Okay, so Chris Matthews was a bit of a jerk. But the question he asked was spot on, I think.
Obama is all about promises, but what has he done in the time he's actually been in the Senate? I mean, his colleague in the Senate and supporter of his campaign couldn't even think of a single thing.
He seems like a soap bubble. All shiny and pretty on the outside, but on the inside... well, nothing of substance. It says something really tragic about this country that a man with no background or accomplishments in government has gotten so much support in his quest for the presidency.
You might as well vote for Judson Moon.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lisa: He's very charismatic and that's what people are voting for. He makes some vague promises and smiles and that's all people need.
Democracy is the best of all Governments. And Genital Warts is the best of all incurable STDs.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Interestingly, the senator from Texas offered an apology the next morning that then listed those of Obama's accomplishments he'd failed to remember. It was rather gracefully done, IMO.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
At Pix and Lisa:
Don't be lazy. Look it up.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
For once, I catch a book reference.
--j_k
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It seems to me, then, that Obama should be just the candidate for you libertarian types. He won't do anything! Just what you want in a government, no?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I love that apology.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
That was an awesome apology... but I'd feel pretty bad too after doing something like that...
Cudo's to Senator Watson for the apology.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
As far as I'm concerned, this is enough of an accomplishment for anyone.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Some of his accomplishments:
1) Winning a modern National Primary without traditional negative campaigning. 2) Winning a modern national Primary by appealing to the masses rather than entrenched special interest groups. 3) Winning an Illinois Democratic senatorial seat after being denied Daley's endorsement and with only a modest personal fortune. 4) Making people feel good about engaged American civic life and the possibilities of their America government being a good and just one. 5) Raising the tone for ethical conduct within the Senate.
I'm not saying that he couldn't have done more, but I think he leads more by example than by the force and threat of law. I am saying that while his example is not perfect, it is commendable.
[ February 20, 2008, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
As I recall, he's also co-sponsored several bills that got passed--which is quite a feat for a junior senator who shouldn't have any political clout. He's not a do-nothing, but he also hasn't had a lot of time in the senate to build up the record that some of these guys have.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It seems to me, then, that Obama should be just the candidate for you libertarian types. He won't do anything! Just what you want in a government, no?
heh
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Irami and I agree.
The end of the world is here.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Some Obama bills: Lugar-Obama Coburn-Obama Obama-McCaskill
(I would link to details on these bills but I have little sympathy for the blatant laziness of some of those who throw these accusations at Obama)
Also: Ethics reform Consistent opposition to War in Iraq
quote:It says something really tragic about this country that a man with no background or accomplishments in government has gotten so much support in his quest for the presidency.
I would think it says that Americans believe finding a good President is less about having a great resume of political accomplishments and more about having character, good judgement, and the ability to lead. Or, perhaps it says that Americans are willing to take a risk on someone with less experience in government, in order to get someone who is new enough to the system that we think he can be trusted to change the way things are done in D.C. I don't see how either is tragic.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Of course, the premise there is false.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
IIRC Abraham Lincoln had spent very little time in the legislature before making his bid for the presidency. He also contributed very little in terms of gross numbers of legislation.
I could be wrong but I'm going to look into that.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
This is a great read for Obama supporters as well.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Okay, the accomplishments Kirk Watson lists on his blog page do seem pretty good for someone who's been in the Senate only as long as Obama has been. But are being on a nuclear weapons committee and working on procedural matters such as ethics and budget transparency really sufficient experience to be president? Well, maybe when I look at John McCain's record I'll find that it doesn't show much more than that he's been in the Senate a long time, and that therefore their records are about even.
Also, the fact that he tells the common people what they want to hear (and thereby wins primaries without negative campaigning) doesn't mean anything to me. Everyone who runs for president tries to do that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It says something really tragic about this country that a man with no background or accomplishments in government has gotten so much support in his quest for the presidency.
I think it's more tragic that I hear people saying this who voted for George W. Bush.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Interesting link, Threads. Thanks. It is good to have firm facts.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
She really did some footwork.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote: Hogwash. I’ve been hearing this more and more lately: Obama is all talk, everything he says is vague, he never talks details, we don’t know what he offers…and on and on. Not only is it crap. The opposite is true: there is much more meat to Obama’s platform than Clinton’s, and I’ll prove it.
Now, before I begin, I want to say that I’m neither a Clinton fan nor an Obama fan (nor McCain, for that matter). My candidate dropped out long ago. Like that candidate, I worship facts and I despise catchy slogans that belie the truth. Vote for whomever you want. Just make sure your vote isn’t influenced by a lie.
That said, let’s begin.
quote: Looking at this, it’s clear who is offering more details on their plans. Whether those plans are good, I’m not evaluating. I’m simply trying to debunk this myth that Obama is not offering details, and is instead simply a great orator. Why is this myth being propagated? Probably because he is a great orator.
quote: But I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.
His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way. According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.
This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama's bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors.)
So my little data point is: while Obama has not proposed his Cosmic Plan for World Peace, he has proposed a lot of interesting legislation on important but undercovered topics. I can't remember another freshman Senator who so routinely pops up when I'm doing research on some non-sexy but important topic, and pops up because he has proposed something genuinely good. Since I think that American politics doesn't do nearly enough to reward people who take a patient, craftsmanlike attitude towards legislation, caring as much about fixing the parts that no one will notice until they go wrong as about the flashy parts, I wanted to say this. Specifics below the fold.
That link is from before the 2006 elections when it wasn't clear if Obama would launch a campaign or not.
[ February 21, 2008, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: St. Yogi ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
From Threads' link:
quote:I refuse to buy into the hype, on either side, but especially on that of Obama. However the "empty rhetoric" v. "history of accomplishments" arguments have prompted me to check it out on my own, not relying on any candidate's website, book, or worst of all supporters' diaries, like this one [link].
I went to the Library of Congress Website. The FACTS of what each did in the Senate last year sure surprised me. I'm sure they will surprise you, too. Whether you love or hate Hillary, you will be surprised. Whether you think Obama is the second coming of JFK or an inexperienced lightweight, you will surprised. Go check out the Library of Congress Website.
...
I looked up Obama and looked up Clinton. I looked at the bills that they both authored and introduced. Anyone who has been around politics, and is honest, realizes that there are a lot of reasons why a Senator votes one way or another on bills or misses votes. However an examination of the bills that each of these Senators cared enough about to author and introduce revealed much to me: what they care about, what their priorities are, how they tackle problems. And the list of co-sponsors showed something about how they lead, inspire and work with others. Finally, looking at which bills actually passed is pretty indicative of how effective each would be at getting things done.
And then she goes into the details. It's a good read.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Some of his accomplishments:
1) Winning a modern National Primary without traditional negative campaigning. 2) Winning a modern national Primary by appealing to the masses rather than entrenched special interest groups. 3) Winning an Illinois Democratic senatorial seat after being denied Daley's endorsement and with only a modest personal fortune. 4) Making people feel good about engaged American civic life and the possibilities of their America government being a good and just one. 5) Raising the tone for ethical conduct within the Senate.
I'm not saying that he couldn't have done more, but I think he leads more by example than by the force and threat of law. I am saying that while his example is not perfect, it is commendable.
That's like saying someone is a good student because he's a good test taker.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:That's like saying someone is a good student because he's a good test taker.
No, it's like saying that part of what makes a good student is his ability to pass tests.
Aside: thanks for that link, Threads. A lot of interesting information there.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I wasn't too impressed with Irami's list either, but several other people have brought up some impressive accomplishments for Barack Obama. It seems like perhaps your initial assessment of him as having no background or accomplishments was incorrect.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Lisa, I'm curious, given your supported candidate, what has Ron Paul accomplished in his career in government?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:That's like saying someone is a good student because he's a good test taker.
Lisa, the point is moot. Have you looked at any of the links posted? He has quite the list of accomplishments considering that amount of time he's been in the senate.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:That's like saying someone is a good student because he's a good test taker.
I think it's closer to saying that someone is a good student because putting him/her in class somehow makes everyone else behave better. It's still not the traditional answer, but it's not a small issue.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Irami Osei-Frimpong, the first three "accomplishments" you list involve campaigning for office. Not really accomplishments.
Your last two accomplishments you listed were:
quote:4) Making people feel good about engaged American civic life and the possibilities of their America government being a good and just one.
5) Raising the tone for ethical conduct within the Senate.
Those sound pretty vague. What exactly did he DO to "make people feel good..." and HOW EXACTLY did he go about "Raising the tone for ethical conduct..."?
I'm still looking for accomplishments. Maybe some of those bills Threads listed that Obama co-sponsored? (I would consider his consistent opposition to the war in Iraq from the very beginning to be evidence of poor judgment. Virtually all his Democratic colleagues agreed to the invasion of Iraq at the beginning. And Saddam was overtrown, and things are finally settling down and moving toward civilized order in Iraq, and the terrorists have suffered catastrophic defeat, by their own admissions.)
