[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
further, coming from both a fundamentalist and charismatic christian background, i am quite well aware of the christian world view, and of most evangelicals views on orthodoxy, law, and ritual.
Whoa. I missed this. This explains much.
How much interaction have you had with Reformed theology?[/quote]
my problems with Christianity, and my reasons for leaving the faith, stem not from any particular theological views. as a matter of fact, i have many of my own positive views on theology and the bible, and i think these are somewhat plausible. (this i way i claim to be agnostic, because i honestly do not know what to believe).
my problem though with Christianity is not the particular doctrinal views of any one denomination or movement, but rather are fundamental problems with the very basic notions of monotheistic religion itself. there are several metaphysical, logical, and ethical inconsistencies which seem to stem from the very basic posits of monotheism itself. (not to mention a vast number of historical problems relating to the biblical claims of inerrancy). these problems are not easily resolved, and too numerous for me to ignore.
perhaps that didn’t come out how i wanted it to. i did not mean to suggest that ethics was such a simple science that it was easily accessible to all. indeed, many ethical problems are quite complicated.
my point in the killing example was rather to show that there is no need for an “ultimate” law giver to decree that killing is wrong. though many cases would be more complicated, the same sort of reasoning about ethics (based on some sort of axiomatic ethical system, which would ultimately be based on a clear metaphysic) could answer those questions as well (at least in theory).
I think, if we’re to say that one ethical system is “shallow” or not, or the philosophers espousing one system or another are “shallow” in their treatment of it, it helps to have read them.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
my problem though with Christianity is not the particular doctrinal views of any one denomination or movement, but rather are fundamental problems with the very basic notions of monotheistic religion itself. there are several metaphysical, logical, and ethical inconsistencies which seem to stem from the very basic posits of monotheism itself. (not to mention a vast number of historical problems relating to the biblical claims of inerrancy). these problems are not easily resolved, and too numerous for me to ignore. [/quote]
I’m guessing you are either an atheist or you shun all forms of organized religion?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
my problem though with Christianity is not the particular doctrinal views of any one denomination or movement, but rather are fundamental problems with the very basic notions of monotheistic religion itself. there are several metaphysical, logical, and ethical inconsistencies which seem to stem from the very basic posits of monotheism itself. (not to mention a vast number of historical problems relating to the biblical claims of inerrancy). these problems are not easily resolved, and too numerous for me to ignore.
I’m guessing you are either an atheist or you shun all forms of organized religion?[/quote]
umm… read the paragraph above the one you quoted again.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
there are several metaphysical, logical, and ethical inconsistencies which seem to stem from the very basic posits of monotheism itself. (not to mention a vast number of historical problems relating to the biblical claims of inerrancy). these problems are not easily resolved, and too numerous for me to ignore.
Can you say what you mean here? [/quote]
i don’t really have time to give details, but i’ll briefly run through a few. (note that most of these go back to plato and aristotle)
the first interesting metaphysical problem is the problem of individuation without a physical body. that is, christian’s claim that after death each individual soul will continue on to either heaven or hell. BUT… given the fact that everything that individuates you from me is connected to our physical bodies, what is left to individuate our souls? without bodies, we cannot have physical sensations, without physical sensations, no experience, and without experience, no mental thought.
of course, the bible is quite clever in getting around the individuation of souls problem with a few obscure references to a “new body”. we will have some sort of “spiritual” body. this raises another question: just what will be the metaphysical or ontological condition of this body? given the current state of metaphysics and ontology, there seems to be no possible answer. without a coherent description of what this new metaphysical status will be like, this response is all but useless.
the next problem involves predication and the attributes of god. without going into modern formal logic, it is just incoherent to predicate a predicate of itself. that is, the assertions that “god is love” and “god loves me” are incoherent and contradictory. there are possible ways to get around this, but just about all of them involve contradicting scripture at some point.
next is a problem relating to god’s eternal nature. one good question to start with is, if god is infinite, is he a countable or uncountable infinitely? (ok, i jest, though a question like this is a testament to the power of human understanding). anyway… a real question concerning god’s eternal nature concerns god’s atemporality. that is, when we say god is eternal, we do not mean that god always was and always will be (if that is so, i get to ask my infinity question), but rather that god is simply outside of time. if god is outside of time, then we must produce a coherent explanation about how god can interact with a temporal world.
there are many other problems with delineating a description of god, and without a coherent description the concept is useless. i personally am all for throwing out some of the supposed properties of god, such as omniscience, omnipresence, etc…
another problem is ethical. the statements “god is good” and “it is good to obey god’s laws” are incoherent. basically, it is incoherent to assert that god is the standard of morality (the law giver) and that god is himself good.
anyway… this is a sample. please remember that in giving list list, i haven’t tried to explicitly lay out the problems, nor did i intend to outline them sufficiently to warrant a response. (i’m not trying to debate these, i don’t have time). you simply asked what problems i was referring to, and i’m just telling you. i do realize that there are responses and answers to some of these, like i said, i’m just laying out what problems i was referring to.
