Thread: WBC finally got what was coming to them

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Hey, there you are considering what I have been saying in the terrorism thread. I am totally sure that it is related to economics.

I really don't disagree with you on that point--but for that reason, why not use economics rather than violence to change things?

Originally Posted by Siиdяed

That's why I didn't call them fundementalists. Fundementalists needn't be dangerous at all, you're right. Calling them radicals was my attempt to define that. But, meh, my grasp of the English language failed me a bit.

I think it's more than Christians largely live in a Western society, which is more bent towards capitalism. I don't think it's religious at all. African Christians probably don't worry so much about wealth and possessions, for example.

Maybe that's right; it's more of the culture moderating the religion, than the religion changing the culture. I don't know.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I really don't disagree with you on that point--but for that reason, why not use economics rather than violence to change things?

Capitalism is good economics, and it is highly correlated with democracy. There could never have been good economics under the Hussein regime or the Taliban.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, it is. Fortunately, Christian fundamentalists overlook most of those messages. For example, the Bible says that believers are to kill people for working on Sunday. I'm glad Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell always ignored that one. It also says that homosexuals are to be killed and that slave owners have a right to beat their slaves because they are their property. It also says that if you look at a woman lustfully, you are to gouge your own eyes out. Those passages used to be taken literally. I'm glad they almost never are any more.

Let me clarify, it is no longer right to do any of those things unless your jewish. When jesus came he changed the rules. The new testament is like the updated version with all the new rules added in and the deleting of some old rules. The christian faith does not say own slaves, kill gays, although it does add in the gouging of the eyes part. The Jewish faith adds in the slave owning and gays killing. I know I'm a little off topic, I just wanted to clarify.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Capitalism is good economics, and it is highly correlated with democracy. There could never have been good economics under the Hussein regime or the Taliban.

That's why China is evolving towards capitalism, and hopefully will evolve towards democracy as well. If you think that democracy follows capitalism, and capitalism is inevitable because it is the superior economic system, why do you need a war to "enforce" democracy?

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Let me clarify, it is no longer right to do any of those things unless your jewish. When jesus came he changed the rules. The new testament is like the updated version with all the new rules added in and the deleting of some old rules. The christian faith does not say own slaves, kill gays, although it does add in the gouging of the eyes part. The Jewish faith adds in the slave owning and gays killing. I know I'm a little off topic, I just wanted to clarify.

New Testament Quotes:

Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of hear, ast to Christ...--Ephesians 6:5

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name ofGod and the teaching may not be defamed...--1 Timothy 6:1

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

That's why China is evolving towards capitalism, and hopefully will evolve towards democracy as well. If you think that democracy follows capitalism, and capitalism is inevitable because it is the superior economic system, why do you need a war to "enforce" democracy?

I don't think capitalism is inevitable. It often has to be fought for. The Hussein regime and Taliban would never have allowed true capitalism to exist.

Thumbs up to the progress in China.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Let me clarify, it is no longer right to do any of those things unless your jewish. When jesus came he changed the rules. The new testament is like the updated version with all the new rules added in and the deleting of some old rules. The christian faith does not say own slaves, kill gays, although it does add in the gouging of the eyes part. The Jewish faith adds in the slave owning and gays killing. I know I'm a little off topic, I just wanted to clarify.

Where in the New Testament does it say, "Oh, and about those rules in the Old Testament... Just forget about them."?

It doesn't, though it does imply it several times. It's a valid viewpoint, as there are plenty of suggestions as to Jesus replacing the older Mosaic/Reubenic laws, such as the turning water into wine (Jesus is the wine, he comes last but he is the best, replaces the old water which is inferior, etc), the numerous conflicts over laws with the Pharisees (Jesus contested the Sabbath, the law that aldutery should be punished with stoning, etc).

Meh. The Bible is difficult to follow as an absolute.

Everything is democracy, we just don't know it. Even the soviets. The group with the bigger vote wins. In that case, all of the soviet leads had the bigger vote .

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Everything is democracy, we just don't know it. Even the soviets. The group with the bigger vote wins. In that case, all of the soviet leads had the bigger vote .

I think what vote the people had was like this:

__________________________________________________ ___________
Check the blank beside the option for which you vote.

___ Accept the Soviet government as your ruler and show no opposition.

___ Get your head blown off.
__________________________________________________ ___________

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think what vote the people had was like this:

__________________________________________________ ___________
Check the blank beside the option for which you vote.

___ Accept the Soviet government as your ruler and show no opposition.

___ Get your head blown off.
__________________________________________________ ___________

But they did have a choice, didn't they?

And the essence of democracy is still: Bigger mob wins. The mob doesn't REALLY have to be bigger, but having it appear that way is good enough.

These guys are NOT fundamentalist Christians. They are led by a lawyer, and they are almost entirely one family. They sue communities and people for a living when anybody stands against them. The press LOVES them because they get to stand 'em up as examples of what fundamentalist Christians are like.

Yes, they got what's coming to them. Hallelujah!

Um, surely they are fundementalist Christians? They accept the Biblical canon as a literal truth, I thought, and therefore must be fundementalist.

Originally Posted by Siиdяed

Um, surely they are fundementalist Christians? They accept the Biblical canon as a literal truth, I thought, and therefore must be fundementalist.

Yea.. wth, pj? They are Fundies, lol.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think capitalism is inevitable. It often has to be fought for. The Hussein regime and Taliban would never have allowed true capitalism to exist.