In all fairness, as has been pointed out, Obama is only a junior senator with no seniority, so has had little opportunity to do anything of consequence. Junior senators are not made chairs of committees. But then again, this only serves to underscore the basic criticism that he lacks experience. This becomes painfully embarassing when his brief neophyte "record" is compared to the decades of service, serving on key committees, and sponsoring of major bills, we see in the record of Senator McCain.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Since the "get off your ass and do some reading" seems to be rolling off certain duck's backs,
quote:Obama's Success: S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests. S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting. S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585 Relating to administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces for personality disorder. S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged. S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers. S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering. S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness. S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs. S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability. S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty. S.AMDT.2658 to H.R.2642 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability. S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764 To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan. S.AMDT.2799 to H.R.3074 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability. S.AMDT.3137 to H.R.3222 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability. S.AMDT.3234 to H.R.3093 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability. S.AMDT.3331 to H.R.3043 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability. Senate Resolutions Passed: S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson. S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".
If you want a translation, read the frequin' link.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
What are you doing, citing his voting record? So he raised his hand (or pressed the button, or whatever), along party lines mostly, on the liberal side of most issues, and much of it tedius technicalities.
Look, Pooka, be honest: When Obama faces McCain in debates, do you really think that Obama is going to bring up his "accomplishments"? To McCain?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Edited to quote original text for response:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: What are you doing, citing his voting record? So he raised his hand (or pressed the button, or whatever), along party lines mostly, on the liberal side of most issues, and much of it tedius technicalities.
Look, Pooka, be honest: When Obama faces McCain in debates, do you really think that Obama is going to bring up his "accomplishments"? To McCain?
Introduced. Got passed. Not just voted along with. Much longer list.
Read the link.
[ February 21, 2008, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It is purely honorific who gets to read a bill into record. How many of them did he author? How many of them were his original ideas? That is what it takes to be an accomplishment.
Would you seriously compare any of this to McCain's record of real accomplishments--bills he did author, that were his ideas, over decades of service?
Please remember, Obama is a junior senator. What do you expect? Why try to manufacture something?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Read. the. link.
---
Edited to add:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is purely honorific who gets to read a bill into record. How many of them did he author? How many of them were his original ideas? That is what it takes to be an accomplishment.
[edited afterward by the original poster to add:]
Would you seriously compare any of this to McCain's record of real accomplishments--bills he did author, that were his ideas, over decades of service?
Please remember, Obama is a junior senator. What do you expect? Why try to manufacture something?
(just wanted this preserved for posterity )
[ February 21, 2008, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Dude, is this how you infom yourself on everything? Really?)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Do you call this reasonable argument?
Try again--see if you can imagine Obama facing McCain in debate, and trying to extoll all his "accomplishments" to someone who really does have substantive accomplishments for which he is respected throughout Washington.
This nonsense about Obama's accomplishments may have some traction when contrasting himself with Sen. Clinton, and her amazing claim to have been "producing change for 35 years." But if things keep on the way they are, Clinton won't be the issue any more. McCain and his REAL record of accomplishments will be.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you call this reasonable argument?
I call it well-justified exasperation with someone who keeps asking questions but seems to ignore the answers already given.
The link answers many of the questions you asked.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Edited to add the quotation of post responded to:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Do you call this reasonable argument?
Try again--see if you can imagine Obama facing McCain in debate, and trying to extoll all his "accomplishments" to someone who really does have substantive accomplishments for which he is respected throughout Washington.
[Edited (after response below) by original poster to add the following, which now reflects the info on the linked post referenced above (great! )]
This nonsense about Obama's accomplishments may have some traction when contrasting himself with Sen. Clinton, and her amazing claim to have been "producing change for 35 years." But if things keep on the way they are, Clinton won't be the issue any more. McCain and his REAL record of accomplishments will be.
I don't care enough to argue with you, or to imagine for you hypothetical scenarios set up the way you want to them to be set up.
I am just expressing the sensation of being aghast. Also being a little bemused, a lot amused.
---
Edited to add: Although expressing this, and this way, is more than a little rude. I am sorry for that rudeness. It is a lack of self-control, and that is a personal failing.
[ February 21, 2008, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It'd be great if you would note where you are changing the things you have already posted, Ron.
I'm replying to the things you said when you made the posts originally, but they seem to be evolving right before my eyes, and it's a lot of work to try to go back and revise the answers to fit the old comments. That's something I can do, but I'd rather not, if you don't mind.
Of course, you have to do what you have to do. I understand that.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:When Obama faces McCain in debates, do you really think that Obama is going to bring up his "accomplishments"?
Yes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Of course he will, and where that fails him, he'll bring up his ideas. And he'll bring up McCain's partisan rhetoric as of late. McCain is going to present a very narrow, Republican view of the world, and Obama is going to present a more complex, comprehensive plan to deal with foreign affairs, and since McCain's plan pretty much just consists of "beat the terrorists," I don't see what he'll answer with. And since that's 80% of his campaign, I don't really know what else he'll say during the debate in general.
I admit I haven't read McCain's platform on other issues, but he never talks about them. It's all about tax cuts and continuing the war (yeah, because THAT makes sense). And then somehow fiscal discipline is involved. But other than that I haven't heart anything. I don't expect much else when he's pandering to his base, but when he recognizes there are other voters out there, we'll see what he has to say.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Claudia, sorry for catching you off guard with my continued editing of my posts. But that is just the way I write. When I see how it looks in published format--something else frequently occurs to me that I want to add, or I notice a misspelling, or UBB code where I left off a close bracket or something, and while I am fixing that, I think of something else to add, or clarify. I suppose I should use the "Preview Post" function more. But usually I think I am done, before I think of something more to add.
Tresopax, that I would like to see. I wonder how deeply Obama would blush. Nobody could be that shameless.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lyrhawn, you said: "McCain is going to present a very narrow, Republican view of the world, and Obama is going to present a more complex, comprehensive plan to deal with foreign affairs...."
That is hysterically funny. We will sure see about that!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Lyr, I think you are greatly underestimating John McCain there. Right now, he seems to be largely relying on simplistic partisan rhetoric, but that doesn't mean that that is all he has in his bag. Whatever else you may say about him, John McCain does have a complex grasp of the issues and the ability to communicate this understanding.
edit:
Ron, It is customary here to note significant edits to your original post, such as how I did here. There isn't really a big deal with editing your posts although you can't then expect people to read your additions, but you should definitely mark when you change or add to what you've written.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Claudia, sorry for catching you off guard with my continued editing of my posts. But that is just the way I write. When I see how it looks in published format--something else frequently occurs to me that I want to add, or I notice a misspelling, or UBB code where I left off a close bracket or something, and while I am fixing that, I think of something else to add, or clarify. I suppose I should use the "Preview Post" function more. But usually I think I am done, before I think of something more to add.
Yeah, I know. And for me, sometimes the "preview" part doesn't even work very well -- it still reads differently when I see it alongside other posts, and often that sparks a correction or addition.
However, I find it's useful and courteous also to use the option of noting where I edited, especially for substantial edits. Not just a misspelling, usually, but anything of substantial content that changes the post in a way that would affect how people respond to it. It's pretty easy to stick in an "Edited to add:" or use brackets around the changed parts.
But, you know, different styles, and I can understand that you just may not like the way that works. I can certainly make a habit of quoting what the text is that I am responding to when we are conversing, and then I can go back and re-edit that alongside you. That'll work, too, so long as you don't find it offensive.
(I do perceive a need to keep the conversation straight as things change, though, as otherwise my part of the conversation may not make sense later. But this way -- you editing, and me making sure to quote every time and then go back and change as needed -- is a viable way of doing it, and I'm happy to leave it at that.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ron -
You think Obama is clinically insane. Why on Earth would I take anything you say having to do with McCain/Obama seriously? If you want to try and cogently tell me what your view of Obama and McCain's foreign policy plans are, and why you think they are right and wrong, we can discuss it. Otherwise you're just yelling, and I get enough of that at work.
Squick -
That's how I felt about McCain BEFORE this election cycle. I still think he has those weapons in his arsenal, but I question whether or not the Republican party will let him use them. He still might say he's a straight talker and what not, but he's not the McCain he was eight years ago. And he has a lot more obligations to a lot more people now that he's the nominee, and venturing outside those obligations will come with penalties.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Since when has Sen. McCain ever been under the thumb of the Republican Party? They are so ambivalent about him because he is such a maverick. Remember, months ago he was criticising Don Rumsfeld, calling for his dismissal, saying more troops were needed, much to the consternation of the Republican Party, who viewed that as disloyalty to the president. This is when McCain's campaign seemed all but done for. When the president did get rid of Rumsfeld, and authorized the "Surge," McCain was one of the first to endorse it. And the success that has resulted has propelled McCain into a virtual lock on the Rupublican nomination for president. To many people, this has proven the superiority of his judgment on foreign affairs.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow, that's all it took? Those people must have low bars for success.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Lyr, During the primaries, he had to watch his step and play up to the base because if he did not, many people would jump all over him. During the general, these same people are going to be supporting him. I think he'll have a lot more latitude.