EDIT:
notice i left out things like the trinity problem (explaining the trinity in coherent terms). thats because i don’t think the trinity is a problem, i think there are perfectly coherent accounts of it inside of the bounds of faith. i also left out silly things like the “problem of evil”, because i think those are also dealt with easily.
Some (most) of the issues you raise are well addressed by Maimonides in the Guide for the Perplexed. Have you read it? If not, I recommend the Shlomo Pines translation, unless you are fluent in Arabic and Hebrew.
The problem of immortality of the soul is not addressed; only the Torah is treated.
Alfarabi does speak to immortality of the soul. It is not a satisfying account, however, which may have been intentional.
Yes Channel 4 did prevail however the police were able to put a message out to everyone which was this: If you do not have the wealth neccessary to resist an assault by the state you better shut the fuck up. Channel 4 is a corporation with plenty of lawyers to defend it. The common man does not have such protection.
In America with our 1st amendment protection of free speech the police would not attempt such a prosecution. Which is not to say that the mosque might not have been able to try and bring a civil lawsuit, but even there they would have had an uphill battle.
There is a different mentality over here when it comes to freedom of speech. Yes there are some facists like president Bush with his free speech zones but they don’t get much traction.
Let me get this straight: you argue that Channel 4 only got off because they are a rich corporation. I’ve been looking for the evidence of that - and I’m afraid I can’t find anything that supports that assertion. [/quote]
Are you saying that channel 4 doesn’t have more resources than the average person? That makes no sense. It takes big money to run a tv station. When it comes to taking on the government in a legal battle it helps a lot to have a good lawyer and it’s even better to have several good lawyers. This is a simple concept.
But no I am not arguing they only got off because they are a rich corporation. But I am arguing that if the individual does not have the same kind of resources as Channel 4 (which is the vast majority of people) the spectre of an assault by the police is very ominous. Even though they lost they showed they will try to prosecute. It is intimidation tactics by the government. Your minimizing it because Channel 4 won ignores the fact that the government is trying to intimdate people.
In Britain there is no guarantee of freedom of speech and the government there has an atrocious record when it comes to civil liberties. The British people are complete lightweights when it comes to standing up for civil liberties. People who will take to the streets and storm parliament to fight the men in tights over fox hunting could care less about the EU constitution or id cards, or 42 days arrest with out charge. People over there get worked up over the stupidist bullshit while ignoring what is important.
The novelist Ian McEwan has launched an astonishingly strong attack on Islamism, saying that he “despises” it and accusing it of “wanting to create a society that I detest”. His words, in an interview with an Italian newspaper, could, in today’s febrile legalistic climate, lay him open to being investigated for a “hate crime”.
In an interview with Guido Santevecchi, a London correspondent for Corriere della Sera, the Booker-winning novelist said he rarely grants interviews on controversial issues “because I have to be careful to protect my privacy”.
But he said that he was glad to leap to the defence of his old friend Martin Amis when the latter’s attacks on Muslims brought down charges of racism on his head. He made an exception of the Islamic issue out of friendship to Amis, and because he shares the latter’s strong opinions.
Mr McEwan made his comments to Guido Santevecchi, a London correspondent for Corriere della Sera, and it is even possible he could now be investigated by police for a hate crime.
But is he? That’s my whole point here - it’s easy to assert that the people ‘may’ and ‘could’, but are they? Not so far. Being watchful is alright, being alarmist without evidence doesn’t help one’s argument. [/quote]
Yes they could be charged and that is the point. Just because they may get a pass someone else who isn’t famous might not be so lucky. One has to watch what they say over there. But again you just minimize it.
[quote]
[…]
The New Blasphemy
Britain Debates The Limits Of Religious Free Speech.
Omar Marzouk, a Muslim comedian from Denmark, had but one request at last month’s Edinburgh Fringe Festival. “Tell me if you don’t find my jokes funny,” he told his audience. “I don’t want to die–I’m not that kind of Muslim.”
Poking fun at the world’s religions was de rigueur at Edinburgh’s annual stage jamboree. Reason: fears that a controversial new “anti-blasphemy” law could curtail freedom of speech. The proposed legislation, to be debated by Britain’s House of Lords next month, allows prosecution in cases where behavior or written material–such as a book, play or broadcast–could potentially incite religious hatred.
