These Horrible Bushfires have got me thinking....

[wonderllama]

I've heard some ugly stories this week. People escaping the fires in their car and seeing other people in their cars being burnt alive. Children seeing this!
One literally saw a car full of their neighbours explode in front of them.

The explanations being "it's the work of the devil" or "it is a vengeful God".

The immediate reaction is to try and explain or justify what has happened. To extend some level of comfort to the survivors or the families of the dead. To offer comfort and reason for things which would otherwise break us is in my opinion one of the reasons Religion has lasted.

However. these fires weren't started by God or the Devil. They were started by people or lightning or because it was over 46C (115F) degrees and stuff sometimes ignites.

A friend teaches at a religious school and they are attempting to comfort families and friends of victims.

Now there is a Christian Preacher here blaming the Bushfires on our State's removal of anti-abortion laws late last year.

What is the best way to mentally comfort these people when they are looking for answers? These are religious people, so I doubt my suggestions are necessarily what they are after.

Blaming it on the Devil would make me angry. Blaming it on God would also make me angry. And yet anger doesn't seem to be the answer they need.

[fuglystick]

I'm not one of those to beat up on anyone practicing a religion. Believe what you want. But its sickening for anyone to use horrific events as a means to advance their agenda, secular or religious.

[Genius]

Blaming it on the Devil would make me angry. Blaming it on God would also make me angry. And yet anger doesn't seem to be the answer they need.
You Aussies simply haven't had enough exposure to this type of shit. A healthy dose of apathy, mixed with a pinch of cynicism and a touch of ignorance goes a long way. That way, you can ignore the victims AND the assholes that use their plight to further their own agendas.

[wonderllama]

Oh we have that, we just direct it at the rest of the world ;)

[Archetype]

However. these fires weren't started by God or the Devil. They were started by people or lightning or because it was over 46C (115F) degrees and stuff sometimes ignites.


That's not what people mean when they say it's "the work of the devil" or "it's a vengeful God."

[wonderllama]

So exactly what are they referring to?
What made the person light it? Why someone blew up in a car? Why they didn't know the fire was coming?

There are the questions being asked, people say "How can God let this happen?"

As I said, I'm not asking these questions, it is religious people asking these questions and wanting religious answers...

[Archetype]

So exactly what are they referring to?
What made the person light it? Why someone blew up in a car? Why they didn't know the fire was coming?

You're thinking too immediate. It'd be more in terms of something like "George Bush caused 9/11." It's a general statement, but it's not because George Bush directly flew the planes into the towers, it's more conspiratorial, or metaphysical.

As I said, I'm not asking these questions, it is religious people asking these questions and wanting religious answers...

I get that, but you are responding to them, so you have to at least probe just what it is their asking, and why they want answers.

[Morfin]

Llama: Your questions are valid ones. In short, people say the things about God's will, etc. for comfort. People are trying to make sense of the senseless, are trying to understand what cannot really be understood. It is difficult to accept/believe that a family member/neighbor died for no reason or because of some lunatic arsonist.

Those that say that the fires are divine retribution are unmitigated assholes. No different than the losers here in the U.S. who picket at funerals of the soldiers who died in Iraq, saying that the deaths and 9/11 occurred because the U.S. tolerates homosexuals. You have to ignore these people; reactions only provide them with publicity and attention. Ignore them and gradually they will slink back into the holes where the live and belong.

[VoxAngelikus]

Leave it to the Catholic church to take a horrible tragedy and somehow skew it so that it is not the result of natural selection or criminal negligence, but the result of someone not living according to the rules of Their God.

That's bullshit. Are people actually falling for this bullshit? Believing that God is insulted so He has smited thee with his fiery wrath? My goodness.

If Australia were a disaster movie, then that Christian preacher would be hunted down by the brushfire and burned alive. That's a sick individual, taking tragedy and trying to use it as a means of making you feel really bad about killing babies. What a douche.

[wonderllama]

I don't think they are actually. There seems to be huge outrage at these claims, so there's some bonus in that I guess.

[VoxAngelikus]

I don't think they are actually. There seems to be huge outrage at these claims, so there's some bonus in that I guess.


It's just insulting to hear someone with the balls to even say something like that. It's like someone saying that the tsunami in 2004 killed all those people because they didn't believe in Jesus.

[wonderllama]

Another case of someone projecting their beliefs onto others in an attempt to explain bad things. Which I guess is what I'm doing by saying "shit happens" and not associating any of what is going on with God...

[freegood]

I think believers should be more upset over those crass attributions more than nonbelievers.

[Morfin]

We non-believers just roll our eyes at the idiocy of this Pastor and his flock.

[redsox39]

It's just insulting to hear someone with the balls to even say something like that. It's like someone saying that the tsunami in 2004 killed all those people because they didn't believe in Jesus.

well...to be fair...they didn't...




jk

[freegood]

We non-believers just roll our eyes at the idiocy of this Pastor and his flock.

I think (hope) that's something everyone believes.

[VoxAngelikus]

Who knew killer bushfires could produce cuteness at a level beyond comprehension?
FvkI8c9eALQ


Come on. Tell me you don't want to take that little guy home with you!


EDIT: By the way... if you listen right at the very end of the clip, Officer Obvious says, "Well, he'll be alright now that the fire's gone!"

[Limp]

Dinner!