Also, regardless, he is going to offer much more substance than the superficial rhetoric that he's been pitching to the base. I think he's trying to get as much winning of them over now, so that he can distance himself from the things he's saying now when he is courting independents.
I still thinks he's going to lose (especially if, as seems likely, he goes up against Barack Obama), but he's not going to be the "alienating everyone but the Republican base" walk in the park that you seem to be seeing him as.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think he's going to be a walk in the park at all, and I've said that multiple times in many different threads on the board. Perhaps I overstated the situation earlier, as I'm sure he has more positions to offer, but like I said, he's not running as the same McCain he was eight years ago, so it's hard to say exactly what we're going to get by the time he really starts campaigning against whoever the Democratic nominee is.
If he keeps campaigning the way he has thus far, I think it'll be a lot closer to a walk in the park. But I haven't seen the breakout yet. He's going to have some more latitude once his opposition is silenced enough to allow him a freer hand, but he still won't be able to run without supervision. He still has to attract donors, which is nowhere near as guaranteed as it used to be in a presidential race where a Democrat is raising untold millions, that's never happened before. He can't afford, literally, to alienate anyone.
He'll have more latitude than he did in January, but, that isn't to say he'll be able to do whatever he wants personally. There are a lot of people he's going to have to sate.
I'm expecting his General run to be different than his primary run, but lower taxes and the war, those are thorns he's not going to be able to dump and I think you can hear his inner fiscal conservative screaming in protest. It won't be easy, but he's going to give the Democrats a LOT to work with.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
McCain is still running against Huckabee on the right and Obama on the left. When he doesn't need to worry about Huckabee, and when Obama doesn't need to worry about Clinton, things will change radically on both sides.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think it's going to be another bitter fight once the candidates are settled on, and I'm pretty sure HR will go through its usual painfully ascerbic conversations on that topic. I foresee a lot of wincing for me in the future months.
However. However. Regardless of how much I want Obama to win, I would not be deeply depressed by any of the current frontrunners (McCain, Obama, HRClinton) making it to the Presidency. That is awesome.
---
Edited to add: I am not commenting on Huckabee because I am (perhaps wrongly) not seeing him as in as much of a race with McCain as Obama still is with HRClinton. Also, I have more reservations about him, so it would make my post not totally positive. (And I want fervently to be positive for good reasons right now.)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If Clinton is in the race, I'm going to have to restrict myself to threads about Jane Austen movies. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: If Clinton is in the race, I'm going to have to restrict myself to threads about Jane Austen movies.
Let's declare that we will not consider HRC in the current conversation. Done. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I think it's going to be another bitter fight once the candidates are settled on, and I'm pretty sure HR will go through its usual painfully ascerbic conversations on that topic. I foresee a lot of wincing for me in the future months.
I joined in November of 04, so I just missed the last election here. But I don't think this will be nearly as rancorous or "mean" as the 04 election was. I think like any election there will be plenty of back and forth, as there should be.
And I can only guess what it's like in the threads here, but I think we'll be pretty good about keeping it confined to just a few threads. We have been pretty good about it thus far.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I greatly fear the irrational partisans that OSC's articles may end up drawing to Hatrack.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Did that happen last time?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If I recall correctly, maybe to a pretty small extent. However, we had a minor influx when one of his essays (and Empire) was discussed on, I think, Rush Limbaugh. OSC has gotten more vitrolic and has been looking into different types of media to disseminate his opinions. I'm afraid that he'll acheive a wider audience and we'll have a bunch of people coming here to post about how he's so totally right and liberals should all be branded traitors or that he's the most evil person evar!!!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well Ron's already here, so at least we have time to get used to it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know that OSC has gotten more vitriolic over the last 4 years.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
We'll also be getting our fair share of people telling anyone who doesn't agree with their attacks on OSC and/or McCain is only doing so because they haven't thought things through and never consider other viewpoints.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, I thought I acknowledged them with the "OSC is the most evil person evar" group.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, I misread who the "he" referred to.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron, why are you arguing with crazy people? Seriously. Couldn't your time be better spent going down to a therapist's office and baiting some patients or something?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
But baiting some patients is what I'm doing here.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But baiting some patients is what I'm doing here.
Or rather, "patience." Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But baiting some patients is what I'm doing here.
Oh, OK. Well, very Christlike behavior there, Ron, for such a devout fellow.
One of my fondest memories of reading the New Testament is the first time I read about Jesus heaping scorn and ridicule on sick people.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In all fairness, as has been pointed out, Obama is only a junior senator with no seniority, so has had little opportunity to do anything of consequence.
Gee, Ron. That sounds like a totally fair condemnation of Obama. Why, I'm sure you were positively aghast when the Republican party put somebody up who had accomplished even less as a figurehead in the Texas governership, one of the nation's most toothless posts.
Oh wait, you didn't, because that was George W. Bush and you reserve these hypocritical condemnations for Democrats.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: One of my fondest memories of reading the New Testament is the first time I read about Jesus heaping scorn and ridicule on sick people.
That's right, man. Jesus is effing metal. \m/
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: One of my fondest memories of reading the New Testament is the first time I read about Jesus heaping scorn and ridicule on sick people.
Was that before or after the part where he inhabited the body of Eric Clapton and saved the Carolinas from unification?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Jesus did refer to the Pharisees as "white-washed sepulchres, white on the outside, but inside filled with dead men's bones and all uncleanness." (Matthew 23:27) They were the people who were really sick mentally. By their own choice. Sometimes people need to be confronted with a true, even if graphic or dramatic, characterization of the true nature of their mindset.
Personally, I think it is funny when people who are largely ignorant of the Bible or do not even believe in its inspiration, try to use it to make their points, perhaps supposing that they are being clever.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I think Rakeesh just forgot that if his interpretation doesn't match yours then he must be wrong. Forgive his ignorance.
I'm pretty sure one of the Jewish members of Hatrack could introduce you to a broader view of the Pharisees though I doubt any of them would want to waste their time.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:They were the people who were really sick mentally. By their own choice.
Wha? Mental illness can be a choice? Does "mentally ill" just mean "disagrees with me" to you?
[ February 22, 2008, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think it is funny when people who are largely ignorant of the Bible or do not even believe in its inspiration, try to use it to make their points
I'm amused by the emphasis there. I think it's much more reasonable to use the Bible to make your points if you don't believe in its inspiration than if you're largely ignorant of it, but your sentence implies the reverse.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Jesus did refer to the Pharisees as "white-washed sepulchres, white on the outside, but inside filled with dead men's bones and all uncleanness." (Matthew 23:27) They were the people who were really sick mentally. By their own choice. Sometimes people need to be confronted with a true, even if graphic or dramatic, characterization of the true nature of their mindset.
Personally, I think it is funny when people who are largely ignorant of the Bible or do not even believe in its inspiration, try to use it to make their points, perhaps supposing that they are being clever.
Yes, and of course now you're going to tell us there isn't any scorn or mockery in your words. And let's not forget that just because Jesus is qualified to judge when someone is mentally ill, hardly means you are.
Here's what I think is really funny: people who think that people who use the Bible to make points contrary to their own narrow-minded perspective must be fraudulent, incorrect, or just trying to be clever.
Christ appears to be a very, very simple Savior to you, Ron. People are right and decent and Christian insofar as they agree with you. If they disagree with you, they're not just wrong and defying God, they might actually be crazy. You are certainly not Christ, to so utterly and irrevocably judge people on such a subjective issue. And your 'scientist' reference is certainly not sufficient to lend you credibility on the 'mentally sick' aspect, either.
And all of this is setting aside the idiocy Matt pointed out, that someone could choose to be mentally ill. Yeah, people just will their brain chemistry out of whack.
quote:Sometimes people need to be confronted with a true, even if graphic or dramatic, characterization of the true nature of their mindset.
The truth of your confrontation is of course up for debate-no, you do not have a lock on Truth, you are a Christian, not Christ Himself-but 'graphic' and 'dramatic' are not very applicable. 'Derisive' and 'contemptuous' are much more appropriate.
I don't really see you doing any charity for the poor, or tending for the sick, or anything else Christ did. Instead, your Christianity here on Hatrack appears to be limited exclusively to argumentative, defensive Christianity. I can't recall a time when you tried to improve the environment by building something up; the only improvement you seem interested in is tearing things (and people) down, all while casually ignoring people pointing out your own errors.
The only kind of help you try to provide is by pointing out how wrong, stupid, or crazy people who disagree with you are. It's annoying when people try to assert that Christ is all about blanket tolerance and respect and love for everyone and everything, and it's equally annoying when someone like you (by behavior) asserts that Christ is contempt and scorn and mockery of wrong concepts.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Judge not, lest yea be judged.
Or did you forget that one.
(can't WAIT to hear the spin on that one....)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:They were the people who were really sick mentally. By their own choice.
Wha? Mental illness can be a choice? Does "mentally ill" just mean "disagrees with me" to you?
I think he meant, (and I could be completely wrong) that you can choose to believe something that is wrong for bad reasons, and if you keep saying you believe it and act on it you can reach a state where you no longer choose to reconsider that belief in the face of reality.