Home Office officials say the law would not bar legitimate criticism of religion–nor comedians’ lampooning of faiths–but argue that there must be some defense against speech motivated by religious hatred. With religion intruding into politics and the arts across Europe, though, many worry the legislation is a step too far.
You are referring to a debate that happened three years ago about a bill that was defeated in parliament - by a thin majority of one, but still, turned down. [/quote]
Again you minimize a serious problem. Blasphemy laws are immoral and completely out of touch with the times. It’s the Twenty First century, it’s time to get rid of such laws not extend them.
[quote]
Existing British blasphemy laws cover Christianity. Sikhs and Jews are shielded because they are regarded as distinct races falling under laws prohibiting incitement to racial hatred. Muslim groups have lobbied for similar protection since 1988, with the publication of Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses,”
Tony Bliar during prime ministers questions was asked if he supported making holocaust denial illegal like it is in several European countries and he said yes he did. This is the kind of dictatorial mentality they have over there.
OK, I’m still checking that, but I can’t find any evidence for that. There are articles which accuse him of rowing back on that, and a BBC blog entry on the fact that the UK seems to think that current laws already cover this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6363561.stm
I know that holocaust denial laws are a contentious issue here, and I personally haven’t made my mind up. But I would like to think that it’s not unusual for Germany and Austria to have laws wrt to that - in an attempt to keep neo-nazism at bay. Funnily enough, no one really gets into to trouble for this offense, except for neo nazis. As any society curtails free speech to a certain extent under certain circumstances - including your own - this is the line that’s drawn in Germany. [/quote]
I watched Bliar say he supported such laws during PM’s questions. Bliar is a lawyer so he understands the concept of precedent. You should study up on it.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p069.htm
PRECEDENT - Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later.
You see Makkun once the government has the authority to tell people what they can and cannot believe about one historical event, it can dictate what people can and can’t believe about any historical event. No government should ever have that kind of power.
Austria and Germany were the countries responsible for the nazi’s and the holocaust. There is still a lot of nazi sentiment in those countries so they have the law to keep their nazis out of view because people will want to follow them. It doesn’t make sense in other countries where anyone expressing those views will just be ignored and called a nazi like it’s a bad thing.
Freedom of speech laws are at their most important not when they are protecting a majority group expressing a popular view. They are most important when they are protecting a minority group expressing an unpopular view.
[quote]
[…]
He’s not in office anymore!?!?!?!?! Wow this is news to me! Who replaced him? Was it Straw or Harperson? Please don’t tell me it was that idiot Brown.
My point had nothing to do with who is presently in power. My point was that when he was prime minister Bliar (who is a lawyer) felt perfectly safe stating in the house of commons that he supported enacting a law that would severely limit freedom of speech and there was not a peep out of anyone. The reason why noone said anything is that is the mentality over there.
After trying to berate stokedporcupine for not knowing about Britain because he doesn’t live here (or so I understood your question earlier), you seem awfully sure you know life in Europe. If you refer to an anti-nazi mentality, I would to certain extent be proud of that. If you are referring to an anti-free speech mentality, I think you’re wrong: so far none of the alarmist predictions you have made in this thread have either happened or were they turned down by parliament, the courts or the media regulator. [/quote]
I’ve lived in England and Germany and most of my family lives in Britain. So I do have some idea of what it is like over there. The Nazis are a popular boogeyman whose legacy can be used to manipulate people by getting them emotional and stupid.
The EU is behaving like the nazis but noone particularly cares. Britain has surveilance of it’s citizens that the nazis would have loved to have. They aren’t all that anti-nazi over there. They think they are but not really.
[quote]
The British are very supportive of the government being able to exert a high level of control over what people think and say.
The British don’t have a strong mentality of the people having control over the government. They have a strong mentality of roll over and play dead. Accept without protest what the government does because they are the authorities and authority is never wrong.
America on the other hand was born out of a rejection of the British mentality and way of doing things.
I really don’t get what you are referring to, as you haven’t so far been able to give a current and correct account of any of your assertions being supported by evidence.
As stated before, it is valid to say we should be vigilant towards our governments - and that’s exactly what’s happening; funnily enough the ones that tend to speak up against the curtailment of civil liberties tend to come from what on these boards is being looked down upon as the liberal left wingers. I wonder why that is the case.
Makkun[/quote]
Britains labour party is the liberal leftwingers. They have no respect for democracy. The EU rules state that once the Irish rejected the constitution the treaty was dead. They refuse to accept that and follow the rules. Same for the Germans, they are still acting like the nazis by bullying small countries into giving them their way. The labour party election manifesto at the last general election said that the British people would be allowed to have a refferendum on the EU constitution. How’s that one going?
[quote]the first interesting metaphysical problem is the problem of individuation without a physical body. that is, christian’s claim that after death each individual soul will continue on to either heaven or hell. BUT… given the fact that everything that individuates you from me is connected to our physical bodies, what is left to individuate our souls? without bodies, we cannot have physical sensations, without physical sensations, no experience, and without experience, no mental thought.
of course, the bible is quite clever in getting around the individuation of souls problem with a few obscure references to a “new body”. we will have some sort of “spiritual” body. this raises another question: just what will be the metaphysical or ontological condition of this body? given the current state of metaphysics and ontology, there seems to be no possible answer. without a coherent description of what this new metaphysical status will be like, this response is all but useless.
[/quote]
Individuation is not connected solely to sensory perceptions or empirical avenues.
Not everything that individuates you from me is connected to our physical bodies.
3 badly burned persons who do not have dental samples available are not distinguished solely from another in virtue of only in reference to physical bodies. Doctors ask questions, probe their minds, to find their identity by talking to them, in addition to the necessity of physical individuation.
Christian metaphysics:
We are a living soul.
We have a body.
I realize Cartesian Dualism is different from Aristotolian dualism , but Dualism is still dualism, and it is here to stay.
And Dualism does not presume or need or imply that “everything that individuates us from one another is connected to our physical bodies.”
Or consider the Doctrine of the Trinity.
I believe in 3 persons of the Trinity. They are different in person, yet God.
Their differences are ontic, yet their differences are not dependent on any explanation being physically or empirically based, unless one happens to be a Mormon.
Or consider demons.
Demons are not inherently physical. When has a demon ever had a physical body? Maybe in the Garden of Eden. But mostly they are non-physical. They are fallen, wicked angels that inhabit the spiritual realm. But they are different from angels who have NOT fallen. Demons are different from God. Yet their ontological differences are not dependent on any physical or sensory perception or empirical avenues.
What is left to individuate our souls?
The same ontic thing that individuates individual wicked demons from good angels and from God.
The essence of God is that He only contains properties that only He has; Demon 1 soul has properties and attributes that only Demon 1 has, and not Demon 2. Notice the lack of any physical individuation or physical connection here.
God is a being whose ontological nature contains the attribute of love.
Because God’s moral character has the essential quality of love, God, as a being, is able to actualize and “act upon” and thus love human agents.
There is no contradiction here.
But the philosophy of religion journals that you quickly dismissed earlier already have raised these questions.
There are card-carrying Christians who are members of the atemporal camp; some of the eternal camp; and others, like myself, who are of the “God is everlasting” camp.
As far as infinity, I believe it is impossible to transverse or cross an actual infinite. That is why I disagree with the naturalists who argue that the Earth is an actual infinite. I believe the Earth had a beginning, in part, because a beginning eliminates the problems of the actual infinite.
Is God countable?
How is this a problem?
How is this relevant?
This seems like a semantic game, especially considering you refuse to read philosophy of religion journals.
I take it that here you are invoking Euthrypo’s dilemma. You have sort of a strange view of it that perhaps you could expand upon. We don’t believe we should obey God because he gives us laws, rather that God is good, he wills good, moral laws flow from the will of a good God and we ought to therefore obey them.
Are you saying that channel 4 doesn’t have more resources than the average person? That makes no sense. It takes big money to run a tv station. When it comes to taking on the government in a legal battle it helps a lot to have a good lawyer and it’s even better to have several good lawyers. This is a simple concept.
But no I am not arguing they only got off because they are a rich corporation. But I am arguing that if the individual does not have the same kind of resources as Channel 4 (which is the vast majority of people) the spectre of an assault by the police is very ominous. Even though they lost they showed they will try to prosecute. It is intimidation tactics by the government. Your minimizing it because Channel 4 won ignores the fact that the government is trying to intimdate people.[/quote]
The police and the CPS are not the ‘the government’. It’s called separation of powers. And they got kicked so massively into their balls in public which was very costly, that I wonder whether any intimidation attempt may have backfired so that they will be very careful should they ever consider anything like that again.
Free speech in the UK is guaranteed under Article 10 of the Human Rights act (yes, the one Daily Mail is continuously foaming at the mouth over) as part of the European Convention. I can’t really make any statements about ‘the British’ as I can’t quantify or qualify any observations. I agree that the fox hunting stuff is out of proportion, but resistance to ID cards and especially 42 days without charge are liberties issues which are hotly discussed - and heavily fought over.
[quote][…]
Yes they could be charged and that is the point. Just because they may get a pass someone else who isn’t famous might not be so lucky. One has to watch what they say over there. But again you just minimize it.[/quote]
Under which law can they? The one you brought up was thrown out. I don’t need to minimise anything that doesn’t seem to exist.