[Archangel]

I say, then, that the years of the beatific incarnation of the Son of God had reached the tale of one thousand three hundred and forty eight, when in the illustrious city of Florence, the fairest of all the cities of Italy, there made its appearance that deadly pestilence, which, whether disseminated by the influence of the celestial bodies, or sent upon us mortals by God in His just wrath by way of retribution for our iniquities, had had its origin some years before in the East, whence, after destroying an innumerable multitude of living beings, it had propagated itself without respite from place to place, and so calamitously, had spread into the West.

In Florence, despite all that human wisdom and forethought could devise to avert it, as the cleansing of the city from many impurities by officials appointed for the purpose, the refusal of entrance to all sick folk, and the adoption of many precautions for the preservation of health; despite also humble supplications addressed to God, and often repeated both in public procession and otherwise by the devout; towards the beginning of the spring of the said year the doleful effects of the pestilence began to be horribly apparent by symptoms that shewed as if miraculous.


It's funny how Christians 650 years ago were smarter than those today.

[VoxAngelikus]

Dinner!


Not just dinner. Dinner you can have sex with.

[Hanover Fist]

Apparently there are quite a few that blame the governments 'green' policies for these huge fires getting out of control more than anything else.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/11/weve-lost-two-people-in-my-family-because-you-dickheads-wont-cut-trees-down/

[Yelram]

It's funny how Christians 650 years ago were smarter than those today. God you're fucking retarded sometimes. You pick one smart person from 650 years ago, and try to draw conclusions between this one intellectual and an entire religion. How many christians do you believe were illiterate 650 years ago? I'm sure the typical christian parishioner 650 years ago was smart if they could spell their name. And you pick one whackjob that happened to get their comment aired to the world, and you pick another thats obviously an extremely intelligent individual during the time he existed, and try to use it to draw some sort of stereotypical, intelligence equation.

Thats like me taking some crazy douchebag from Germany, and comparing something he said, to some several hundred year old writing, and coming to the conclusion "Germans were smarter hundreds of years ago"

[Archangel]

Yeah, but back then, the dumb fucking masses had the good sense to shut the fuck up about matters beyond their ken.

Now, they get air time.

[Limp]

Yeah, but back then, the dumb fucking masses had the good sense to shut the fuck up about matters beyond their ken.

Now, they get air time.
Doesn't that say more about the TV Execs? The morons sitting at home wtaching TV enjoying seeing people similar to them?

[Archangel]

Doesn't that say more about the TV Execs? The morons sitting at home wtaching TV enjoying seeing people similar to them?

I just keep thinking that just because somebody can talk, doesn't mean they should. And yeah, obviously the media keep re-affirming idiocy by presenting it as the status quo.

[Limp]

I just keep thinking that just because somebody can talk, doesn't mean they should. And yeah, obviously the media keep re-affirming idiocy by presenting it as the status quo.
How are we still talking about Christians?

[Archangel]

How are we still talking about Christians?

Christianity is supposed to be both a simple AND an intellectual faith. It was built around the words and deeds of a rather smart bloke by people who weren't exactly dumb themselves, chiefly Paul and Augustine. Sadly, now it's been taken over by people who can't even spell "Ockham". It's especially true for the New World, but you can see similar shit here, as well. Surface Christians - follow the letter, because you cannot even begin to comprehend the meaning.

There should be requirements to lead Christian congregations above giving a shout out to God every once in a while.

[Okie Medicvet]

there are some times when christians can piss me the fuck off, and blaming people for the wrath of God (natural disasters) is just one of them.

[redsox39]

It's funny how Christians 650 years ago were smarter than those today.

So...does Giovanni Boccaccio represent the average Christian 650 years ago?

[Yelram]

Christianity is supposed to be both a simple AND an intellectual faith. It was built around the words and deeds of a rather smart bloke by people who weren't exactly dumb themselves, chiefly Paul and Augustine. Sadly, now it's been taken over by people who can't even spell "Ockham". It's especially true for the New World, but you can see similar shit here, as well. Surface Christians - follow the letter, because you cannot even begin to comprehend the meaning.

There should be requirements to lead Christian congregations above giving a shout out to God every once in a while.


If you really believe that Paul is actually where writings like "ROMANS" and "Corinthians" comes from, I feel bad for you.

* Corinthians 11:14

Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him
* 1 Corinthians 11:7

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering (of hair) on her head dishonors her head—she is just like one of the "shorn women." 6 If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. 7 A man ought not to have long hair

The disciples were the bane of Jesus' teaching, "John" was the only one that had much of it right. It demonstrates the 12 archetypes of human folly. But only the "disciple jesus loved" understood what he was teaching to some degree. The rest of them changed it from "Love one another", to "If you dont think Jesus is god, you're going to hell". Explain to me how the two holiest people in the bible had uncut hair (Jesus, and John the Baptist) and yet corinthians and Romans calls it a disgrace? Unless hmmmm maybe the romans thought "hey this Jesus guy is really causing a stir, and it might be better at controlling the people than our current religion, if we structure it right". And then Christianity turned into "kill the pagans". So love one another = kill the pagans.

And then Augustine was some 300 odd years later, so I dont see the connection. By that time, the concept of christianity was so twisted, philosophizing about it became a moot point.

[Archangel]

So...does Giovanni Boccaccio represent the average Christian 650 years ago?
Learn to fucking read.
back then, the dumb fucking masses had the good sense to shut the fuck up about matters beyond their ken.

[redsox39]

Learn to fucking read.

Sorry that 2 people called you out on your bullshit. It was so glaring I stopped reading FORWARD and responded at that time. I later saw I was not the first one who tried to knock to cock out of your mouth for that.

[Archangel]

Sorry that 2 people called you out on your bullshit. It was so glaring I stopped reading FORWARD and responded at that time. I later saw I was not the first one who tried to knock to cock out of your mouth for that.

