competitive and it is funded by the same means as the picture you displayed here. Whether or not it is "necessary" is besides the point. The war-making apparatus of the government is socialist because it is funded by involuntary means. It's the same thing that happens when government gets its hand into the banking industry and selectively bails out "private" banks. They have their hands in the arms industry and it turns into a colossal iron triangle. The fire departments are socialized, the school system is socialized, the police are socialized, etc.


Ok, I don't disagree with that in principle. I don't like taxes any more than anybody else.

The guvmint could be funded by other means, as it was for about 150 years. We did not even have an income tax until 1913.

But I don't think that just because taxes are involuntary, and that war is run by the Fed's, that you can use the word "Socialist" to describe every guvmint function.

FAA = Necessary ( I would not board a plane without it)
Dept of Education = Un-necessary
Social Security = Un-necessary
EPA = Un-necessary
Defense Dept = Necessary
IRS = Un-necessary
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.

The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.

See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.

- John Madden

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Re: Wikileaks

Postby Eric » Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:32 pm

Why wouldn't you use the word, "socialist" to describe it?

From Collins English Dictionary:
socialism (ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. Compare capitalism an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

User avatar
WoVeU
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 6074
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:55 pm
Location: New Braunfels, Texas
Contact:

Re: Wikileaks

Postby WoVeU » Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:02 am

You still limit by extraction, just as the yellow literarians do. And then continue further and ignore even portions you extracted..."for my sake"..."for righteousness sake". So where you do these higher things and do it not for these things, it is not necessarily to God you do it for. Wimps like ot hide behind these things...much easier than conquering fear.

Luke 22
35And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

- Now this is plain and simple speech. Verse 36 is absolutely direct, absolute. He is saying he is leaving and the Shepherd will not be hear in the flesh. He is saying it will be they responsible, in the direct manner, for the provisions of the flesh INCLUDING protecting it from harm.

Luke 22
49When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
51And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

- Where is Peter's chastisement? Where is the rebuke? Oh, Jesus must have forgotten to scold his children. Yes, Christ did heal Malchus, and yes he loves all and has great compassion...but not one single word Peter?

Then you have the greatest of all ommissions....much of the Old Testament! Where in God instructed the Israelites to destroy heathen nations, uh-humm Nations, lest they should destroy them! Never heard Jesus say, "heretofore my Father hath been wrong!" Never, he said he came in His name, and after the will of his Father that he does. He said the Father is unchanging. SO I know what was said and done before Christ. I know what he said when he was leaving. I know he said when he comes again their will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. I know he said the enemies of God (lovers of the World & Satan) will be praying for the mountains to fall on them! So, in all of this, the only explanation of the pacifism you point to can only be of some particular type and of some particular affair(s).

And lets not foget the saddest ommission. Common sense. Daily life and the actions of man in general would readily show that the pacifism you speak of is nonsensical. It could only bring about utter destruction. The world would eat you alive. You could certainly have no country. The entire World would be Nazi Germany right now, I can guarantee you that. There would be no Church at all. The early disciples would have been wiped out and dead men don't preach! (Yes, he has his prophets and in death they still preach. But the flesh needs flesh to look upon, if the prophets were enough, he'd have never commissioned the sent ones.)

And lastly, there is no good way to say this. But you play with the greatest of fires. A fire that only tears can extinguish. In using Christ as your political and argumentative blanket, when you are not a Christian, when you make things a lie for you own political motivations...their will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. You will be placed in the same camp as every one else that accuses him of being many things and I would not even write many of these things. I only pray the pain comes on this side of Heaven. Because lessons learned on this side are short, they are passing. The actions that precede them are pardonable. With this I shake off the dust of my feet and will waste no more wind with you on the matter.
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
R. Reagan

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Re: Wikileaks

Postby Eric » Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:50 pm

Yeah, there was a word or two for Peter. Ever hear of "put thy sword into the scabbard"? It comes from John, and I believe Matthew as well. And I'm not using Jesus for "political gain", I'm using what he said, in his own words (supposedly), to support my original argument that Christians calling for Assange's execution were being hypocritical and un-Christlike. You actually make a good secular case against Jesus since a) the Old Testament is barbaric and required the slaughter of children, bears eating children alive for making fun of Yahweh's prophet, and Moses' taking virgin girls to do you-know-what with them (and it also points toward the incoherency of the two Testaments) and b) I don't think Jesus came to preach common sense, so I agree his commandments are naive. The real life is supposed to be the afterworldly according to him, so I don't think Earthly security was ever a major talking point of his.

I think your retreat in this argument says a lot if eternal suffering is really in my foreseeable future. There's no real need to get defensive; after all, I am an agnostic but I'm willing to be convinced either way all the time. All ears over here :mrgreen:
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests