[schrocat]

Originally Posted by Ninong

If we want to get into semantics, just look at the word "communism." It has a very negative connotation, even in the former communist countries now. Yet communism in it's purest form is EXACTLY what Jesus was preaching. Communism is the purest form of Christianity! In fact, it was once (and may still be for all I know) practiced in monasteries.

Fish and the loaves.
...I imagine Jesus would be looked down upon these days for feeding those bums in the park.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

Fish and the loaves.
...I imagine Jesus would be looked down upon these days for feeding those bums in the park.

He would be arrested for doing it without a permit.

Here.

[Ninong]

Why Lincoln Chafee has quit the Republican Party

PROVIDENCE — Lincoln D. Chafee, who lost his Senate seat in the wave of anti-Republican sentiment in last November’s election, said yesterday that he has left the party.

Chafee said he disaffiliated with the party he had helped lead, and his father had led before him, because the national Republican Party has gone too far away from his stance on too many critical issues, from war to economics to the environment.

“It’s not my party any more,” he said.

[SPasse]

Ninong,

I know that you think that most of the Republicans that are leaving the party are doing so strictly for political expediency. I.E. “rats off of a sinking ship.”

But really, there are lots of “old school” Republicans that really are sick of what the Republican Party has degenerated into.

I believe that Franklin Roosevelt is spinning in his grave as well.

I had always thought that creating/supporting a 3rd party was an exercise in futility. But now I think that we actually might be at the same kind of tipping point that occurred when the Whig party broke up and the Republican Party was born. (The Republican party of Abraham Lincoln, not the current train wreck)

As far as Jesus being a communist, well the applied reality of political communism in recent history was Marxist-Leninist Bolshevism. I can’t see Jesus putting his “name” behind that…

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPasse

Ninong,

I know that you think that most of the Republicans that are leaving the party are doing so strictly for political expediency. I.E. “rats off of a sinking ship.”

No, I don't. I think that the ones who have been closely associated with the present administration are 'rats' abandoning a sinking ship but not the ones who were members of the Reagan administration or the Bush the Elder administration who have spoken out forcefully against the current GOP leadership. Some are even calling for the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney.

But really, there are lots of “old school” Republicans that really are sick of what the Republican Party has degenerated into.

Just remember that the neo-cons couldn't have done it without the help of the rubber-stamp Republican Congress.

(The Republican party of Abraham Lincoln, not the current train wreck)

Political parties evolve over time. The party of Lincoln had different priorities. Many of its goals are now goals of the current Democratic party. The current Republican party began to change during the mid-1960's following the first of the civil rights laws that Lyndon Johnson supported. That's when the segregationist Southern Democrats were welcomed with open arms by the GOP. Later on Nixon recognized this trend with his Southern Strategy.

After Ronald Reagan was elected, the neo-cons started infiltrating the GOP. They didn't really come into full power until George W. Bush was installed in the White House. (P.S. -- They actually entered during the Ford administration, when Ford made Rumsfeld his Secretary of Defense and Cheney his Chief of Staff.)

As far as Jesus being a communist, well the applied reality of political communism in recent history was Marxist-Leninist Bolshevism. I can’t see Jesus putting his “name” behind that…

You're confusing communism with Communism. Jesus preached communism! He didn't preach going out and buying a $10 million mansion with a 6-car garage filled with luxury cars and gigantic SUVs.

I'm not talking about the political system known as Communism, I'm talking about communism in its truest form, which is what I have always said every time I make this point. That's why I always make the reference to monasteries.

The word "communism" is originally from the Latin communis = common. When applied to social conduct it means sharing of resources for the common good. That is exactly what Jesus preached! He didn't preach accumulation of wealth, he preached giving it all away.

If you had chosen to enter a religious order that requires vows of poverty, chastity and obedience (when you were considering the priesthood), you would have become a communist in the truest sense of the word. Communism is the sharing of wealth and resources according to individual need. All contribute according to their abilities and all receive according to their needs. You can call that pure socialism or pure communism or pure Christianity. Forget about all of the political meanings and economic meanings and focus on the core meaning of the words.