If people stopped reading your posts because of the rapings to which you subject the English language, none of them would ever get read.

Oh, and you and Yelram are one scary tag team. Good thing you two are around to set me straight, huh.

[Archangel]

But back on topic, what I meant to say was that even back then, people knew that blaming disasters (etymology lesson here - "disaster" means "inauspicious star") on some divine wrath was stupid, because God was essentially unknowable and far too removed from predictable, not to mention petty human reactions.

But good to see that in the colonies, the Renaissance is something that happened to other people, that "Christians" still go for that "we've been punished because we didn't kill all the fags" rubbish. Seriously, start considering Islam, guys.

[Morfin]

Hey, hey, hey. No gratuitous American-bashing here. It's the Aussies and their wacky pastor this time.

[Archangel]

Hey, hey, hey. No gratuitous American-bashing here. It's the Aussies and their wacky pastor this time.

But good to see that in the colonies, the Renaissance is something that happened to other people, that "Christians" still go for that "we've been punished because we didn't kill all the fags" rubbish. Seriously, start considering Islam, guys.

That includes Oz.

[Morfin]

My bad. I am chastened. Carry on, I'll be in the corner with my mouth shut (for a change).

[Archangel]

Here's your new hat.

http://blog.syracuse.com/axeman/2007/07/medium_duncecap.jpg

[Morfin]

I'd retort, but I haveta be quiet here in the corner.

[Archangel]

Shh.

[Yelram]

But back on topic, what I meant to say was that even back then, people knew that blaming disasters (etymology lesson here - "disaster" means "inauspicious star") on some divine wrath was stupid, because God was essentially unknowable and far too removed from predictable, not to mention petty human reactions.

But good to see that in the colonies, the Renaissance is something that happened to other people, that "Christians" still go for that "we've been punished because we didn't kill all the fags" rubbish. Seriously, start considering Islam, guys.

Ummm, you are totally wrong. Have you actually read the bible? Divine wrath is sort of a staple for Christianity, and has been since the fucking romans adapted it to terrify the masses into giving them their trust and money(and even before that, because there is so much of it in the old testament, its hard to know where to start, the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues). I dont know how you can seriously pretend that more people NOW think that God punishes the wicked through natural disasters than 650 years ago(per capita). Its pure idiocy. Why do you think they paid penance? To keep bad things from happening.

[Archetype]

The bible? Yeah, that wasn't written 650 years ago.

[Yelram]

The bible? Yeah, that wasn't written 650 years ago.
Ummm, did I say that somewhere?

[Archetype]

You did sorta use it as your reference.

[Archangel]

Ummm, you are totally wrong. Have you actually read the bible? Divine wrath is sort of a staple for Christianity, and has been since the fucking romans adapted it to terrify the masses into giving them their trust and money(and even before that, because there is so much of it in the old testament, its hard to know where to start, the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues).

Yeah, but I'm not, you know, Jewish.

I dont know how you can seriously pretend that more people NOW think that God punishes the wicked through natural disasters than 650 years ago(per capita). Its pure idiocy. Why do you think they paid penance? To keep bad things from happening.

God, you're thick. Where the fuck did you learn to read? All I said was that even in the Middle Ages, at a time when religion was everything, some people discussed theodicy on a level superior to what is happening today. Where the fuck do I use the word "more"?

All I'm doing is laughing at colonial religious retardedness.

[Yelram]

Yeah, but I'm not, you know, Jewish.



God, you're thick. Where the fuck did you learn to read? All I said was that even in the Middle Ages, at a time when religion was everything, some people discussed theodicy on a level superior to what is happening today. Where the fuck do I use the word "more"?

All I'm doing is laughing at colonial religious retardedness.

And yet the European equivalent isnt to be laughed at? You didnt compare him to whats happening today, you compared him to one irrelevant comment in an article that some slack jawed yokel made. The metaphysical conversations that go on today are on a MUCH higher level than anything Boccaccio could have fucking conceived. Its staggering that you think 650 years ago they had free will vs destiny figured out, or the role God plays in allowing/inciting evil.

And of course you're not Jewish, you're catholic, who used divine wrath as a fear tactic to a level the Jews only dreamed of.

[Archangel]

And that brings me back to my entire point.

650 years ago, those yokels didn't feel the need to share their ignorant-ass views.

[Yelram]

And that brings me back to my entire point.

650 years ago, those yokels didn't feel the need to share their ignorant-ass views.
Actually, if they had a view, and it wasnt the same as the church, they were persecuted, or executed, so i'm sure thats why. We have religious freedom now(to some degree), whereas then, it was quite alright to painfully execute someone for even inferring the church might be wrong. It seems the quote you posted happened to come from a writing that was a criticism of the catholic church, and thats exactly why he tried to be somewhat vague in his statement, because saying it WASNT caused by god as punishment would have been directly in contradiction to what the church was teaching at the time.


"
Boccaccio'S Negative View Of The Christian Church

"Boccaccio's the Decameron is a collection of stories written during the time of the Black Plague in Europe during the 1340's. There are many themes and motifs used in the Decameron. The most interesting motif is the fact that the story is closely bound around people escaping the plague, but none of the stories take any kind of solid religious or political stance. He however, specifically does not take what would be called a Christian point of view on the plague, in fact, he provides a negative view of the Christian church. In part, this indicates that part of the purpose of the Decameron being a fictional work about the plague is not to state that it has come to be because of some divine influence, but rather the purpose of it being to intensify his criticism of the strict ways of the Christian church. In his criticism of the Christian ways, he shows compassion for the suffering of the Florentine people, in the way that the Christian church is holding them back from normal human behavior."

In otherwords he was an early protestant.

[Archangel]

Yeah, and Jesus was the first communist.


Are you really trying to teach me in my chosen field of study now?

[Yelram]

Yeah, and Jesus was the first communist.


Are you really trying to teach me in my chosen field of study now?

Umm, if you're dumb enough to try to say christians were smarter in 1350 than they are now, you must of had some really confused teachers. If Boccaccio actually said what the churches point of view was at the time, it would have been identical to the retards comment.

[Archangel]

William of Ockham > Raptor Jesus.


Hell, Gioacchino da Fiore > all Southern evangelicals put together.

[Yelram]

William of Ockham > Raptor Jesus.


Hell, Gioacchino da Fiore > all Southern evangelicals put together.

Okay tater, when you get back on track with your argument, i'll be right here.

Logic>namedropping because you paid a shit-ton of money for a degree in something as vague as philosophy/metaphysics.

[Archangel]

You're looking for an argument when there isn't one.

Again, for the slow kid:

Even though smart people in the Middle Ages already knew better than to think of natural disasters as divine punishment, there are still people in 2009, mostly in the New World, who have not been able to make that paradigmatic leap. Sadly, modern media give idiots like that, whose definition of religion is untainted by any theological thought whatsoever, an outlet to voice their retarded fucking opinions.

Stupid people should shut the fuck up.

That is basically all that I'm saying.

What's there to fucking argue?

And don't resort to personal attacks just because I spanked your arse in the F-22 thread. It's petty.

[Yelram]

You're looking for an argument when there isn't one.

Again, for the slow kid:

Even though smart people in the Middle Ages already knew better than to think of natural disasters as divine punishment, there are still people in 2009, mostly in the New World, who have not been able to make that paradigmatic leap. Sadly, modern media give idiots like that, whose definition of religion is untainted by any theological thought whatsoever, an outlet to voice their retarded fucking opinions.

Stupid people should shut the fuck up.

That is basically all that I'm saying.

What's there to fucking argue?

And don't resort to personal attacks just because I spanked your arse in the F-22 thread. It's petty.

F-22? You've totally changed your argument like 3 times now. It started out "Look how smart christians were 650 years ago, and now they're dumb" to "Dumb people used to know to shut up". Now its the fault of the modern media "idiots", and finally "people in the new world arent as smart as we Europeans". Which was the argument you were really egging for from the first place, as is the case in about 73.5% of your posts.

[Archangel]

I didn't change anything. I've said all those things in this very thread since the very beginning. I'd quote, but you apparently can't read more than one post at a time, and frankly, you're not worth the effort.

[heelsguy]

i have not been following this story, but just saw the headline of the thread : "...Bushfires....".

aren't these types of fires normally referred to as brushfires? Is that something particular to australia? or are people trying to subliminally blame W?

[Yelram]

I didn't change anything. I've said all those things in this very thread since the very beginning. I'd quote, but you apparently can't read more than one post at a time, and frankly, you're not worth the effort.

I'll quote them for you

It's funny how Christians 650 years ago were smarter than those today.
Yeah, but back then, the dumb fucking masses had the good sense to shut the fuck up about matters beyond their ken.

Now, they get air time.
I just keep thinking that just because somebody can talk, doesn't mean they should. And yeah, obviously the media keep re-affirming idiocy by presenting it as the status quo.

Christianity is supposed to be both a simple AND an intellectual faith. It was built around the words and deeds of a rather smart bloke by people who weren't exactly dumb themselves, chiefly Paul and Augustine. Sadly, now it's been taken over by people who can't even spell "Ockham". It's especially true for the New World, but you can see similar shit here, as well. Surface Christians - follow the letter, because you cannot even begin to comprehend the meaning.

There should be requirements to lead Christian congregations above giving a shout out to God every once in a while.
But back on topic, what I meant to say was that even back then, people knew that blaming disasters (etymology lesson here - "disaster" means "inauspicious star") on some divine wrath was stupid, because God was essentially unknowable and far too removed from predictable, not to mention petty human reactions.

But good to see that in the colonies, the Renaissance is something that happened to other people, that "Christians" still go for that "we've been punished because we didn't kill all the fags" rubbish. Seriously, start considering Islam, guys.
Yeah, but I'm not, you know, Jewish.



God, you're thick. Where the fuck did you learn to read? All I said was that even in the Middle Ages, at a time when religion was everything, some people discussed theodicy on a level superior to what is happening today. Where the fuck do I use the word "more"?

All I'm doing is laughing at colonial religious retardedness.

Thats exactly how I characterized your argument, because THATS EXACTLY WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT CONSISTED OF. Your form of intelligence is to "shut up the "idiots"", which infers you already know whats right, and have deemed those who disagree "idiots" so that you can be the all knowing god of everything. My form of intelligence requires being able to make a cohesive argument to the dumbest of the dumb, without saying "just because" or dropping names to pretend that you are somehow a level above everyone else. Logic is accessible to everyone, as is an array of historical documents. Your statements are incorrect generalizations that emphasize your own brand of stereotypical fascism(a mainstay of your posts, most of them go from a comment about religion or philosophy or politics to "Americans are teh dumb, and the Europeans are teh awesome!!"). I could replace a large number of your posts with that quote, and 85% of the people on GMF wouldnt know the difference.

[wonderllama]

i have not been following this story, but just saw the headline of the thread : "...Bushfires....".

aren't these types of fires normally referred to as brushfires? Is that something particular to australia? or are people trying to subliminally blame W?


We here in Oz say Bushfire, I've only ever heard Brushfire used in the US.

Perhaps we got confused by the 'R' as we're usually swapping its position anyway...centre, metre, etc

[Archangel]

Thats exactly how I characterized your argument, because THATS EXACTLY WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT CONSISTED OF. Your form of intelligence is to "shut up the "idiots"", which infers you already know whats right, and have deemed those who disagree "idiots" so that you can be the all knowing god of everything.

Not true. There are plenty of people with whom I disagree that I consider to be very smart, and even more people who share some of my views whom I consider to be morons.

There is something such as objective idiocy, totally detached from opinion. "These fires are God's punishment on us for allowing women to have abortions" makes you an idiot. It's as simple as that.

My form of intelligence requires being able to make a cohesive argument to the dumbest of the dumb, without saying "just because" or dropping names to pretend that you are somehow a level above everyone else.

Mine doesn't. Fuck dumb people. And it's not "dropping names", it's called knowledge. As opposed to ignorance. If you have no idea who Babe Ruth was, you shouldn't talk about baseball, much less contend to do so with any authority. And you might hate this idea, but the simple fact of the matter is that somebody who has read all those hoity toity books is more qualified to discuss religion than somebody who has not. Full stop.

That goes for atheists AND for religious folk.

Logic is accessible to everyone,

No it isn't.

as is an array of historical documents.

Information on every subject is accessible, but that doesn't make Joe Sixpack an expert on any of them, because he's not accessing them. He's watching TV.

Your statements are incorrect generalizations that emphasize your own brand of stereotypical fascism(a mainstay of your posts, most of them go from a comment about religion or philosophy or politics to "Americans are teh dumb, and the Europeans are teh awesome!!").

There are absolutely fantastic theological faculties in certain US universities. Many fine men of the cloth and religious scholars come from the United States. Nobody is disputing that.

But you are flat out denying that much of the everyday practice of religion in America happens on a kindergarten level, that the average evangelical has never heard the term "exegesis". So Jerry Falwell wasn't popular and influential? Exactly. It may be unfair to pit our best against your worst, but as I pointed out, the latter had 650 years to catch up.

Also, you're an idiot. This thread is about dumb Australian Christians. Notice how I use terms like "the New World". YOU made this out to be about Americans, as usual. If that is all you take away from my posts, you really need to put the flag down and take a deep breath.


I could replace a large number of your posts with that quote, and 85% of the people on GMF wouldnt know the difference

Didn't you just criticise me for ostensibly suggesting that 85% of people in general are beneath me, anyway? So if that's true, why would I care?

[Phil Theehor]

And that brings me back to my entire point.

650 years ago, those yokels didn't feel the need to share their ignorant-ass views.

I'm curious about something, Arch. A common theme of yours is <paraphrased> "the stupid should STFU".

I'm not arguing against that, per se. Frankly, dead air would be a vast improvement over a great deal of what you hear today.

However, something doesn't connect.

Nobody thinks he is stupid. So, even if everyone agreed with that sentiment, it wouldn't reduce that chatter one bit. The dumbest of the dumb are quite convinced of their own intelligence.

When you speak of the days of yore and say "the morons knew not to pipe up", I can't agree with that. I would guess that it was merely the low-born who were not emboldened to speak (or more likely, had no pulpit).

So, you have to assume that there were stupid people born into privilege, too. They, you would think, would feel free to spout their opinions. My guess, here, is that we just don't hear it today because only the finest thoughts would have survived over the centuries.

Taking into account the great effort it took to write down and then transcribe, again and again, what people were saying, it's no surprise that the words of the 1500 version of Jerry Falwell are not readily available for us to mock today.

[wonderllama]

Further to your point Phil, I don't agree that only the finest thoughts would have survived over the centuries...I think the loudest voices survived over the centuries.

I'm positive there are plenty of people whose commentaries or philosophies have lasted over the years who aren't quite as great as some might have us believe. A lot of the religious ideas do have a romantic element to them, but I certainly don't think they are being remembered today because they were all correct.

Like I once said to a friend with depression who told me that he wanted to kill himself and was thinking more clearly now than ever..."It doesn't matter how right you think you are, if your initial position was tainted, your conclusions will be skewed"...

I feel the same way about a lot of these long held beliefs of which many surely must have come from incorrect initial assumptions.

So too this raving nutter who is linking the fires to abortions, he is reaching a skewed conclusion, or offensive in this case, because he is working from an incorrect starting point.

[Morfin]

Further to your point Phil, I don't agree that only the finest thoughts would have survived over the centuries...I think the loudest voices survived over the centuries.

I'm positive there are plenty of people whose commentaries or philosophies have lasted over the years who aren't quite as great as some might have us believe. A lot of the religious ideas do have a romantic element to them, but I certainly don't think they are being remembered today because they were all correct.

I disagree with this. The thoughts and ideas of the great ancient scholars have lasted because of the fact that what they said has been examined, analyzed, and discussed generation after generation, and has stood the test of time. There is a reason for Plato being read and studied thousands of years after the words were written.

I think your argument may apply to some artistic works where there is more of a subjective analytical element rather than an intellectual element.


So too this raving nutter who is linking the fires to abortions, he is reaching a skewed conclusion, or offensive in this case, because he is working from an incorrect starting point.

Why is this belief -- that the fires are devine retribution -- any harder to accept that the concept that there is a God? That is, why is this pastor's belief in devine retribution any less valid than say the belief in God but not the belief in devine retribution? (I ask this, not to be trollish; I am wondering this while half-asleep.)

[wonderllama]

For me, it is easier to label his position as that of a raving nutcase because he one step further along the religion train, which I already don't believe.

For someone to say, it's God's work, I say, "uhuh".
For someone to say, it's God's work because you allowed an abortion law to pass, I say "Oh dear...is it a full moon?"

So as I pointed out at the beginning of the thread, I'm unlikely to be the person to turn to for reasonable debate about his position.

As for my other statement about the thoughts and ideas of ancient scholars, I was sure to not make it a sweeping statement as obviously there is a lot that is recorded and remembered because it HAS been examined etc as you point out. But we shouldn't simply accept Hypothesis A simply because it has stood the test of time. Galileo came up with Hypothesis B regarding the rotation of what around what, and yet he wasn't super popular with some people at the time (right up til 1992 with others I believe).

Anyway, I've forgotten where I was going with this but I'm pretty sure I wasn't paying out on everyone we've ever heard of throughout history as that would be pretty stupid.

[Archetype]

Why is this belief -- that the fires are devine retribution -- any harder to accept that the concept that there is a God? That is, why is this pastor's belief in devine retribution any less valid than say the belief in God but not the belief in devine retribution? (I ask this, not to be trollish; I am wondering this while half-asleep.)
Simple answer: divine retribution requires more jumps to reach, and less reversible. Especially when Christianity is supposed to teach tolerance and love towards your fellow man.

[wonderllama]

I think he said what I meant.

[Yelram]

Mine doesn't. Fuck dumb people. And it's not "dropping names", it's called knowledge. As opposed to ignorance. If you have no idea who Babe Ruth was, you shouldn't talk about baseball, much less contend to do so with any authority. And you might hate this idea, but the simple fact of the matter is that somebody who has read all those hoity toity books is more qualified to discuss religion than somebody who has not. Full stop.

That goes for atheists AND for religious folk.


Absolute horseshit. Does knowing about Babe Ruth make someone play baseball better? If someone SUCKS at baseball, and yet knows everything about Babe Ruth, does he automatically hit home runs? You're exposure to certain philosophies has as much tainted the truth of your own reality, as it has somehow "advanced" you in "philosophy/religion". And again, I cant take anyone seriously who is supposed to be a religious scholar, and yet is a self-professed Catholic.



No it isn't.



Information on every subject is accessible, but that doesn't make Joe Sixpack an expert on any of them, because he's not accessing them. He's watching TV.

In otherwords, you dont know how to learn from anyone who isnt on your perceived "scholarly" level. You are missing out on alot of important information if you automatically drone out everyones opinion with "LALALA YOU ARENT SMART LALALA I KNOW MORE LALALA QUOTE FROM SOME ITALIAN GUY TO SHUT YOU UP" And then someone questions your premise, and you suddenly attack them for "trying to teach you in your subject". As if your subject somehow isnt mine. And as if spiritually, someone who has read 1000 thoughts of someone elses even compares to someone who has an original one of their own. I suppose enlightenment can be achieved through scholarly pursuits in your world.



There are absolutely fantastic theological faculties in certain US universities. Many fine men of the cloth and religious scholars come from the United States. Nobody is disputing that.

But you are flat out denying that much of the everyday practice of religion in America happens on a kindergarten level, that the average evangelical has never heard the term "exegesis". So Jerry Falwell wasn't popular and influential? Exactly. It may be unfair to pit our best against your worst, but as I pointed out, the latter had 650 years to catch up.

Also, you're an idiot. This thread is about dumb Australian Christians. Notice how I use terms like "the New World". YOU made this out to be about Americans, as usual. If that is all you take away from my posts, you really need to put the flag down and take a deep breath.

Umm, maybe you need to do some more "book readin" because last time I checked when someone refers to the "colonies" or the "new world" they arent specifically referring to Australia. Jerry Falwell has so little actual religious significance, its laughable. Thats like saying Jesse Jackson speaks for all Black people, when it comes to religion. He's more a political commentator than anything else. Everyday practice of religion is supposed to be fucking collegiate? You remind me of one of those people who is so close to a subject, they have absolutely no connection with it. You think you've got religion/philosophy/spirituality all figured out, when the true nature of it, is to be ambiguous. One persons personal life experience is worth as much as anothers, regardless of their IQ, degree, or job.

[Archangel]

And again, I cant take anyone seriously who is supposed to be a religious scholar, and yet is a self-professed Catholic.

This is all I read.

Dude, get professional help. You're obviously not right in the head.

[Yelram]

This is all I read.

Dude, get professional help. You're obviously not right in the head.

And why is that? I have never met someone involved in the study of religion that has positive things to say about Catholicism, unless they started studying religion, because they were catholic.

Or now that I look at it, PWNED.

[Archangel]

Because you suggest that since I'm part of the confession which has brought forth about 95% of significant theologians in history, I cannot comment on theology.

That's like saying that you don't take Phil Jackson's comments on basketball seriously because he's won 9 NBA titles as a coach. Protestantism (not counting Anglicanism) has given the world TWO great thinkers, Luther and Kierkegaard, both of whom I absolutely admire. As for the rest, it's a pretty brain dead bunch.

[Yelram]

Because you suggest that since I'm part of the confession which has brought forth about 95% of significant theologians in history, I cannot comment on theology.

That's like saying that you don't take Phil Jackson's comments on basketball seriously because he's won 9 NBA titles as a coach. Protestantism (not counting Anglicanism) has given the world TWO great thinkers, Luther and Kierkegaard, both of whom I absolutely admire. As for the rest, it's a pretty brain dead bunch.

