Posts by logansrun

245

Are most people just plain stupid?

by logansrun in

what an audacious question!

" wow, bradley -- how could you stoop to such levels?

do you consider most people as simple sleepwalkers through life not paying much attention to reason, logic, science, history and a desire to understand?

logansrun

Expat:

Britain (and the allies) were not aggressors in WW II, they were on the defensive.

To begin with, yes. Yet even then they were still combatative, still agressively active, and a good job too. They were most certainly militant.

I think most people would readily agree that there is a substantial moral difference between using force to defend oneself and using force to assault another. The same is true with nations.

The Nazis were fascist hyper-nationalists whose goal was Arayan supremecy and genocide of "inferior races."

Ah, well now we're getting to the point. Their goal was Aryan supremacy and genocide of "inferior races". This is racism, not nationalism. I would say that they fall more readily under the category of "militant racism". After all, if it was militant nationalism, what nation were they militating (is that a word?) Germany? Maybe, but Hitler was Austrian. Nor did the Nazis really wish to fight Britain, they would have much rather Britain was won over to their side by the British Nazis active at the time. Nope, it was race that was the crux, not nationality.

Well, if we are going to go by very strict definitions we couldn't even call what the Nazis did as "racism" since most anthropologists, genetecists and social scientists believe there really is no such thing as "race." But, that would be pedantic and I realise you are using the word "race" in the vernacular usage, much the same way I use the word "nationalism." All the same, was it militant racism or militant nationalism that was the problem with the Third Reich? Since their "race" was primarily clustered in one "nation" I think it is safe to say that it was both racism and nationalism.

any attempts to obfuscate that point could be equated simply as a defense of the hypernationalist militancy we personally advocate.

It could be equated that way, if we were to engage in a logical fallacy i.e.
1) Militant Nationalism = X definition
2) Expatbrit doesn't agree with definition X.
3) Therefore Expatbrit must be a militant nationalist trying to obfuscate, because Militant Nationalism = X definition (return to step 1)
I'm sure there's a name for that one. Circumstantial Ad Hominem, I think?

LOL!

Remember, I said it could be interpreted that way, not must. Just because a judgment cannot be made simply by following formal logic does not necessarily mean the judgement is in error. For example, lets take our favorite little "cult":

1) Cult = X definition

2) The Watchtower does not agree with X definition

3) Therfore the Watchtower is really a cult that simply wants to obfuscate X definition because X = definition.

Remember, you were the one that brought in syllogisms, not I!

I like you expat....and I doubt you're a militant nationalist, btw.

Bradley

245

Are most people just plain stupid?

by logansrun in

what an audacious question!

" wow, bradley -- how could you stoop to such levels?

do you consider most people as simple sleepwalkers through life not paying much attention to reason, logic, science, history and a desire to understand?

logansrun

"Militant" is "engaged in warfare; combatative, aggressively active."

245

Are most people just plain stupid?

by logansrun in

what an audacious question!

" wow, bradley -- how could you stoop to such levels?

do you consider most people as simple sleepwalkers through life not paying much attention to reason, logic, science, history and a desire to understand?

logansrun

expat,

"Militant" is "engaged in warfare; combatative, aggressively active."

Britain (and the allies) were not aggressors in WW II, they were on the defensive.

The Nazis were fascist hyper-nationalists whose goal was Arayan supremecy and genocide of "inferior races." Yes, I think they would fall under the category of "militant nationalism." Do you disagree?

We can argue over the semantics of "militant nationalism" but I think the term is really quite clear and any attempts to obfuscate that point could be equated simply as a defense of the hypernationalist militancy we personally advocate.

Bradley...who has a meeting to be at and must go!

245

Are most people just plain stupid?

by logansrun in

what an audacious question!

" wow, bradley -- how could you stoop to such levels?

do you consider most people as simple sleepwalkers through life not paying much attention to reason, logic, science, history and a desire to understand?

logansrun

Stacey,

Historical Precedence doesn't fall into nearly the same classification as scientific does it?

True. I never said it did.

Certainly some areas such as the nazis or tribalism seem very clear to us I wouldn't put militant nationalism in the same category

What you just said is that Nazism was not militant nationalism. I don't think that is what you meant to say, but that is what you just said. You need to clarify that statement.

since both militant and nationalism can be subjective, such as to what degree of militanism or nationalism would be applied.