Jesus was a liberal! He was also a socialist! And he was a communist in the purest sense of the definition of the word!

Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus say you should accumulate personal wealth. On the contrary, he repeatedly says you should give it all away if you want to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

The trouble with Christians today is that they don't understand their own religion and they certainly don't practice it. Maybe it's time for them to rewrite the Bible again?



Christianity 101
Matthew 19:21-24
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

[SPasse]

George,

“You're confusing communism with Communism. Jesus preached communism! He didn't preach going out and buying a $10 million mansion with a 6-car garage filled with luxury cars and gigantic SUVs.”

No, I am not confusing it in the least. I was not making references to a communal monastic lifestyle of which I am personally familiar with from my direct exposure to it back when I was exploring the Priesthood. A “communal” community (at least in a democracy) is joined voluntarily.

Jesus was certainly not a “big C” Communist or “Big S” Socialist. Communism & Socialism would redistribute wealth by compulsion. Giving under compulsion is not a product of love but rather the product of thievery and extortion.

While there are many appeals in the Bible to share out of love, there was never a call to have "all things in common".

The capitalistic system was the engine to drive and implement the technologies which got us out of the dark ages.

The answer will never be the destruction of capitalism in favor of communism or socialism, but rather the prudent temperance and channeling of capitalism.

We need to work on methods that will channel capitalism to productive ends. I.E. point it in the right direction and get out of its way. Capitalism has given those who have had unfettered access to it the highest standard of living the world has ever known.

I have absolutely no interest in reverting back to some sort of medieval communal existence.

And the actual reality (outside of religious monasteries) of communism in the 20th century has been the “Big C” Marist Leninist Communism that mentioned previously.

Just as a point of reference, what present government would you hold up as an example of an ideal? Even Western Europe is waking up to the Darwinian reality of Socialism, collapsing under its own weight of inefficiency.

Do I hold those who wallow in excesses, up as something to be idolized? Absolutely not. But that is due to a spiritual sickness of another sort that cannot be blamed on Capitalism any more than being fat can be blamed on the existence of abundant food.

Finally, let’s put Matthew 19:21-24 in context by following it with the thought being completed by Matthew 19:25-26:

Mat 19:25 “When the disciples heard {this,} they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?"

Mat 19:26 And looking at {them} Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

I'm not supporting any form of government in my post and certainly not Communism. I'm just pointing to the obvious hypocrisy exhibited by so many fundamentalist Christians who claim to believe every word of the Old and New Testament and yet pick and choose only the parts that please them to put into practice.

P.S. -- While we're on Matthew:

Matthew 5:17-19
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

That means that ALL of the laws as put forth in the Old Testament are still to be enforced! So don't eat any shrimp because that's an abomination.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPasse

Schrocat,

“Atheism is not a religion no matter how you slice it, want it, or wish it to be.”

I respectfully disagree.

Religion is the belief in the unknown based on what cannot be systematically proven.

Atheism is the belief that there cannot exist what cannot be systematically proven.

Both are belief systems that cannot be proven or disproven systematically and therefore religion.

Perhaps an argument can be made that Agnosticism is not a religion.

Regards,

Scott

Originally Posted by Ninong

Interesting definition. Where did you find that one? Or is that your personal definition?



P.S. -- It sounds more like a definition of faith, rather than religion.

Scott,

You never did explain where you found that atheism is a religion. You seem to reluctantly concede that agnosticism may not be a religion but I'm still wondering where in the world you found a definition of atheism that considers it to be a religion. The only definitions that I have found that would meet that criteria were written by fundamentalist Christian writers, and they tend to consider "evolutionism" to be a religion, too.

Agnosticism is simply a form of skepticism that holds that the existence of God cannot be logically proved or disproved. Atheism, on the other hand, goes a lot further than that. Atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods or of any supernatural existence. Agnosticism means simply "without knowledge" and atheism means simply "without theism" (without God or gods, from the Greek a-, without, and theos, gods).

Even if we ignore the "do unto others" bit that most people include in a definition of religion, we are still left with a belief in the divine -- God or gods. I don't see how you can have a religion without a belief in the supernatural. Atheism is simply a rejection of a belief in the supernatural. How does that make it a religion if a fundamental component of religion is a belief in the divine?

[SPasse]

Ninong,

“Atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods or of any supernatural existence”
Therefore is a belief based on something that can neither be proven or disproven. For me at least, this sufficiently meets the definition of a religion.

And again in practical application, the Atheists that I have spoken with are every bit as religious in their Atheism as the fundamentalist Christians are in their beliefs.

Another definition in the Merriam Webster’s online dictionary:

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

2 “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices”

If you then go to the link for the word religious, you get; “relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity” “Ultimate reality or deity, not ultimate reality and a deity.

If my understanding of “ultimate reality” includes the “denial of the existence of God or gods” then that constitutes a “religious” perspective.

Religion & religious practice are also not one in the same.

Science is at least honest enough to refer to evolution as “The Theory of Evolution”

Should evolution be taught in schools as science; absolutely not.

A course in “World Religions” thought as an exercise in diversity, should be. Actually, I took a course called “World Religions” when I went to Denver South High School. (Public)

But science must also guard against religion as it tends to become religious about its beliefs as well. I hope if the day comes when some physicist, cosmologist or scientists discovers “God” via the scientific method, that scientific religiosity doesn’t compel him to “cover it up”

Regards,

Scott

[SPasse]

Ninong,

“I'm just pointing to the obvious hypocrisy exhibited by so many fundamentalist Christians who claim to believe every word of the Old and New Testament and yet pick and choose only the parts that please them to put into practice.”

AMEN – No pun intended.

But the democrats are certainly a circus of their own:

Like Jesse Jackson accusing candidate Barack Obama of "acting like he's white," because he isn’t ready to play the race card over the Jena, Louisiana murder investigation. Jesse Jackson in an ongoing embarrassment to American political life.

Senator (Jaba the hut) Kennedy. I don’t have the time (nor perhaps does the Reefland site have the storage capacity) to post that soap opera. I am also convinced that John F. Kennedy is spinning in his grave. Where in the hell has that kind of democrat gone.

Finally, I am at the point where I want to start a thread titled “Why it’s time for a third party”

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPasse

Ninong,

“Atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods or of any supernatural existence”
Therefore is a belief based on something that can neither be proven or disproven. For me at least, this sufficiently meets the definition of a religion.

You accept a broad definition of religion. I prefer to think of religion as requiring a belief in at least one god.

Science is at least honest enough to refer to evolution as “The Theory of Evolution”

The difference between the scientific definitions of "theory" and "law" is one of degree. In my mind, Newton's Law of Gravity should be referred to as the Theory of Gravity. That is not meant to diminish it, only to point out that we still don't understand it very well. Einstein proved that Newton's view of gravity was incomplete and not completely accurate.

Should evolution be taught in schools as science; absolutely not.

Of course evolution is science and should be taught in schools as science. In saying that you don't believe it should be taught as science, you're betraying a warped view of the essence of science. Science itself is an ever evolving body of knowledge subject to modification based on new discoveries. It is not static like religious dogma. Of course, religious dogma is not static either but that's a topic for another thread.

Suffice it to say that the theory of evolution is absolutely fundamental to virtually all other areas of scientific inquiry today. It's just as important as the theory of gravity.

And science is not religion. Some people speak of the philosophy of science but I don't see why it's necessary to think of it in philosophical terms. It is what it is -- a method for inquiry and understanding of the physical nature of our environment.

But science must also guard against religion as it tends to become religious about its beliefs as well.

Science doesn't tend to become "religious," individuals tend to cling too long to their personal positions even after they have been refuted. And it is only human to defend one's position against attack. That doesn't make science religious. It just points out that we as humans are not nearly as open-minded as we should be and often too resistant to change, e.g. Einstein's difficulty accepting quantum mechanics and Hoyle's refusal to abandon Steady State even after the discovery of the cosmic background radiation.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPasse

Ninong,

“I'm just pointing to the obvious hypocrisy exhibited by so many fundamentalist Christians who claim to believe every word of the Old and New Testament and yet pick and choose only the parts that please them to put into practice.”

AMEN – No pun intended.

But the democrats are certainly a circus of their own:

Ah, but most Democrats don't go around piously preaching what they don't themselves practice. There are exceptions, of course, but most of the exceptions are, shall we say, "religious in nature." Jesse Jackson comes to mind!

Like Jesse Jackson accusing candidate Barack Obama of "acting like he's white," because he isn’t ready to play the race card over the Jena, Louisiana murder investigation. Jesse Jackson in an ongoing embarrassment to American political life.

Jesse Jackson has made a career out of "being Jesse Jackson." The same could be said for Al Sharpton.

The Jena Six situation is much more complicated than it is being portrayed in the national media. Yes, there is racial discrimination there but there is racial discrimination in a lot of other places, too. It's just more obvious in some places.

Without rehashing the entire Jena Six story, let's just review a few points that seem to have been missed by the media. One black student asked if it was OK to sit under the "white kids' tree." The fact that the white kids and the black kids were self-segregating is a sad reflection of their upbringing -- actually it's a sad reflection of the white kids' upbringing, not the black kids' upbringing.

The next day, three symbolic nooses were found hanging from that shade tree. The school's principal investigated and discovered three guilty white students and attempted to expel them. The principal was overruled by the all-white school board and the three white students were given only a brief suspension (I believe it was only three days).

Months went by before the "schoolyard brawl" took place. Three months! And it was not a schoolyard brawl, it was an ambush of a white student by six black students. The white student was knocked to the ground and the six black students repeatedly kicked him while he was on the ground and unconscious. This attack was not directly related to the nooses hanging from the tree a few months earlier. It was indirectly related in the sense that there was a lot of animosity between the white and black students but this particular attack was the result of that white student having ridiculed one of the black students previously. It was payback for a previous verbal exchange.

In essence, this is what you had at Jena: A school deeply divided along racial lines (only two races there, black and white). A few white students who were wannabe David Dukes. Those kids should have been disciplined whenever they acted up. It should not have been allowed to go on. That's a reflection on the school's management. Nooses in a tree, or in a locker, or anywhere else should never be tolerated but just look at former Sen. George "Macaca" Allen (R-CSA), who kept nooses hanging from a tree in his office.

The mitigating factor for the six black kids is the racial discrimination that was obviously a problem at that school. The complicating factor is that they engaged in a very brutal, criminal assault of a single white student -- six on one. Another complicating factor for the black student who was the first one convicted as an adult is that he has a rather lengthy rap sheet of previous offenses.

Another mitigating factor is that the white kid was not seriously injured. He was knocked out but he was treated and released from the hospital within a few hours. He could have been seriously injured but it just so happens that he wasn't.

The D.A. overcharged -- attempted second degree murder was ridiculous! And none of the Jena Six should have been tried as adults. All of them should have been tried in juvenile court. Mychal Bell, the first on the Jena Six to go to trial was convicted of aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy by an all-white, six-person jury, a white judge and a white prosecutor. His public defender did not call a single witness in his defense. The public defender was black.

His conviction has been thrown out by the Louisiana appeals court on the ground that Louisiana law does not allow a juvenile to be tried as an adult for aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy. The prosecutor will have to retry him in juvenile court if he wants to proceed. Meanwhile Bell is still in jail. The appeals court is now demanding that a bond hearing be held within 72 hours.

Another point the media seems to have overlooked is that a black U.S. Attorney, Donald Washington, investigated the Jena Six case and held a town-hall meeting explaining that there was no evidence connecting the jumping of the white student to the noose incident more than three months earlier. The Jena Six blamed the beating of the white student on the noose incident only after the prosecutor overcharged them with attempted murder. It was not mentioned when they were first arrested. There were 40 witness statements presented in this case and not a single one connected this to the noose incident three months earlier.

Another point that the press seems to have missed is that the reason there were no blacks on the jury is because not a single black person responded to the more than 100 jury summons that were sent out. The court had a pool of 50 white people to choose from.

At the time of this incident, Mychal Bell was on probation for a December 25, 2005 battery conviction. He was convicted of two other violent crimes in 2006 and one charge of criminal damage to property.

Senator (Jaba the hut) Kennedy. I don’t have the time (nor perhaps does the Reefland site have the storage capacity) to post that soap opera. I am also convinced that John F. Kennedy is spinning in his grave. Where in the hell has that kind of democrat gone.

Yes, well, what can I say? For every Democrat you pick out, I can find at least one Republican just as soap opera-worthy. And JFK was no saint either, although I was happy to vote for him over Richard Nixon. And while we're on the no-saints topic, what about Bubba? For all his obvious personal issues, he did manage to do a better job than Reagan or either Bush when it came to running the country. I wasn't completely satisfied with Bubba either but I was less dissatisfied with him than I am now with Dubya.

Finally, I am at the point where I want to start a thread titled “Why it’s time for a third party”

Why not just improve one or both of the two existing parties? A two-party system is more manageable than a multi-party system.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPasse

Like Jesse Jackson accusing candidate Barack Obama of "acting like he's white," because he isn’t ready to play the race card over the Jena, Louisiana murder investigation.

Jena, Louisiana "murder" investigation? What murder?

Maybe Jesse Jackson is just jealous that Barack Obama is a more serious candidate that he ever was?

Finally there is an African-American candidate for the presidential nomination of a major political party who is being taken seriously and now he's being asked if he's "black enough?" And why does he have to be called black in the first place? His father was black and his mother was white. He's neither black nor white, he's half and half. This is a throwback to the old "one drop" racial crap of the past. Why is Tiger Woods black? He's half black and half Asian.

Racism affects all races negatively. And if you think you understand racism, you don't unless you grew up in a weird place like New Orleans, where there are essentially three races: black, white and in between. That's a reflection of our French and Spanish colonial past.

[SPasse]

George,

“Ah, but most Democrats don't go around piously preaching what they don't themselves practice. There are exceptions, of course, but most of the exceptions are, shall we say, "religious in nature." Jesse Jackson comes to mind!”

AMEN – Again.

Nothing is destroying the “Christian Witness” more that the hypocrisy of some of the high profile “Christian fundamentalists”

Living in a small (but rapidly growing) town in East Texas I am privileged to be a member of a SBC Baptist Church that that is more involved (positively) in the lives of it parishioners than any “religious organization” I have ever come in contact with. A while back, one of the associate pastors was involved in an “indiscretion” with a member of his staff and was very quickly “dealt with” (expelled) by the senior pastor. The senior pastor is very conscious of not tarnishing our witness. There are a number of theology issues that I take exception to but of course that (protest) is part of the “real” Baptist tradition as well…

“The fact that the white kids and the black kids were self-segregating is a sad reflection of their upbringing -- actually it's a sad reflection of the white kids' upbringing, not the black kids' upbringing.”

That “self-segregation” is coming from both sides. One of my high school aged cousins was staying with us when we first moved down here. As the black kids constituted the majority of the students on the school bus, she (as a white kid) was forced to ride in the back of the bus. While older folks like myself understand this as being tied in with sort of a “Jim Crow Payback”, to the current generation it is just plain old discrimination. Furthermore the bus driver was aware of this and tolerated it. A number of my black friends openly admitted that acquitting O.J. Simpson was also “Jim Crow Payback”

The good news is that (in general) Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Gays etc. are socially integrating (including dating each other) My area, (East Texas) not so many years ago was still as racially divided as the rest of the “Old South” My “conservative” white friends are having more issues with the rapper/gangster culture as opposed to actual racial issue. IMO, the rapper/gangster culture is doing a lot of damage to race relations as well.

Regards,

Scott