I'm sure your POV on who is significant isnt influenced at all by you being Catholic, and European though right? I'm sure if I talked to an Islamic religious scholar, they would agree that "95%" of "significant" theologians were catholic HAHA. Thats laughable. And dude, kill the sports analogies, they arent helping you any. I'm not entirely protestant, because it was impossible to revert christianity back to Christ once the Catholic Church had tainted it beyond repair. The protestants got some of the most egregious miscommunications, but they certainly didnt revert it back to its gnostic roots. Your thinkers just got recorded, and propagated due to the hierarchy of the church in Rome.

Oh and since we're name dropping

Lao Tzu + Rumi >> Anything Europe has to offer.

[Archangel]

Let's fillet this shit, 'cause it's fun and easy.

Absolute horseshit. Does knowing about Babe Ruth make someone play baseball better? If someone SUCKS at baseball, and yet knows everything about Babe Ruth, does he automatically hit home runs?

Dumbest comparison ever. In sports, there is a difference between theory and practice. In pure thought, everything is theory. Understanding philosophy and practising it are one and the same thing.

In otherwords, you dont know how to learn from anyone who isnt on your perceived "scholarly" level.

I'm in academia. This is what I do. Monday morning QBs can, frankly, kiss my arse.

You are missing out on alot of important information if you automatically drone out everyones opinion with "LALALA YOU ARENT SMART LALALA I KNOW MORE LALALA QUOTE FROM SOME ITALIAN GUY TO SHUT YOU UP" And then someone questions your premise, and you suddenly attack them for "trying to teach you in your subject". As if your subject somehow isnt mine.

Not more/less smart, more/less informed. redsox has an opinion on Middle Eastern politics, even though he thinks that a newspaper is some bog roll before the sports pages. I don't know how high his IQ is. I know that he knows little on the issue.

And as if spiritually, someone who has read 1000 thoughts of someone elses even compares to someone who has an original one of their own.

No, but someone whose thought process is sparked by Plato may, just may, have better original thoughts than one whose own thoughts are sparked by Family Circus.

I suppose enlightenment can be achieved through scholarly pursuits in your world.

How else? Taking drugs?

Umm, maybe you need to do some more "book readin" because last time I checked when someone refers to the "colonies" or the "new world" they arent specifically referring to Australia.

Wasn't meant to. I was being deliberately ambiguous, since many of the ills regarding religion which ail Australia plague the US, as well.

[Yelram]

Let's fillet this shit, 'cause it's fun and easy.



Dumbest comparison ever. In sports, there is a difference between theory and practice. In thought, everything is theory. Understanding philosophy and practising it are one and the same thing.



I'm in academia. This is what I do. Monday morning QBs can, frankly, kiss my arse.



Not more/less smart, more/less informed. redsox has an opinion on Middle Eastern politics, even though he thinks that a newspaper is some bog roll before the sports pages. I don't know how high his IQ is. I know that he knows little on the issue.



No, but someone whose thought process is sparked by Plato may, just may, have better original thoughts than one whose own thoughts are sparked by Family Circus.



How else? Taking drugs?



Wasn't meant to. I was being deliberately ambiguous, since many of the ills regarding religion which ail Australia plague the US, as well.

Ummm, I think you more or less just reinforced my synopsis of you. If you think there is more philosophical significance in writings of men from a time period we cant relate to, than here and now, and people around you, I feel bad for what you think philosophy is.

[Archetype]

I just wanted you to know, Llama, that I pretty much hate you for starting this thread.

[Archangel]

I'm sure your POV on who is significant isnt influenced at all by you being Catholic, and European though right? I'm sure if I talked to an Islamic religious scholar, they would agree that "95%" of "significant" theologians were catholic HAHA. Thats laughable.

And? Who gives a flying fuck. We are talking about Christianity here. Are you too daft to understand context?

And dude, kill the sports analogies, they arent helping you any.

How about you stop telling me what to do.

I'm not entirely protestant, because it was impossible to revert christianity back to Christ once the Catholic Church had tainted it beyond repair. The protestants got some of the most egregious miscommunications, but they certainly didnt revert it back to its gnostic roots. Your thinkers just got recorded, and propagated due to the hierarchy of the church in Rome.

Oh, so you're a fundamentalist. Got it.

Oh and since we're name dropping

Lao Tzu + Rumi >> Anything Europe has to offer.

And about as pertinent to a discussion on Christian theodicy as, say, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

[Yelram]

And? Who gives a flying fuck. We are talking about Christianity here. Are you too daft to understand context?



How about you stop telling me what to do.



Oh, so you're a fundamentalist. Got it.



And about as pertinent to a discussion on Christian theodicy as, say, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

Christian theodicy? Is that what you're talking about? My comments were purely to prove your assertions wrong, and undermine your base philosophy behind it, I have nothing to prove about Christian Theodicy. Its always been the same, the wrath of god is inherent in the language of the religion. If you're a catholic, and you believe the "wrath of god" doesnt exist, you arent a catholic. And again, many of the other religions of the world had rationalized how God and evil interact long before the Christian Church even began. And many of them have God as the creator of evil, in one form or another (Like the old Testament, where God creates satan, but everyone blames satan for existing, as if he created himself.). The idea that God only produces GOOD things is far more intellectually unfounded than the possibility that god might send some sort of divine retribution. Much of the basis for "divine retribution" was actual scientific occurrences, like forbidding the eating of pork, due to the trichinae worm, which would eventually kill someone back before proper medicine. Or the Neo Pagans warning us that our CO2 emissions will make the earth turn against us.