I couldn’t agree more.
[quote][…]
I watched Bliar say he supported such laws during PM’s questions. Bliar is a lawyer so he understands the concept of precedent. You should study up on it.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p069.htm
PRECEDENT - Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later.[/quote]
You must be referring to PMQs during John Major’s times as all I can find is: Blair supported it as Labour leader in 1997, before becoming PM and backing away from it in 2000.
That’s a discussion-worthy point. It just hasn’t and doesn’t seem to be happening in the UK.
That’s crap. I’m German, I have been voting there for 20 years, I read German newspapers daily and besides small ripples of resurgence in East Germany, there is no large support within the population for national socialism. Oh, and the only really function nazi-party in Germany the NPD is falling apart over financial issues.
Yes.
[quote][…]
I’ve lived in England and Germany and most of my family lives in Britain. So I do have some idea of what it is like over there. The Nazis are a popular boogeyman whose legacy can be used to manipulate people by getting them emotional and stupid.
The EU is behaving like the nazis but noone particularly cares. Britain has surveilance of it’s citizens that the nazis would have loved to have. They aren’t all that anti-nazi over there. They think they are but not really.[/quote]
Wow, while the British surveillance state is indeed worrying (most cameras are by the way installed privately, not by the state), your point about the EU is really worrysomely crazy. Just to point out to the many EU-bashers here, the EU seems to be incredibly popular with all those countries lining up to gain membership.
If you compare today’s British labour party with the one in the 70s and 80s you’ll see how much less leftwing they are. I really wonder where you get your information from - most of your sources seem to have been stuck in time some time between 5 and 10 years ago.
Yes, the Irish have held their referendum, and that’s thrown a massive spanner in the works. Yes, the Labour party seems to have changed their mind - just like they changed their view on a holocaust denial law. Politicians flip-flop - what a surprise.
The current options being looked at are not in any form bullying Ireland or any other members:
continued ratification by everyone else (as is their right) while a special deal with Ireland is negotiated
ratification is put on hold and a new reform treaty may be brought up in the future
the Lisbon treaty is scrapped and a new treaty is written based on it - built around the Irish referendum
a two-tier Europe develops with a closer political union with the countries that want to do so, and looser ties with the countries that don’t BBC News - Q&A: The Lisbon Treaty
I’ll not honour your jibe that the Germans act like nazis with a proper reply as it is a) offensive, b) without evidence.
first, again let me state that i did not try to form these problems in any particular way… i only meant to answer your question. (thus, i am not prepared to argue these, because the problems have not been set out in any sort of rigor).
next, again, i never denied that there weren’t responses to them. (the problem really comes in when one tries to answer all of these within the same logical and metaphysical system and still remain biblically correct).
anyway, a few brief responses…
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Individuation is not connected solely to sensory perceptions or empirical avenues.
Not everything that individuates you from me is connected to our physical bodies.
3 badly burned persons who do not have dental samples available are not distinguished solely from another in virtue of only in reference to physical bodies. Doctors ask questions, probe their minds, to find their identity by talking to them, in addition to the necessity of physical individuation.
Christian metaphysics:
We are a living soul.
We have a body.
I realize Cartesian Dualism is different from Aristotolian dualism , but Dualism is still dualism, and it is here to stay.
And Dualism does not presume or need or imply that “everything that individuates us from one another is connected to our physical bodies.”
Or consider the Doctrine of the Trinity.
I believe in 3 persons of the Trinity. They are different in person, yet God.
Their differences are ontic, yet their differences are not dependent on any explanation being physically or empirically based, unless one happens to be a Mormon.
Or consider demons.
Demons are not inherently physical. When has a demon ever had a physical body? Maybe in the Garden of Eden. But mostly they are non-physical. They are fallen, wicked angels that inhabit the spiritual realm. But they are different from angels who have NOT fallen. Demons are different from God. Yet their ontological differences are not dependent on any physical or sensory perception or empirical avenues.
What is left to individuate our souls?
The same ontic thing that individuates individual wicked demons from good angels and from God.
The essence of God is that He only contains properties that only He has; Demon 1 soul has properties and attributes that only Demon 1 has, and not Demon 2. Notice the lack of any physical individuation or physical connection here.
[/quote]
while one may argue by positing a certain metaphysical system that not everything that individuals you from i is connected to our physical bodies, empirical evidence seems to suggest otherwise. this really isn’t a philosophical or metaphysical problem, its a physical problem.
i could argue this in many ways, but a quick example is taken from sensory deprivation. if an individual is put into sensory deportation (that is, so they receive no sensory input), they will quickly (after about a day), go brain dead. it seems that mental function is dependent on physical experience.
furthermore, all the other things you posit as providing for individuation (such as personality, past experience, etc…) are also based on… experience. without continuing experience, these things are lost. (our memories are fragile, we forget quickly).
this amounts to a bunch of big word hand waving and question begging. this only reasserts the same problem, and in fact, provides more problems. some basic questions arise: what is now the ontological status of “love”? is it a universal? if it is a universal, in virtue of what is it defined? (plato’s third man problem). and then there is the basic problem of self predication: how can a thing which is in a formal domain of predicates be instantiated under itself?
there is in fact many serious contradictions here (they differ depending on how you want to formalize what your saying), you just lack the background in formal logic to see them. honestly, if i had to pick, this is the biggest problem that i see.
i’m really not to interested in hearing what someone untrained in math has to say about infinitely or time. (though there actually are some good things written about the subject from christian writers).
are you familiar with any formal theories on infinity? or are you just going off your own intuitive understanding? your statement that “it is impossible to transverse or cross an actual infinite” is non-nonsensical (and probably wrong in formal set theory anyway, depending on how you interpret what your saying).
what seems to you like semantic games would be clear if you knew any formal set theory.
[quote]
I take it that here you are invoking Euthrypo’s dilemma. You have sort of a strange view of it that perhaps you could expand upon. We don’t believe we should obey God because he gives us laws, rather that God is good, he wills good, moral laws flow from the will of a good God and we ought to therefore obey them. [/quote]
actually i’m just pulling this problem right from Plato’s Euthyphro. ah… but i’m running out of time. perhaps i’ll come back to it.
anyway… again, i’m merely trying to lay out general descriptions of problems. not trying to debate them. you asked, i answered.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
(not to mention a vast number of historical problems relating to the biblical claims of inerrancy).
This is the watershed issue in Christianity for the past 130 years at least. Perhaps you could expand upon your beef with inerrancy. [/quote]
my beef is simple: without inerrancy, you have no Christianity worth practicing. since the inerrancy of the bible is highly suspect, having a Christianity that is worth practicing seems doubtful.
Are you saying that channel 4 doesn’t have more resources than the average person? That makes no sense. It takes big money to run a tv station. When it comes to taking on the government in a legal battle it helps a lot to have a good lawyer and it’s even better to have several good lawyers. This is a simple concept.
But no I am not arguing they only got off because they are a rich corporation. But I am arguing that if the individual does not have the same kind of resources as Channel 4 (which is the vast majority of people) the spectre of an assault by the police is very ominous. Even though they lost they showed they will try to prosecute. It is intimidation tactics by the government. Your minimizing it because Channel 4 won ignores the fact that the government is trying to intimdate people.
The police and the CPS are not the ‘the government’. It’s called separation of powers. And they got kicked so massively into their balls in public which was very costly, that I wonder whether any intimidation attempt may have backfired so that they will be very careful should they ever consider anything like that again. [/quote]
I have family who are police over there, I can guarantee you they are government employees. The Crown part of the Crown Prosecution Service refers to The Queen who is the head of state. The CPS is the government department responsible for prosecutions agianst those carged with criminal offenses.
In Britain there is no guarantee of freedom of speech and the government there has an atrocious record when it comes to civil liberties. The British people are complete lightweights when it comes to standing up for civil liberties. People who will take to the streets and storm parliament to fight the men in tights over fox hunting could care less about the EU constitution or id cards, or 42 days arrest with out charge. People over there get worked up over the stupidist bullshit while ignoring what is important.
Free speech in the UK is guaranteed under Article 10 of the Human Rights act (yes, the one Daily Mail is continuously foaming at the mouth over) as part of the European Convention. I can’t really make any statements about ‘the British’ as I can’t quantify or qualify any observations. I agree that the fox hunting stuff is out of proportion, but resistance to ID cards and especially 42 days without charge are liberties issues which are hotly discussed - and heavily fought over. [/quote]
The Human Rights Act gets maligned because it is full of half baked ideas that go too far. Which is typical over there, they come up with laws but never think them through. They never ask can this law cause problems?
It was the human rights act that prevented the British from deporting Bin Laden’s man in Europe back to his country of origin because he may get mistreated there. So instead they have to let a known Alqaeda organiser walk free and pay him $100,000 a year in benefits.
It is also the human rights act which guarantees the right to a family, which is why they could not deport Learco Chindamo to Italy after he served his sentence for the gang related murder of an innocent school teacher.
It is also the right to a family that prevents the government from limiting the number of immigrants. If they let one person in they have the right to bring in their whole family who in turn have the right to bring in all their family.
I can’t remember exactly when I saw him say it but it wasn’t more than three years ago.
You see Makkun once the government has the authority to tell people what they can and cannot believe about one historical event, it can dictate what people can and can’t believe about any historical event. No government should ever have that kind of power.
That’s a discussion-worthy point. It just hasn’t and doesn’t seem to be happening in the UK. [/quote]
It hasn’t gone anywhere yet. But it wasn’t soundly rebuked either. That is cause for concern. Europeans don’t think things through. They will be all happy to give the government a dangerous weapon because it will be used on a handful of bad guys like the nazis, but they don’t stop to think about how this same weapon could also be turned upon themselves.
The really bad part is when a leader who is also a lawyer says he supports such a law. A lawyer should understand very well the implications of such a law in setting legal precedent.
[quote]
Austria and Germany were the countries responsible for the nazi’s and the holocaust. There is still a lot of nazi sentiment in those countries so they have the law to keep their nazis out of view because people will want to follow them. It doesn’t make sense in other countries where anyone expressing those views will just be ignored and called a nazi like it’s a bad thing.
That’s crap. I’m German, I have been voting there for 20 years, I read German newspapers daily and besides small ripples of resurgence in East Germany, there is no large support within the population for national socialism. Oh, and the only really function nazi-party in Germany the NPD is falling apart over financial issues. [/quote]
It is hard to know what the full extent of support is in Germany because of the laws there. They haven’t eliminated the nazis but they have driven them underground. That is the problem with making laws that restrict what people can say. You don’t get rid of the ideology as much as take it out of the public view.
[quote]
Freedom of speech laws are at their most important not when they are protecting a majority group expressing a popular view. They are most important when they are protecting a minority group expressing an unpopular view.
Yes.
[…]
I’ve lived in England and Germany and most of my family lives in Britain. So I do have some idea of what it is like over there. The Nazis are a popular boogeyman whose legacy can be used to manipulate people by getting them emotional and stupid.
The EU is behaving like the nazis but noone particularly cares. Britain has surveilance of it’s citizens that the nazis would have loved to have. They aren’t all that anti-nazi over there. They think they are but not really.
Wow, while the British surveillance state is indeed worrying (most cameras are by the way installed privately, not by the state), your point about the EU is really worrysomely crazy. Just to point out to the many EU-bashers here, the EU seems to be incredibly popular with all those countries lining up to gain membership. [/quote]
My point is not crazy at all. The unanimity rule is in article 48 of the treaty on European Union. This is a procedural rule that was put into the treaty to prevent the large states like Germany from steamrolling over small states like Ireland. The Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty/EU constitution by a democratic vote. The EU has decided to break it’s own rules of procedure and is trying to continue trying to inflict this unwanted constitution on everyone. Implementing the constitution through illegal means is what is crazy.
The countries who are eager to gain membership are poor countries who want to gain economically by getting handouts from the EU. They can also export large numbers of their unemployed who will go to the wealthy countries get jobs and send back money.
[quote]
Britains labour party is the liberal leftwingers. They have no respect for democracy. The EU rules state that once the Irish rejected the constitution the treaty was dead. They refuse to accept that and follow the rules. Same for the Germans, they are still acting like the nazis by bullying small countries into giving them their way. The labour party election manifesto at the last general election said that the British people would be allowed to have a refferendum on the EU constitution. How’s that one going?
If you compare today’s British labour party with the one in the 70s and 80s you’ll see how much less leftwing they are. I really wonder where you get your information from - most of your sources seem to have been stuck in time some time between 5 and 10 years ago. [/quote]
Tony Bliar is and was nu-labour. With Bliar gone so is the illusion that they have really changed. They still want to tax everything they can, then waste the money. They still want to make as many people dependent upon the welfare state as possible. They still want to flood the country with immigrants and make helping immigrants a priority over taking care of the indigenous people.
[quote]
Yes, the Irish have held their referendum, and that’s thrown a massive spanner in the works. Yes, the Labour party seems to have changed their mind - just like they changed their view on a holocaust denial law. Politicians flip-flop - what a surprise. [/quote]
Spanner? The Irish are the third country to have rejected the Constitution in a referendum. When the people are given the chance to voice their opinion they reject it. The EU refuses to take no for an answer. This refusal by the EU to bow to the will of the electorate is why the EU must be stopped.
The current options being looked at are ignoring the rules. The unanimity rule makes the Irish vote the end. Carrying on like the Irish don’t matter is bullying.
When Britain signed up for the common market it was only supposed to be a trade agreement. The electorate was told that it would never be a federal state that would take over as their government. Right from the start the EU has been built upon lies and deciet.
[quote]
I’ll not honour your jibe that the Germans act like nazis with a proper reply as it is a) offensive, b) without evidence.