Let's not become overly pedantic here. I think most people have a very clear idea what "militant nationalism" is. Can you give me an example of good militant nationalism?

So it's still just your opinion Bradley and your opinion doesn't impress everyone

Yes, it's an opinion. An opinion which I feel is based on reason and historical precedence. I also would not feel very comfortable if everyone agreed with me, certainly not if you agreed with me.

It's been nice exchanging barbs with you Stacey. Have a happy.

Bradley

245

Are most people just plain stupid?

by logansrun in

what an audacious question!

" wow, bradley -- how could you stoop to such levels?

do you consider most people as simple sleepwalkers through life not paying much attention to reason, logic, science, history and a desire to understand?

logansrun

Stacey,

Obviously, you must have missed what I said. Here! I'll paste it for you!

an opinion based on factual evidence and historical precedence.

I put "historical precedence" in there for the exact reason you mentioned, ie, there is no way to show that "militant nationalism" is wrong using scientific methods.

So, there you have it -- historical precedence, eg. the Nazis, authoritarian communisim, genocidal tribalism, etc... Does this clarify things for you?

Bradley

245

Are most people just plain stupid?

by logansrun in

what an audacious question!

" wow, bradley -- how could you stoop to such levels?

do you consider most people as simple sleepwalkers through life not paying much attention to reason, logic, science, history and a desire to understand?

logansrun

Stacey,

I don't wish to go round and round trying to defend myself to you over the internet. I am well aware of the difference between the statements: "Bush is a great president" and "The earth is in an elliptical orbit around the sun." You keep putting words in my mouth and are quite adept at making the sweeping generalizations you accuse me of.

Like it or not the general consensus of most scientists, philosophers and social advocates when it comes to the beliefs I mentioned (creationism, astrology, militant nationalism) would be that they are incorrect, incoherant or just plain dangerous. Are they stupid? Yes, I believe they are. Is that my opinion? Yes -- but an opinion based on factual evidence and historical precedence. There are "good" opinions and "bad" opinions; opinions based on substance and reason and opinions based on junk science, ignorance and hatred. I suggest you try and understand this difference.

Oh, and my comment that you are a "bright girl" was meant as no offense to those of the female gender.

Bradley

245

Are most people just plain stupid?

by logansrun in

what an audacious question!

" wow, bradley -- how could you stoop to such levels?

do you consider most people as simple sleepwalkers through life not paying much attention to reason, logic, science, history and a desire to understand?

logansrun

Oxnard,

Actually, I wouldn't be upset if someone said atheism is a "stupid belief." I would actually try to engage in an intellectual dialogue on the subject.

Stacey,

I really don't want to press the issue (especially after I said I wanted to kill this thread!) but you did completely ignore the point I was making. Is it an opinion that the dinosaurs existed or is it a fact? Can it be both?

I think you are a bright girl, but you do need to spend more time justifying your statements.

Bradley

7

William Barclay...scholar

by logansrun in

i was at the book store today and spent about two hours reading scholar william barclay's "introduction to the bible" as well as some of his commentaries on nt books.

now, let me lay aside the fact that i am an agnostic and in no way a christian...but this fellow is impressive.

i don't think i've ever read a modern christian writer whose thinking was as clear and thoughtful as his.

logansrun

Here's an article I found....why couldn't I be raised by a Christian like this?

I AM A CONVINCED UNIVERSALIST

by William Barclay

I am a convinced universalist. I believe that in the end all men will be gathered into the love of God. In the early days Origen was the great name connected with universalism. I would believe with Origen that universalism is no easy thing. Origen believed that after death there were many who would need prolonged instruction, the sternest discipline, even the severest punishment before they were fit for the presence of God. Origen did not eliminate hell; he believed that some people would have to go to heaven via hell. He believed that even at the end of the day there would be some on whom the scars remained. He did not believe in eternal punishment, but he did see the possibility of eternal penalty. And so the choice is whether we accept God's offer and invitation willingly, or take the long and terrible way round through ages of purification.