I don't think Jesus was calling the pharisees crazy. I think he was calling them spiritually ill as they were freaking out when Jesus healed on the sabbath, but many of them committed adultery frequently by divorcing their wives out of convenience.
Their hypocrisy was not obvious to them, but it was obvious to any neutral party.
Kwea: That passage is bandied about alot these days. You should be made aware that for Mormons the passage is erroneously translated and should read, "Judge not unrighteously that ye be not judged, but judge righteous judgment."
Even without Joseph Smith's correction Jesus' succeeding remarks indicate that judgment is important, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
It is merely another variation on "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you." The idea that Jesus would not have us ever judge anything is contrary to the spirit of learning to be as God is.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think he meant, (and I could be completely wrong) that you can choose to believe something that is wrong for bad reasons, and if you keep saying you believe it and act on it you can reach a state where you no longer choose to reconsider that belief in the face of reality.
When Ron starts to show any signs of having a nuanced position, I'll treat it that way. Until then, broad strokes get answered as they are presented.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
BlackBlade, do you mean literally mistranslated, or that there was a change made in copying at some point? Because I'm looking at the Greek text right now, and I'm just not seeing how your "translation" is possible.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Kwea, Jesus also said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." (Mat. 7:20) Apparently when He said do not judge, he was talking about meting out punishment. There are distinct phases to judgment: investigation, which we ARE supposed to do, and execution of justice, which we are to leave to God (or to the duly appointed authorities). When Jesus said to judge not, He was saying do not hang people before they have been accorded due process.
And yes, your choices can affect your sanity. If you tell lies habitually, or choose to live a lie, this can have an actual, physical effect on your brain. Your brain does adapt to the habitual patterns of thought you indulge. It is possible to unlearn wrong patterns of thought, and to establish healthy patterns of thought in their place. There are people in whom habitual hatred of a specific race has become established. As a result, they see what they expect, which only confirms to them their prejudices. But this can be unlearned, if they are willing to face up to the irrationality of the racism they had entertained, and make an effort to see how things really are. Same with the political view that would cause some people to "rage against imagined villains" such as the administration, or the military, or Republicans, or whatever.
[ February 23, 2008, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Same with the political view that would cause some people to "rage against imagined villains" such as the administration, or the military, or Republicans, or whatever.
...or liberals.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*snort* No kidding.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"...HR will go through its usual painfully ascerbic conversations on that topic."
Rich in vitamin C, or harsh in tone? Or both?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: BlackBlade, do you mean literally mistranslated, or that there was a change made in copying at some point? Because I'm looking at the Greek text right now, and I'm just not seeing how your "translation" is possible.
I couldn't rightly say. From my understanding the Joseph Smith translation claims that the corrections are how the text read when the words were written.
Some passages were intentionally changed by dishonest scribes, and some were simply mistakenly copied.
As an aside, it's not "my" translation.
But I am interested in what you mean by that rendering of the translation being impossible.
[ February 24, 2008, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But I am interested in what you mean by that rendering of the translation being impossible.
I think that it's not a reasonable translation for any of the extant manuscripts.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It just occured to me, in response to the thread title one possible answer is, "Well, you've gotta hand it to him, he's done pretty good for a crazy guy!"
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Regardless of how much I want Obama to win, I would not be deeply depressed by any of the current frontrunners (McCain, Obama, HRClinton) making it to the Presidency. That is awesome.
Agreed.
(However, McCain's age makes his choice of running mate extremely important to me.)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I dunno. If Clinton got the nomination, I would be strongly considering McCain. Not for his stand on the issues - in more than a few places I flatly disagree with him - but because I beleive he could bring some integrity back to the office and the country, and he would be more likely to get the parties working together. (Although recent revelations and his torture bill vote may lessen that perception, so stay tuned) Clinton is too polarizing, and every bit as prone to secrecy and hiring for loyalty over competence as the man currently in office. We would end up with a another president devoutly supported by a third of the country and tolerated or openly disliked by the rest, and that simply doesn't work.
It would be great to see a woman president. I don't think this woman should be president, at least not right now. Let her try again in four or eight years, when (hopefully) the parties have reconciled somewhat.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I agree with you both. But even with HRC, the bottom wouldn't be dropping out of my stomach. Don't think it's the right time, don't think she's the right person. However, the contrast would be appreciable.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Clinton is too polarizing, and every bit as prone to secrecy and hiring for loyalty over competence as the man currently in office. We would end up with a another president devoutly supported by a third of the country and tolerated or openly disliked by the rest, and that simply doesn't work.
I worry about this greatly, and it's a large part of the reason I'm going with Obama over her. But for me personally, however much I might like McCain personally (less now than I did a few years ago, now I think he's a bit of a dishonest prick, but that's affected by how the party has constrained him to run his primary campaign, so we'll see in the General), his policies are way too much for me to swallow. We're at a crossroads. McCain's government hands off let the people figure it out plan I think is utterly disastrous in the face of the problems before us. I'd rather Clinton was in office and there was so much partisan politics that NOTHING got done rather than have him take us in the other direction. I can't get past his policies. I'm someone that votes 80% on your positions/plans/policies 20% everything else, including personality, likeability (both to a lesser extent) and what kind of person you are, respect, integrity, the more intangible stuff.
It's ironic to me that Clinton has had her biggest bumps in the polls arguably when she's broken loose from her handlers to let her real self through, and every time she runs back to calculating and plotting she loses ground. I like her policies, but I think other people could implement them better...which is frankly why I want her in the Senate. She DOES have good ideas, and there she can hone them and push them through and work with Obama to make them as good as can be. I think she is much more suited to those kind of politics over Executive powers and politics. Policy wise she's fine, but she loses the other 20% for me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But I am interested in what you mean by that rendering of the translation being impossible.
I mean that the words are κρίνω (judge), καταδικάζω (condemn) and κρίμα (judgement). There is nothing about those words that indicates whether the judgement is "righteous" or "unrighteous," nor are there any adjectives or adverbs in the verses that would modify them in that way. Granted, I am not fluent in Greek. I am looking at the verses with the aid of a greek lexicon/dictionary. But I do not see any way that the translation you have quoted is possible. There certainly is no way to add in the phrase "but judge righteous judgment" -- that isn't even a question of translation, there aren't any extra words there to be translated.
If what you are claiming is that there was a scribal error (or intention) that changed the verse, please call it that, and not a "mistranslation." In the future. As a matter of accuracy. If what you are claiming is that the common rendering of the text is a mistranslation, then I dispute your contention.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: but many of them committed adultery frequently by divorcing their wives out of convenience.
That's just silly. Polygamy was permissible back then. Why would they bother "divorcing their wives out of convenience"?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: but many of them committed adultery frequently by divorcing their wives out of convenience.
That's just silly. Polygamy was permissible back then. Why would they bother "divorcing their wives out of convenience"?
Just a guess, but the pharisees would not be required by law to take care of an ex wife. They could put her away and just forget she ever existed. Polygamy is an expensive vocation. Also, although it was permissible, are you so certain that at that time it was commonly practiced by the Jews? Polygamy is permissible in many Muslim nations but in for example Malaysia, I never had occasion to meet a polygamist.
dkw: I see your point, and I shall try to draw a distinction between words being omitted and words being rendered incorrectly. I have no contention with you that in the Greek, the passage likely reads as it does in English. But I also see the Greek as a step in the right direction not the Bible in all it's original purity.
edited for grammar and clarity.
[ February 24, 2008, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I agree with you, Chris. That's why I support Obama. I still think none of these three would be disastrous, though. This is the best slate of contenders I can recall.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Same with the political view that would cause some people to "rage against imagined villains" such as the administration, or the military, or Republicans, or whatever.
...or liberals.
My point exactaly.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: but many of them committed adultery frequently by divorcing their wives out of convenience.
That's just silly. Polygamy was permissible back then. Why would they bother "divorcing their wives out of convenience"?
Just a guess, but the pharisees would not be required by law to take care of an ex wife. They could put her away and just forget she ever existed. Polygamy is an expensive vocation. Also, although it was permissible, are you so certain that at that time it was commonly practiced by the Jews? Polygamy is permissible in many Muslim nations but in for example Malaysia, I never had occasion to meet a polygamist.
I'm not sure it matters. If they did divorce their wives and remarry, that's hardly adultery.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
Someone on the Mcclaughlin group suggested that Hillary is in the impossible situation of having to whack the baby seal if she wants to get ahead.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I don't find that to be an impossible situation; she's perfectly capable of whacking the baby seal...it would just be a ridiculously bad idea. I love baby seals Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Excuse the snark, but I couldn't leave this one lie:
quote: Originally posted by Ron Lambert If you tell lies habitually, or choose to live a lie, this can have an actual, physical effect on your brain. Your brain does adapt to the habitual patterns of thought you indulge. It is possible to unlearn wrong patterns of thought, and to establish healthy patterns of thought in their place.