Oh and if you somehow extracted from this conversation that i'm a "fundamentalist" you are seriously dumb.

[Archangel]

http://www.aerthyr.net/images/facepalm2.jpg

[kid_vidrio]

And? Who gives a flying fuck. We are talking about Christianity here. Are you too daft to understand context?



How about you stop telling me what to do.



Oh, so you're a fundamentalist. Got it.



And about as pertinent to a discussion on Christian theodicy as, say, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
Arch, your thoughts on Faith being the real fabric of religion (forgive me if I have misinterpreted) have softened my position on organized groups of zealots, helped me understand some 'religious' motivation, and frankly restored some of my...well, faith.
With that said, associating gnosticism with fundamentalism is a reach. I can see the semantic argument, but I think you cast an unfair light on yelram's intentions.

[Archangel]

With that said, associating gnosticism with fundamentalism is a reach. I can see the semantic argument, but I think you cast an unfair light on yelram's intentions.That wasn't my point.
He's a fundamentalist because he's as ridiculous about Catholics as tater is about white people.

[kid_vidrio]

That wasn't my point.
He's a fundamentalist because he's as ridiculous about Catholics as tater is about white people.
I think then that we have very different uses for the word 'fundamentalist' as it pertains to religion.

[UNC]

This thread is HoF material

[UNC]

That wasn't my point.
He's a fundamentalist because he's as ridiculous about Catholics as tater is about white people.

and as you are with Americans!

[Archangel]

I think then that we have very different uses for the word 'fundamentalist' as it pertains to religion.

I cant take anyone seriously who is supposed to be a religious scholar, and yet is a self-professed Catholic.

it was impossible to revert christianity back to Christ once the Catholic Church had tainted it beyond repair.

Your thinkers just got recorded, and propagated due to the hierarchy of the church in Rome.

Sounds like "your opinion and your scholars aren't worth shit, infidel" to me.

[Archangel]

and as you are with Americans!

Nah, just Southerners.

<3

[UNC]

hey now

[UNC]

Maybe everyone needs to have ideas instead of beliefs. You can change an idea [/dogma]

[kid_vidrio]

Sounds like "your opinion and your scholars aren't worth shit, infidel" to me.
I read something very different.
Your choice of quotes somewhat supports your position, but it doesn't make him a fundamentalist.
Perhaps to clarify, I consider a fundamentalist someone who throws out rational thought in favor of literal interpretation as it supports their value system.

[Yelram]

Sounds like "your opinion and your scholars aren't worth shit, infidel" to me.

I abstain from involving myself in anything pertaining to the Catholic church. The main reason being that they have done more bad in the name of christ than any group on the face of the planet. If Christ were here, he'd slap you himself for inferring that they have some sort of higher morality, or higher spiritual understanding. I find that the native Americans had some of the most advanced spirituality and theological concepts, and yet they were subjugated by the self-righteous, self-endorsing, Spaniards. Like I said, anyone who takes philosophy/spirituality seriously, would never allow themselves to be any part or parcel of the catholic church. I am an alltheist, and i'd say as far as intelligent philosophical teachings, catholicism ranks about dead fucking last. If you can logically rationalize the "trinity" into existence out of monotheism, you can make up any bullshit for the idiotic masses to swallow. Theres nothing fundamental about that. I atleast admire the fundamentalists for trying to directly interpret the meaning of the bible instead of rationalizing materialistic concepts out of immaterialism.

[Yelram]

http://www.aerthyr.net/images/facepalm2.jpg

Its great to see that this is the best response our resident philosophizer can muster. When you decide to use words, and logic, and intelligence again, i'll be here. If you want to post cutesy little pictures, Off topic is always there.

[Archangel]

I abstain from involving myself in anything pertaining to the Catholic church. The main reason being that they have done more bad in the name of christ than any group on the face of the planet.

No! Really?

You know, that may have something to do with Catholics having been the dominant force in Christianity since, well, forever. This is like tater saying that you couldn't trust a white man with your money because most tax evasion in America was perpetrated by white men. Forgive me for the immaturity unbecoming a theological mind such as yours, but fucking duh.

If Christ were here, he'd slap you himself for inferring that they have some sort of higher morality, or higher spiritual understanding. I find that the native Americans had some of the most advanced spirituality and theological concepts, and yet they were subjugated by the self-righteous, self-endorsing, Spaniards.

While the largely Protestant settlers in North America got their land from the Indians through fairness, kisses, and flowers.

Like I said, anyone who takes philosophy/spirituality seriously, would never allow themselves to be any part or parcel of the catholic church.

Seriously, man, fuck you. You read a couple of books, and you denigrate one billion people because it makes you feel smarter. The challenge lies in dealing with the past, not just cutting off any part of your beliefs that would make you prone to criticism.

I am an alltheist, and i'd say as far as intelligent philosophical teachings, catholicism ranks about dead fucking last.

Yeah. Augustine. Clairvaux. Francis. Aquinas. Ockham. Dante. All dumber than you.

You know, you criticise me for considering myself intellectually superior to some forum jackasses, yet you have the indescribable fucking gall to flat out deny any merit to an entire school of thought.

"Alltheist", what the fuck is that but some bullshit cobbled together by people with about as much gravitas as Donald Duck?

You are a fucking joke.

Its great to see that this is the best response our resident philosophizer can muster. When you decide to use words, and logic, and intelligence again, i'll be here. If you want to post cutesy little pictures, Off topic is always there.

And yet, singularly unable to get one. People who are unable to tolerate levity are usually idiots.