Fought for by whom? The people there, when they realize they are totally left behind by all the capitalist countries, and we don't trade with them because they aren't democracies? Fighting like a lot of people have done to overthrow their oppressors, including this country? Or by us,doing it all for them?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think what vote the people had was like this:

__________________________________________________ ___________
Check the blank beside the option for which you vote.

___ Accept the Soviet government as your ruler and show no opposition.

___ Get your head blown off.
__________________________________________________ ___________

Well, they could choose between different members of the communist party. Just like we can choose between different members of the Republicrat party.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Yea.. wth, pj? They are Fundies, lol.

Uh huh. And I suppose you know that for yourself, as opposed to because it was what somebody told you to believe, right?

. . .

Yeah. That's what I thought.

I think fundamentalist is a very limited label. With the way the whole religion has changed over the years who is to say what a fundamentalist even is?

...sorry, would I be right in thinking fundementalist Christians are those that accept the Biblical truth without question? Maybe I'm wrong. Probably someone told me to believe that.

...

Yeah, I thought so.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Fought for by whom? The people there, when they realize they are totally left behind by all the capitalist countries, and we don't trade with them because they aren't democracies? Fighting like a lot of people have done to overthrow their oppressors, including this country? Or by us,doing it all for them?

Who has to fight for it is irrelevant to my point. My point was that capitalism is not inevitable. But to address your issue, some populations have no chance of winning over capitalism on their own.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Well, they could choose between different members of the communist party. Just like we can choose between different members of the Republicrat party.

They didn't exactly have the Ross Perot factor. The Republicrat party is what it is by the people's choice, not the government's imposition. The problem is that too hight of a percentage of the people are either a Democrat or a Republican. If 100 million of us decided today that they want to form the Great Pumpkin party, then the Great Pumpkin party would be the dominant political party. The Soviet Union would have blown people back to the stone age for trying something like that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If 100 million of us decided today that they want to form the Great Pumpkin party, then the Great Pumpkin party would be the dominant political party.

...do you want to? I mean, it's cool if you were joking but...man, I would love to be in a Great Pumpkin Party.

...no? Right. Sorry.

Originally Posted by pj

Uh huh. And I suppose you know that for yourself, as opposed to because it was what somebody told you to believe, right?

. . .

Yeah. That's what I thought.

No one had to "tell" me, i could gather enough from their website, lmao.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Republicrat party is what it is by the people's choice, not the government's imposition. The problem is that too hight of a percentage of the people are either a Democrat or a Republican. If 100 million of us decided today that they want to form the Great Pumpkin party, then the Great Pumpkin party would be the dominant political party. The Soviet Union would have blown people back to the stone age for trying something like that.

They've got the system rigged so no third party can compete. Yea, an odd independent comes along with enough money or notoriety to pretend to have a chance every once in a while, but a real third party is just kept out of the picture by their rules. They won't even let a libertarian debate them.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

They've got the system rigged so no third party can compete. Yea, an odd independent comes along with enough money or notoriety to pretend to have a chance every once in a while, but a real third party is just kept out of the picture by their rules. They won't even let a libertarian debate them.

They have third party debates, and that is the only place I have ever come across a public Libertarian presentation I didn't specifically seek out myself, other than hearing Harry Browne on Art Bell and a very obscure radio talk show and seeing Neal Bortz and Harry Browne on Hannity and Colmes. I am right there with the Libertarian party on every issue outside of foreign policy. It really frustrates me how little they do to make themselves known. I still have people ask me what a Libertarian is. I think most Americans would not be able to sum up the Libertarian philosophy in a few sentences. The Libertarian heads need to advertize on television and radio, and they need to put up billboards with catch phrases and their web address. I sent an email to their head a few years ago telling him they need to do that. He sent me one back saying they were going to have an infomercial. I never saw it or any other Libertarian advertizements. They could be doing a lot more than they are doing.

I don't think the system is rigged. I think there are very few people who believe drugs should be legal, and of those people, only a tiny percentage believe the government needs to slow way down on their interference with private enterprise. Very few people believe in both keeping Christianity out of government function and expanding gun rights. Most people are liberal, conservative, or neither. Very few people are both.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It really frustrates me how little they do to make themselves known. They could be doing a lot more than they are doing.

I know it! I don't know what they're problem is, really. They are really good at preaching to the choir, but in a time when any nut in the country can get on TV and say what they think, they remain hidden, for the most part.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think the system is rigged.

But it is. They have tax-payer matching money for their candidates, they have tax-payer funded primaries so they can pick their best candidate, they prevent the liberatarian candidate from debating in the final debates, even tho they let Ross Perot and that type get up there and look silly. They totally have it under control so that they have no competition, and they can pretend to compete against each other to keep people thinking that they have a choice.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think there are very few people who believe drugs should be legal, and of those people, only a tiny percentage believe the government needs to slow way down on their interference with private enterprise. Very few people believe in both keeping Christianity out of government function and expanding gun rights. Most people are liberal, conservative, or neither. Very few people are both.

I don't know; I think that a lot of people may be more libertarian than that, once they know they have an option. The trouble is, most people don't think very hard about things, and just go along with how things always were, aligning themselves with the Stupid party or the Evil party, according to their own tendencies. To me, being a libertarian is the only logical option, and sometimes when you point out the contradictions and such of our government, people listen to you. Libertarians are just really bad at that part, evidently.

Maybe the Libertarian party is another part of the conspiracy and its purpose is to show the country that third parties are going to be insignificant no matter how much sense they make. That is why third parties are kept out of the debates with the big candidates and why the third parties don't get jack worth of advertising even when advertising is so easy to get now. Ross Perot was just a tool of the Republicratic party used to make it look like there is no inevetibale political monopoly while still maintaining the perception that third parties have no chance. Maybe all of the third parties that get any national attention are just the Republicrats' pawns of illusion. Hmmmm...