Well then Ron, you've got your work cut out for you. Seems to me you've got a mighty lot of unlearnin' to do.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Why whack the baby seal when it is the only thing standing between you and the walrus?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: but many of them committed adultery frequently by divorcing their wives out of convenience.
That's just silly. Polygamy was permissible back then. Why would they bother "divorcing their wives out of convenience"?
Just a guess, but the pharisees would not be required by law to take care of an ex wife. They could put her away and just forget she ever existed. Polygamy is an expensive vocation. Also, although it was permissible, are you so certain that at that time it was commonly practiced by the Jews? Polygamy is permissible in many Muslim nations but in for example Malaysia, I never had occasion to meet a polygamist.
I'm not sure it matters. If they did divorce their wives and remarry, that's hardly adultery.
Letter V Spirit argument. According to Jesus Moses initially did not want to allow divorce in Israel, but relented because of their iniquity.
For the Pharisees, their divorces were lawful, but to Jesus they were spiritual adultery. Hence divorce for any reason outside fornication was labeled adultery by Jesus.
I can't see how God would allow a man to divorce a woman because she no longer pleased his eyes or because a meal was not prepared very well, both of which were legitimate reasons for a Pharisee to divorce his wife.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I can't see how God would allow a man to divorce a woman because she no longer pleased his eyes or because a meal was not prepared very well, both of which were legitimate reasons for a Pharisee to divorce his wife.
They still are.
It's like no-fault divorce -- not a good thing, certainly. But better than forcing a worse thing.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You wanna talk about deer in the headlights, watch the interview on MSNBC right now.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I can't see how God would allow a man to divorce a woman because she no longer pleased his eyes or because a meal was not prepared very well, both of which were legitimate reasons for a Pharisee to divorce his wife.
They still are.
It's like no-fault divorce -- not a good thing, certainly. But better than forcing a worse thing.
I don't think so. If a society is comfortable with men divorcing their wives under such petty pretenses then it's far better men like that get swift kicks to the keester rather then a no fault divorce certification.
If we don't give it to them, God certainly will.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't think so. If a society is comfortable with men divorcing their wives under such petty pretenses then it's far better men like that get swift kicks to the keester rather then a no fault divorce certification.
If we don't give it to them, God certainly will.
You are completely missing my point, but I have no interest debating this with you.
I don't take pot-shots at your religion, and I'll thank you to return the favor.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Letter V Spirit argument. According to Jesus Moses initially did not want to allow divorce in Israel, but relented because of their iniquity.
You're going to cite Jesus as some kind of authority on Judaism? <snicker>
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not really sure why that would be amusing to you, Lisa, since you routinely use your religion as an authority on everything.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't think so. If a society is comfortable with men divorcing their wives under such petty pretenses then it's far better men like that get swift kicks to the keester rather then a no fault divorce certification.
If we don't give it to them, God certainly will.
You are completely missing my point, but I have no interest debating this with you.
I don't take pot-shots at your religion, and I'll thank you to return the favor.
It appears we have gotten each other all wrong. I would still like to understand then what you meant, but I respect your feelings if you don't want to touch this point anymore.
I'm not trying to take pot shots at Judaism, though in retrospect I can see how I just did with the whole not liking some of the authorized reasons for which a man may pursue divorce. For that I apologize. To me it sounded like you were saying that rather then make couples learn to be married, it's better we give them a relatively easy opt out option. Were you saying that for example in cases of abuse a no fault divorce would be nice to have?
Lisa
quote: You're going to cite Jesus as some kind of authority on Judaism? <snicker>
Part of me wants to throw this back of you ala "why yes I DO believe the man who GAVE the law in the first place was an expert on it." But since we obviously don't agree on that point I'll go elsewhere.
I'm willing to have this conversation with you Lisa, provided two things.
1: Don't act like I as a Christian have virtually no understanding of Judaism, I can read the Old Testament too, and though not in the original Hebrew, I have put alot of time into it.
2: I won't use New Testament sources for commentary on the Law of Moses as we both disagree on some fundamental assumptions that book brings to the table. And I admit it's a bit rude to use somebody you may consider a blasphemer as evidence that I am right.
First off Lisa, do you have any opinion on why God gave the Law of Moses in the first place? It's certainly not an eternal law, (in the sense that men have always obeyed it) as many righteous men who preceded Moses did not have it as far as we know.
For what purpose do you think the law was instated?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'd like to go back to the matter of morality and marriage laws and point out that one of the major departures between Shi'a and Sunni Islam is that Shi'a permit temporary marriage contracts as lawful, which the Sunni see as trying to sanction prostitution under religious law.
How did we get on this subject, exactly?
Anyway, Blackblade, I don't really see that this is going to be a productive discussion, unless your answers to your questions are somehow different from mine. And mine, are of course, correct. That is to say, my answers to your questions would violate the TOS.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I’m going to try to head this one off at the pass – just because Jesus and some Pharisees were having a conversation/debate about what the possible grounds for divorce should be does not mean that “many of them committed adultery frequently by divorcing their wives out of convenience.” Just as you (BlackBlade) pointed out about polygamy, the fact that something is allowable does not mean it is commonly practiced. And the fact that someone (or a school of thought) argues that something should be legal does not mean that they are practicing it, much less that they are doing so “frequently.”
As far as potshots, perhaps you are not aware that modern rabbinical Judaism is directly descended from the Pharisees. So throwing accusations at the Pharisees and claiming they aren’t shots at modern Judaism is pretty much equivalent to someone making accusations about the moral conduct of Jesus and his disciples and not recognizing that as a shot at Christianity.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
For what it's worth, I disagree with everyone but rivka and dkw.
More specifically, I think Lisa knew very well what the objections to her "that's hardly adultery" post would be, but I'm sad that Black Blade took the bait. It's just bait - it's not a dig from a credible source. I think it's better not to respond in kind.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Out of curiosity, is no-fault divorce part of Judaism?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I made a thread about that a while back. If you run a search on "divorce" in the subject by membername pooka, it should come right up. I forget if I linked to a story about it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: And the fact that someone (or a school of thought) argues that something should be legal does not mean that they are practicing it, much less that they are doing so “frequently.”
As far as potshots, perhaps you are not aware that modern rabbinical Judaism is directly descended from the Pharisees.
Precisely -- on both points.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Out of curiosity, is no-fault divorce part of Judaism?
Yes, and no.
Essentially, a man can try to give his wife a divorce without any reason. However, she can refuse to accept it. And unless he has a good reason, she is likely to get backing by any rabbis who get involved, as well as community support.
If both husband and wife want the divorce, while the rabbinical court will (assuming there is no abuse, adultery, etc.) try to talk them out of it (may insist on counseling, for instance), they cannot actually refuse to allow them to get divorced.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I made a thread about that a while back. If you run a search on "divorce" in the subject by membername pooka, it should come right up.
pooka, IMO that article you linked in that thread made all kinds of assumptions and statements that are not accurate. I resisted debating it at the time (I don't see the point), but I guess I will if you insist.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't insist - I'm mostly ignorant of what may have been the case - mostly I saw it as a boon to people laboring under this desire to be biblical literalists not considering any reason to divorce.
If you really don't think that's what they meant, you should certainly make that known. I referred them to dig up the thread themselves because I'm not feeling forceful about it and don't have much to say of myself on the matter. It was just like "hey, I read something about that a while back and linked it over here."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Consider this me making that known. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not to put this back on track or anything, but the Obama campaign has reached one million donors.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
dkw
quote:I’m going to try to head this one off at the pass – just because Jesus and some Pharisees were having a conversation/debate about what the possible grounds for divorce should be does not mean that “many of them committed adultery frequently by divorcing their wives out of convenience.”
I am operating under the assumption that Jesus would only discuss the particulars of adultery if it was a matter that needed address. It seems unlikely that he would discuss things that were not germane to the society that he lived in. When pressed for a sign of his divinity he responded with, "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after signs..." I take that to mean that he believed adultery was prevalent to Jewish society in Jerusalem at that time.
quote:As far as potshots, perhaps you are not aware that modern rabbinical Judaism is directly descended from the Pharisees. So throwing accusations at the Pharisees and claiming they aren’t shots at modern Judaism is pretty much equivalent to someone making accusations about the moral conduct of Jesus and his disciples and not recognizing that as a shot at Christianity.
Please note that I already said in my previous post, "I'm not trying to take pot shots at Judaism, though in retrospect I can see how I just did with the whole not liking some of the authorized reasons for which a man may pursue divorce. For that I apologize."
Though I am unaware how much the Pharisees and Sadducees of the first century have influenced current Jewish thought, it occurred to me that much of their philosophy may be current today; and so I apologized.
The divorce Rivka describes does not sound like the divorce I was objecting to.
But it does not sound like anyone really wishes to continue this line of thought, and so I will say sorry for any offense I have created, and bow out for now.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The divorce Rivka describes does not sound like the divorce I was objecting to.
It is, though. Because the minimum requirement of the law is rarely the same as accepted custom and/or usual practice. And objecting to the former while ignoring the latter is exactly and precisely the issue I have with most Christian analyses of historical Jewish practice.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Thought this was curious:
quote: Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.
Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers' jobs.
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."
Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.
"Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn't intend to keep," the spokesperson said.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not really sure why that would be amusing to you, Lisa, since you routinely use your religion as an authority on everything.
I wanted to see how BlackBlade liked his religion being mocked.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hrm. Not only am I not thrilled by the NAFTA criticisms, I'm deeply bothered by the potential hypocrisy. Here's hoping they've got a good explanation for it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm not trying to take pot shots at Judaism, though in retrospect I can see how I just did with the whole not liking some of the authorized reasons for which a man may pursue divorce.
That's exactly the point. "Authorized". You're dissing us for the rules that God gave us.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: You're going to cite Jesus as some kind of authority on Judaism? <snicker>
Part of me wants to throw this back of you ala "why yes I DO believe the man who GAVE the law in the first place was an expert on it." But since we obviously don't agree on that point I'll go elsewhere.
I'm willing to have this conversation with you Lisa, provided two things.
No. See, I understand that some Christians forget the some of the anti-semitic caricatures in their scriptures might be offensive to Jews. That's probably our fault for not disappearing 1900 years ago, but it still irks me. What I wrote was intentionally returning offense for offense.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: First off Lisa, do you have any opinion on why God gave the Law of Moses in the first place? It's certainly not an eternal law, (in the sense that men have always obeyed it) as many righteous men who preceded Moses did not have it as far as we know.
For what purpose do you think the law was instated?
God always intended to give the Torah. In fact, the Torah was the very blueprint of Creation. He also intended to give it to us. And then He gave it to us when we were ready. That's why He waited 26 generations to give it.
As to why He gave it at all, the Torah is the expression of God's Will and Intent. By knowing Torah, we come to know God and to make ourselves more like Him. On a national level, we also make it possible for others to know God and make themselves more like Him. That's God's goal for Creation. For us to be in His image.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What I wrote was intentionally returning offense for offense.
Remember: the forum rules as written don't actually permit this.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rivka:
quote:It is, though. Because the minimum requirement of the law is rarely the same as accepted custom and/or usual practice. And objecting to the former while ignoring the latter is exactly and precisely the issue I have with most Christian analyses of historical Jewish practice.
I'm not sure I follow. How do you mean that I was ignoring the accepted custom/usual practice while being critical of the requirements of the law. I feel like I was going for pro requirements in word and spirit, anti how it was executed by a certain group.
Lisa:
quote:I wanted to see how BlackBlade liked his religion being mocked.
Was I worth the price of admission? You could have simply said something like, "Hey BB that's alittle rude/hurtful." Rivka's response was more then enough for me to see that I had overstepped my bounds.
quote:No. See, I understand that some Christians forget the some of the anti-semitic caricatures in their scriptures might be offensive to Jews. That's probably our fault for not disappearing 1900 years ago, but it still irks me. What I wrote was intentionally returning offense for offense.
I'm not sure what you mean. My faith would be completely invalidated if the Jews disappeared completely at any point in time. Besides that, the Jews are still the chosen people, I'm not sure why you think my scriptures say otherwise.
quote:God always intended to give the Torah. In fact, the Torah was the very blueprint of Creation. He also intended to give it to us. And then He gave it to us when we were ready. That's why He waited 26 generations to give it.
It sounds like we are not using the same word, so I'll go with your definition. Would you say then that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and down to Moses all had Torah it just was not as fully realized until Moses?
quote:As to why He gave it at all, the Torah is the expression of God's Will and Intent. By knowing Torah, we come to know God and to make ourselves more like Him. On a national level, we also make it possible for others to know God and make themselves more like Him. That's God's goal for Creation. For us to be in His image.
I must say it's nice that I can completely agree with some of your post. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Would you say then that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and down to Moses all had Torah it just was not as fully realized until Moses?
She'd almost have to be Mormon to say that. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That's great that the campaign has rolled over into 7 digit land.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Is there a term for this well, "capitalization creep"? I mean, I understand and can deal with God, Him, His. On a good day, I can even take Creation. But Will and Intent? C'mon ... you've got to be pulling my leg now.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:What I wrote was intentionally returning offense for offense.
Remember: the forum rules as written don't actually permit this.
Oops.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:I wanted to see how BlackBlade liked his religion being mocked.
Was I worth the price of admission? You could have simply said something like, "Hey BB that's alittle rude/hurtful." Rivka's response was more then enough for me to see that I had overstepped my bounds.
Maybe I should have.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:No. See, I understand that some Christians forget the some of the anti-semitic caricatures in their scriptures might be offensive to Jews. That's probably our fault for not disappearing 1900 years ago, but it still irks me. What I wrote was intentionally returning offense for offense.
I'm not sure what you mean. My faith would be completely invalidated if the Jews disappeared completely at any point in time. Besides that, the Jews are still the chosen people, I'm not sure why you think my scriptures say otherwise.
Um... 2000 years of history?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:God always intended to give the Torah. In fact, the Torah was the very blueprint of Creation. He also intended to give it to us. And then He gave it to us when we were ready. That's why He waited 26 generations to give it.
It sounds like we are not using the same word, so I'll go with your definition. Would you say then that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and down to Moses all had Torah it just was not as fully realized until Moses?
They had some of the knowledge that God originally gave to Adam, and which was passed down through Enoch and Shem and Eber and Abraham. Our tradition tells us that Abraham and Isaac studied with Shem and Eber. And that Jacob studied with Eber (Shem had died by then).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I wanted to see how BlackBlade liked his religion being mocked.
By the standards you're using for mockery here, not only have you mocked other people's religions in the past, you make a habit of it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
She does regularly mock other people's religions, even when (especially when?) she's ignorant of them. I'm surprised that even being questioned. Of course she does - that's why her comments are not credible.
My thought is that it's a good thing for the image of Judaism on this board that rivka and Ela came first.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom:
quote:She'd almost have to be Mormon to say that.
I don't see how. It is a completely different idea than what Mormonism believes.
Lisa:
quote:Maybe I should have.
Maybe. For my part I retain no offense.
quote:Um... 2000 years of history?
I don't recall my faith existing anytime between the years of about 100AD-1820. I am also reasonably certain that from 1820-2008 persecution of the Jews has not been a feature of my faith. Beyond that, our scripture justifies the persecution of the Jews NOWHERE.
quote:They had some of the knowledge that God originally gave to Adam, and which was passed down through Enoch and Shem and Eber and Abraham. Our tradition tells us that Abraham and Isaac studied with Shem and Eber. And that Jacob studied with Eber (Shem had died by then).
So they did not have the Torah to the full extent that God later revealed through Moses?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rivka:
quote:It is, though. Because the minimum requirement of the law is rarely the same as accepted custom and/or usual practice. And objecting to the former while ignoring the latter is exactly and precisely the issue I have with most Christian analyses of historical Jewish practice.
I'm not sure I follow. How do you mean that I was ignoring the accepted custom/usual practice while being critical of the requirements of the law. I feel like I was going for pro requirements in word and spirit, anti how it was executed by a certain group.
Because the Talmud (which is where the discussion of the minimum requirements for a halachically valid divorce are found, including the "even if she burns his food" part) almost always discusses boundary conditions -- it is theory much more than practice, and it was always meant to be. That is often very different from what was actually permitted in day to day practice.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rivka:
quote:It is, though. Because the minimum requirement of the law is rarely the same as accepted custom and/or usual practice. And objecting to the former while ignoring the latter is exactly and precisely the issue I have with most Christian analyses of historical Jewish practice.
I'm not sure I follow. How do you mean that I was ignoring the accepted custom/usual practice while being critical of the requirements of the law. I feel like I was going for pro requirements in word and spirit, anti how it was executed by a certain group.
Because the Talmud (which is where the discussion of the minimum requirements for a halachically valid divorce are found, including the "even if she burns his food" part) almost always discusses boundary conditions -- it is theory much more than practice, and it was always meant to be. That is often very different from what was actually permitted in day to day practice.
Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand now.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Um... 2000 years of history?
I don't recall my faith existing anytime between the years of about 100AD-1820.
I thought you were a Christian. Or at least OSC and Romney seem to have spend a lot of effort convincing people that Mormons are Christian, but maybe they're wrong Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I thought you were a Christian. Or at least OSC and Romney seem to have spend a lot of effort convincing people that Mormons are Christian, but maybe they're wrong
Heh. Well, someone will be along to correct you shortly.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Um... 2000 years of history?
I don't recall my faith existing anytime between the years of about 100AD-1820.
I thought you were a Christian. Or at least OSC and Romney seem to have spend a lot of effort convincing people that Mormons are Christian, but maybe they're wrong
Yes I am a Christian. That does not mean I think the persecutions of the Jews were acts sanctioned by Christ through an authorized church.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not entirely sure *Christians* necessarily think that either Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm not entirely sure *Christians* necessarily think that either
Yes I'm Quite Sure Christians May Not Think That As Well.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Anyways, Mormons are Christians and Christians did exist in 100AD, no?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Anyways, Mormons are Christians and Christians did exist in 100AD, no?