Gregory of Nyssa offered three reasons why he believed in universalism. First, he believed in it because of the character of God. "Being good, God entertains pity for fallen man; being wise, he is not ignorant of the means for his recovery." Second, he believed in it because of the nature of evil. Evil must in the end be moved out of existence, "so that the absolutely non-existent should cease to be at all." Evil is essentially negative and doomed to non-existence. Third, he believed in it because of the purpose of punishment. The purpose of punishment is always remedial. Its aim is "to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness." Punishment will hurt, but it is like the fire which separates the alloy from the gold; it is like the surgery which removes the diseased thing; it is like the cautery which burns out that which cannot be removed any other way.

But I want to set down not the arguments of others but the thoughts which have persuaded me personally of universal salvation.

First, there is the fact that there are things in the New Testament which more than justify this belief. Jesus said: "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself" (John 12:32). Paul writes to the Romans: "God has consigned all men to disobedience that he may have mercy on all" (Rom. 11:32). He writes to the Corinthians: "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22); and he looks to the final total triumph when God will be everything to everyone (1 Cor. 15:28). In the First Letter to Timothy we read of God "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," and of Christ Jesus "who gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:4-6). The New Testament itself is not in the least afraid of the word all.

Second, one of the key passages is Matthew 25:46 where it is said that the rejected go away to eternal punishment, and the righteous to eternal life. The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment. The word for eternal is aionios. It means more than everlasting, for Plato - who may have invented the word - plainly says that a thing may be everlasting and still not be aionios. The simplest way to out it is that aionios cannot be used properly of anyone but God; it is the word uniquely, as Plato saw it, of God. Eternal punishment is then literally that kind of remedial punishment which it befits God to give and which only God can give.

Third, I believe that it is impossible to set limits to the grace of God. I believe that not only in this world, but in any other world there may be, the grace of God is still effective, still operative, still at work. I do not believe that the operation of the grace of God is limited to this world. I believe that the grace of God is as wide as the universe.

Fourth, I believe implicitly in the ultimate and complete triumph of God, the time when all things will be subject to him, and when God will be everything to everyone (1 Cor. 15:24-28). For me this has certain consequences. If one man remains outside the love of God at the end of time, it means that that one man has defeated the love of God - and that is impossible. Further, there is only one way in which we can think of the triumph of God. If God was no more than a King or Judge, then it would be possible to speak of his triumph, if his enemies were agonizing in hell or were totally and completely obliterated and wiped out. But God is not only King and Judge, God is Father - he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family for ever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home. The only victory love can enjoy is the day when its offer of love is answered by the return of love. The only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God.
[Quoted from William Barclay: A Spiritual Autobiography, pg 65-67, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1977.]

7

William Barclay...scholar

by logansrun in

i was at the book store today and spent about two hours reading scholar william barclay's "introduction to the bible" as well as some of his commentaries on nt books.

now, let me lay aside the fact that i am an agnostic and in no way a christian...but this fellow is impressive.

i don't think i've ever read a modern christian writer whose thinking was as clear and thoughtful as his.

logansrun

I was at the book store today and spent about two hours reading scholar William Barclay's "Introduction To The Bible" as well as some of his commentaries on NT books.

Now, let me lay aside the fact that I am an agnostic and in no way a Christian...but this fellow is impressive. I don't think I've ever read a modern Christian writer whose thinking was as clear and thoughtful as his. (I remember his name, by the way, because the WT would occassionally quote from him)

Seems as if he is on middle ground in terms of theological perspective -- believing in the Christian message yet not in the infallibility of scripture. Honestly, I have not quite seen a perspective like this before, at least not as clearly as he puts it.

Has anyone else encountered his works? Just curious.

Bradley

245

Are most people just plain stupid?

by logansrun in

what an audacious question!

" wow, bradley -- how could you stoop to such levels?

do you consider most people as simple sleepwalkers through life not paying much attention to reason, logic, science, history and a desire to understand?

logansrun

On my remark that "some beliefs are stupid" and people questioning that:

Would you consider the once-held view of the WT that organ transplants are equatable with "cannibalism" as a "stupid belief"? What about the view that everyone who is not a JW -- all 6 billion of them -- are going to be bird food after Armageddon -- is that a "stupid belief"?

There is a thread about dinosaurs on this forum; some people related experiences of fundamentalists who think the dinosaurs never even existed (!) -- would it be incorrect to call that a "stupid belief"?

I could go on. What do you think?

Bradley