Christian did exist at that time yes. Leaders of the church however at that time were starting to die/be murdered and were not replaced as fast as they were disappearing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Um... 2000 years of history?
I don't recall my faith existing anytime between the years of about 100AD-1820. I am also reasonably certain that from 1820-2008 persecution of the Jews has not been a feature of my faith. Beyond that, our scripture justifies the persecution of the Jews NOWHERE.
I'm speaking of the really bad track record that Christians have in terms of vilifying Jews. That includes vilification in the Christian scriptures themselves.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:They had some of the knowledge that God originally gave to Adam, and which was passed down through Enoch and Shem and Eber and Abraham. Our tradition tells us that Abraham and Isaac studied with Shem and Eber. And that Jacob studied with Eber (Shem had died by then).
So they did not have the Torah to the full extent that God later revealed through Moses?
Nope.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BB: Nevertheless, Lisa is technically correct when she says that your faith did have 2000 years of history with her's since you are in fact a Christian Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucas: Nope, if say Muslims starting devouring pork in direct defiance of their religious texts could we say that the religion of Islam was persecuting pigs? Sometime after 100AD I consider the entire religion of Christianity to be in a state of apostasy. No offense intended to Catholics and Protestants.
Lisa:
quote:I'm speaking of the really bad track record that Christians have in terms of vilifying Jews. That includes vilification in the Christian scriptures themselves.
The Jews are not villified in my scriptures. Yes there are Jews who do vile things, but that is true of any group of people. It certainly does not say that the Jews need chastisement at the hands of Christians.
quote:Nope
Interesting. So in terms of getting more complex, could the Torah be extended? Can it be revised? What would have to happen for either to occur?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Interesting. So in terms of getting more complex, could the Torah be extended? Can it be revised? What would have to happen for either to occur?
The Torah is what it is. But as a system, it's dynamic, responding to new situations. The laws themselves don't change, but specific practice can.
For example, when we have access to the location of the altar on the Temple Mount, we're obligated to bring a whole slew of sacrifices. When we don't, we're not. The law hasn't changed, but practice has. When we regain access, it'll change again.
The Torah itself commands us not to add to it or subtract from it. That's iron clad. Rabbinic laws are always -- obsessively -- marked as being rabbinic. Even when there's no practical difference, since we have to follow Jewish law whether it's rabbinic or from Sinai, we maintain the distinction diligently.
The revelation at Sinai was a discontinuity. It wasn't an adding onto what the patriarchs had. On the contrary, you can consider what the patriarchs had as a teaser-trailer.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: On the contrary, you can consider what the patriarchs had as a teaser-trailer.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BB: I have no idea why you're drawing the pig example. So far, I've never said anything about persecution aside from agreeing to the fact that not all Christians persecute Jews.
(As an aside addressing that: *shrug* If the government of the France started deporting Muslims wholesale, in contradiction with their equivalent of the Constitution would we really draw the fine distinction that while *French people* persecuted Muslims, *France* did not? I do not think so.
I'm not sure why you're attempting to draw a different distinction between Islam and Muslims and furthermore how that relates to my line of inquiry)
In any case, so if Christians as a group were in apostasy starting in 100AD, when did they stop?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
With Joseph Smith and the restoration. That's why the restoration happened.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In any case, so if Christians as a group were in apostasy starting in 100AD, when did they stop?
Mucus, perhaps you would be better served by asking questions rather than making pronouncements.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rakeesh: I believe that what you quoted is *in fact* a question.
katharina: IIRC, That is no good for Christians *as a group*. That works for Mormons and any other Restorationists as subgroups of Christians, but not Christians as a whole. Specifically, it is my understanding that Catholics and the other groups that in fact form the majority of Christianity that they do not generally in fact accept as truth what you call the restoration. Is that not correct?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
For those that aren't Mormon, it's a "when did you stop beating your wife" question.
For those that are, the answer is "with the restoration."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not 100% sure I follow the "when did you stop beating your wife" reference.
However, if I understand you correctly (and feel free to correct me), what you're saying is that Mormons believe that other Christians *still* are in apostasy, that is not really following the teachings of Christ. (I'm going to use Mormons as a synonym for Restorationalists for brevity in the next paragraph)
So in a very real sense, it seems that while OSC or Mitt Romney are trying to gain mainstream acceptance for Mormons *as* Christians, Mormons believe that Mormons are the *only real* Christians around and in fact believe that the rest of Christians are not really Christian.
To shorten that, in response to the accusation "You're not really Christian" the response is "No. You're wrong. I am Christian. You're not really Christian!"
Is that really true? That seems bizarre to me.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
The definition of "apostasy" is what is important here.
BB cites 100 AD; I'm not sure why he's picked that date, though a lot of Mormons will argue that "apostasy" was complete upon the death of the original twelve apostles, generally assumed to be around then. Other Mormons will cite the Council of Nicea, piggybacking on the traditional rhetoric of the Reformers.
These two dates indicate two general arguments Mormons make about the "apostasy." The first date has to do with a loss of priesthood authority to perform salvific ordinances. The second date has to do with a more general loss of correct doctrine - closer to the argument Mucus cites.
I would, though, take issue with a particular point of Mucus's argument - neither of these models of apostasy are directly relevant to "following the teachings of Christ," in the sense of generally worshipping God, engaging in ethical behavior, and so forth, all of which Mormons today are quick to acknowledge exists in all religions. Indeed, that's generally how Mormons define "Christian," which is why the accusation of not being Christian tends to chap Mormon hides.
By the way, I personally am not entirely satisfied with either of those 'apostasy' arguments, but find the one about correct authority more tenable. Interestingly, it's also the one more frequently cited by Mormons today. I think that's because it's somewhat more public relations friendly.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Point of order: Mormons don't believe all 12 apostles actually died, so that couldn't really be the triggering event of the apostasy. Also, I think Paul may be considered a true apostle. But when you look at Pauls writings, he was dealing with an ongoing apostasy all the time.
I heard an interesting point the other day, that the trinity was not invented at Nicea, but was an existing interpretation that existed in dynamic tension with unity theology but gained institutional credence with Nicea.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think Nicea was held precisely because there were several theories out there.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
True, pooka on John, but that's a phrase I still hear tossed around a lot.
The problem with Paul is that the office of "apostle" as the LDS church describes it today is not the way it's used in the New Testament or in Joseph Smith's church.
Also, I think it's more accurate to describe the Pauline church as multiple Christianities; there was really no orthodox Christianity in the first few centuries, but a diversity of theological claims that even the leaders of the nascent church disagreed on. Acts and Galatians document this, as do Paul's other letters.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh: I believe that what you quoted is *in fact* a question.
Maybe it's just me, Mucus, but the constant winking doesn't appear well-meaning.
And yes, that was a question. Preceded immediately by lots of pronouncements.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Also, I think it's more accurate to describe the Pauline church as multiple Christianities; there was really no orthodox Christianity in the first few centuries, but a diversity of theological claims that even the leaders of the nascent church disagreed on
This raises the very interesting issue of what, exactly, Christianity is, and what the role of orthodoxy should be. It's said religion should be the steering wheel and not the spare tire. (I think the guy who founded Boy's Town said that). So what are the four tires that are in contact with the ground?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattB: The definition of "apostasy" is what is important here. ... I would, though, take issue with a particular point of Mucus's argument - neither of these models of apostasy are directly relevant to "following the teachings of Christ," in the sense of generally worshipping God, engaging in ethical behavior, and so forth, all of which Mormons today are quick to acknowledge exists in all religions. Indeed, that's generally how Mormons define "Christian," ...
(All "Abrahamic" religions actually)
You're probably right.
The term apostasy is definitely confusing to me since thats the term many other faiths use when someone leaves their faith outright. Normally, the term "apostasy" is used when you leave a faith and the term "heresy" when you change it in unapproved ways, but still essentially stay within the faith. It seems like "Great Heresy" would be preferable to "Great Apostasy"
Rakeesh: What IS my meaning?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Man, I'm sorry if this is offensive to other Mormons, but I have a real problem with some of BB's comments in this thread. I think if you're going to get touchy about other Christians saying you're not Christian, than you can't just offhandedly exclude your religion from responsibility when someone says "Christians have a history of. . ." because your branch of Christianity didn't exist during that time frame. Either we're all Christians and it's our shared history and we differ on a few important details, or we're not. You can't have it both ways.
And I'm aware that you believe that other Christians are fundamentally wrong, but you still come from the same shared history. God didn't reveal the golden plates to a Buddist in Thailand, who would have had to do a whole heck of a lot more background work than just adding the Book of Mormon to people who already believed in the Bible. Joseph Smith was able to build on the foundation of people who already believed in the same God he was preaching about. My branch of Christianity wasn't around during the Crusades, either, but that doesn't mean I get to say that wasn't my religion that's responsible for them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm fine with everything you just said, ElJay. I think you're right.
My problem with Lisa's comments of "your people did [blank]" is that I don't believe in holding people responsible for what strangers did hundreds of years ago.
People act like crap all the time. Even people who claim to be followers of good do evil. Even people who WANT to be followers of good sometimes do evil. That doesn't mean that good is actually evil, but that people do evil things.
Dismissing people for what other people did hundreds of years ago is unfair and irrevelant. Condemning Christians now for behavior of other Christians during the middle ages is as much nonsense as condemning Jews now for "killing Christ." The analogy is chosen deliberately. Returning evil for evil doesn't make it good. (In this example evil 1 = blaming all Jews for Christ's death; evil 2 = blaming all Christians for blaming all Jews for Christ's death.)
Rather than saying "Hey, those weren't my people," my response would be "Why on earth are you perpetuating a stupid, fruitless habit of blame of centuries old sins?"
Though all things foul should wear the brow of grace, yet grace must still look so. --MacBeth 4:3
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Actually, I had missed the starkness with which BB disassociated Mormonism from the rest of Christianity at the end of the last page; I don't think that's characteristic of the Mormon leadership nor of Mormon thought in general, on either the popular or elite levels.
Despite some incendiary rhetoric about Protestants, Joseph Smith, BH Roberts, and other early Mormon leaders had surprisingly positive things to say about Catholicism. More recently, there been a burgeoning (if somewhat simplistic) cult of the Reformation on the popular level, celebrating Tyndale and Luther and the rest for "laying the groundwork for the Restoration."
On a more sophisticated level, Mormonism lifts a great deal from Protestantism. The Book of Mormon quotes or paraphrases the King James Bible on over a thousand occasions, or a little less than twice a page, on average (preemptive cite: Mark Thomas, Digging in Cumorah. Salt Lake, 1999, page 17). The Mormon Sunday meeting is a close image of Congregational meetings of the seventeenth through nineteenth century; we even administer the Eucharist in the same way the Puritans did. The common Mormon notion of the atonement is lifted directly from John Calvin's penal substitution theory; the phrase "burning in the bosom" Mormons still use today entered the language of Christian experience via the fourteenth century mystic Richard Rolle; and the Mormon notion of 'callings' (even the word itself) also derives directly from the Reformation thinkers. Mormons owe much, much more than they generally are aware to the broader Christian tradition.
Finally, though it seems I drag this out every few months, I would note that in February 1978 the First Presidency issued a proclamation stating that religious leaders from Muhammad to the Reformers to Buddha "received a portion of God's light."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Either we're all Christians and it's our shared history and we differ on a few important details, or we're not. You can't have it both ways.
QFT.
I think this gets at the root at whats been prickling at my subconscious for the last page or so.
Either you're a Christian and you buy into the shared history or you're not. If you tell people you're Christian when it suits you (to gain votes or whatnot) but then swing around and tell people that you're not Christian when it doesn't suit you, then thats kind of like cherry-picking.
(... and the persecution issue seems to be a red herring to me. You can simply say "Yeah, I'm a Christian and we did some stuff we're not proud of. We're better now. Sorry")
Personally, I could care less whether you want to be called Christian or not* but consistency is key.
* with the caveat that from an academic POV, I greatly prefer monophyletic ( link ) groups rather than polyphyletic groups, which is what you would get if you had a "Christianity" group that arbitrarily excludes Mormonism
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
*sigh* I seem to be bugging alot more people than usual.
Far be it from me to say that Protestants and Catholics are evil or that their churches are intent on committing evil. As a Christian I do believe that God has workings within both churches and uses their adherents as tools. I also believe that Buddha, Mohammed, Luther, Zwingli, etc all had portions of God's truth instilled in their minds. But I do not believe that many of the things done in the name of Christianity have a basis in Christianity either logically or spiritually. The crusades had no basis in scripture, or in revelation. The Spanish Inquisition belongs to that category as well. The Tai Ping Rebellion, The Salem Witch Trials, etc are all examples of people stating that Christianity was guiding them in their works, but upon careful analysis those claims become laughable at best, utterly ridiculous at worst.
What I object to is the idea that every Christian is a party to those events because we are descended from men and women who perpetrated them, or because those ancestors acted under the stated banner of Christianity and therefore it is de facto Christianity that spurred them on.
I reject those people's claim to fealty to Christ. I also deny that they had any legitimate argument that Christ sanctioned those actions. They are the people who will exclaim to God that they did many mighty works in His name and God's reply will be, "I never knew thee."
I do not believe that anti antisemitism has any claim on Christianity at all.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I also don't believe that Christ sanctioned any of those actions, but the fact remains that the majority of the people who took them believed with all their heart and souls that they were serving Christ. So I don't think that it's valid for those of us that now claim the title of Christian to say it wasn't my religion that did that. Well, yes, it was. It was extremely misguided people who did that, but they did it as Christians as what they feverently believed Christ wanted them to do.
So, we can say those people made mistakes, and I believe that they were wrong and weren't guided by God. And I don't believe that we carry their guilt, as you and kat have both said, we're different people. But we still have to acknowledge that it was done under the banner of our religion. To disavow it like you are is a total cop-out. You don't get to make judgement on their fealty to Christ any more than I get to make judgement on yours.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
ElJay,
I agree with what you said, but not really for the reasons you outlined. 'Christian' is a word that correctly defines a lot of people. If someone doesn't try to lay claim to the good done under the general banner of Christianity (but not their specific banner, such as Roman Catholic, Mormon, Lutheran, etc.), then I think it's alright for a person to disavow evil done in the name of a different brand of Christianity's banner, too.
Of course in practice, from what I have seen, many Christians are pretty liberal about laying claim to the good, and pretty quick to point out that it was some other Christians who did the bad, so there you go.
Now as for your point about a shared history specifically with regards to where Mormonism began, I agree with you. Even though our specific brand of Christianity (which of course we believe is the correct one) wasn't around when things like the Crusades happened, our forefathers who first converted to our religion did belong to such sects.
----------
quote:Either you're a Christian and you buy into the shared history or you're not. If you tell people you're Christian when it suits you (to gain votes or whatnot) but then swing around and tell people that you're not Christian when it doesn't suit you, then thats kind of like cherry-picking.
I disagree strongly with this. I hardly think that which larger group you self-identify with for historical blame-game purposes is what makes one a Christian or not.
-------
Blackblade,
quote:I reject those people's claim to fealty to Christ.
Insofar as 'fealty' means loyalty and devotion (which are two of the more common definitions of that uncommon word), I disagree strongly with you. To reject those people's claims of correct interpretation is one thing, to reject their loyalty and devotion is quite another.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Insofar as 'fealty' means loyalty and devotion (which are two of the more common definitions of that uncommon word), I disagree strongly with you. To reject those people's claims of correct interpretation is one thing, to reject their loyalty and devotion is quite another.
I agree, I am saying those who slew Jews and excused themselves in the name of Christ had no fealty to Him.
I can accept that many Christians relied on their leaders to explain to them what the scriptures said and where therefore deceived. But those who were at the top and making decisions have no claim to the religion I belong to.
I'm not saying who falls under that category, only that those people existed. I do not believe in a crusade where everyone meant well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not prepared to go that far, seeing as how so many of the people who did those things were so poorly taught what it meant to be a Christian. Hell, for most of history most Christians were illiterate. To them, 'Christian' often effectively meant 'what my local authority says'.
I say that they were loyal to Christ, but were very, very badly wrong about what Christ wanted. This is not to say they get a pass, though, because ultimately we all bear responsibility for our actions, and even if you're taught to do something evil, if you do that evil thing, you're still doing evil.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I disagree strongly with this. I hardly think that which larger group you self-identify with for historical blame-game purposes is what makes one a Christian or not.
I think that which larger group you self-identify with, for *whatever* purposes, is what makes one a Christian or not. Period.
If you find yourself requiring to choose a different self-identification for when dealing with different people, then thats a big sign of a problem.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh see my edit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think that which larger group you self-identify with, for *whatever* purposes, is what makes one a Christian or not. Period.
*puzzled* You think that following the teachings of and believing in Jesus Christ is a factor of which larger group you self-identify with? That's just baffling to me.
The belief and following come before the self-identification with the larger group, Mucus, not the other way around. I didn't become a Christian because I started self-identifying with a bunch of other Christians, I started self-identifying with a bunch of other Christians because I became a Christian.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't think we're using the phrase "self-identify" in the same way.
See this example, as the first example I found on Google.
quote:How may employees identify themselves? The preferred method of employee identification is voluntary, self-identification. Employees may self-identify by using the MIT SAP Employee Self Service application.
i.e. when I use the word "self-identify", what I mean is that I generally accept the word (self-identification) of the person telling me whatever they are, Christian or not, until proven otherwise
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I reject those people's claim to fealty to Christ.
I prefer to argue against the atrocities being laid upon Christianity rather than saying those people are outside of Christianity. I don't really think the violent Jihad going on today is really inherent to Islam. It's about power and land and money, and Religion is something sociopaths have found they can use to get other people to do their dirty work for them.
I wouldn't lay it on the crusaders being christian any more than I'd lay it on their being white or male or any of the other categories we tend to assume crusaders fall into.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)]![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)