Makkun[/quote]
It was your German Riechschancellor Merkel who said that the EU treaty was too important to be decided democratically because the people can’t be trusted to give the correct vote. You Germans still have little regard for demcracy. And the Deutscheland Uber Alles mentality is still there. You Germans still want to see all the countries of Europe under the iron fist of a German dominated superstate that doesn’t follow the rules governing it and doesn’t respect democracy. It might be offensive to point it out, but Merkel is acting like a nazi by forcing Germany’s will on everyone else.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
(not to mention a vast number of historical problems relating to the biblical claims of inerrancy).
This is the watershed issue in Christianity for the past 130 years at least. Perhaps you could expand upon your beef with inerrancy.
my beef is simple: without inerrancy, you have no Christianity worth practicing. since the inerrancy of the bible is highly suspect, having a Christianity that is worth practicing seems doubtful. [/quote]
You say you don’t want to debate these things, but then again, you do. Which is it? If you’re going to be making statements on a forum like this, I think you ought to dispense with the handwaving and agree to debate them like everyone else, or else don’t make the statements.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
(not to mention a vast number of historical problems relating to the biblical claims of inerrancy).
This is the watershed issue in Christianity for the past 130 years at least. Perhaps you could expand upon your beef with inerrancy.
my beef is simple: without inerrancy, you have no Christianity worth practicing. since the inerrancy of the bible is highly suspect, having a Christianity that is worth practicing seems doubtful.
You say you don’t want to debate these things, but then again, you do. Which is it? If you’re going to be making statements on a forum like this, I think you ought to dispense with the handwaving and agree to debate them like everyone else, or else don’t make the statements. [/quote]
ah, my past couple posts i’ve merely been trying to clarify positions on certain things. (for example, clarifying that i think of the individuation of the soul as an empirical, not metaphysical, problem)
constructive debate in most of these topics is not possible. is it reasonable at all to think that you and i could meaningful debate fundamental theological issues in this medium? these issues are huge, there are thousands of pages of work written on them. And, as we both have pointed out, we are generally not acquainted with the same writings (i am not acquainted with the metaphysics of current top Christian philosophers, and you are not acquainted with formal logic or set theory, and yes, this means i spoke in haste about current Christian ethics being “shallow”).
my whole point in posting in this thread was not to prove any positive position that i hold–it was rather to comment on the absurdity of the bishop’s comments.
anyway, i enjoy these discussions, and if you’d like to narrow the topic down quite a bit, then i’ll debate. (perhaps its time for another thread then)
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[…] I have family who are police over there, I can guarantee you they are government employees. The Crown part of the Crown Prosecution Service refers to The Queen who is the head of state. The CPS is the government department responsible for prosecutions agianst those carged with criminal offenses.[/quote]
Following that logic every public servant in the UK is ‘working for the government’. Hm, that would include me…
Let’s clarify: the 43 UK police forces are controlled by Police Authorities, normally made up of:
9 local councillors appointed by the local council
5 independent members selected following local advertisements
[quote] The Human Rights Act gets maligned because it is full of half baked ideas that go too far. Which is typical over there, they come up with laws but never think them through. They never ask can this law cause problems?
It was the human rights act that prevented the British from deporting Bin Laden’s man in Europe back to his country of origin because he may get mistreated there. So instead they have to let a known Alqaeda organiser walk free and pay him $100,000 a year in benefits.
Qatada is on bail. His restrictions include: He must wear an electronic tag and must not attend a mosque or lead prayers or religious instruction.
Abu Qatada must also stay in his west London home for at least 22 hours a day, and cannot attend any kind of meeting. He is also forbidden from using mobile phones, computers or the internet.
Police have special permission to enter and search his home while Abu Qatada is banned from having guests other than family and solicitors.
How luxurious. The human rights act did exactly what it should - protect anyone (however vile) from being subjected to torture or unfair legal process. You can’t have it both ways - freedom of speech thought and human rights go for all, not only the people you like.
[quote] It is also the human rights act which guarantees the right to a family, which is why they could not deport Learco Chindamo to Italy after he served his sentence for the gang related murder of an innocent school teacher.
See above - Chindamo is a EU citizen, and with that come rights. Once he has served his time, he has a right to be released. The adequate complaint would be to ask for longer imprisonment.
Funny, but as usual contrary to the evidence: there has been quite a comprehensive analysis EU-wide analysis of migrant integration.
You can chose to analyse specific features of rights to family reunion, and you’ll see how the UK is most reluctant to grant what you bemoan.
[quote][…]
I can’t remember exactly when I saw him say it but it wasn’t more than three years ago.[/quote]
Then he must have changed his mind again - I’m sure the Daily Mail would have picked up on that. Oh no, but they haven’t. I think you may have gotten the time scale mixed up - I surely couldn’t find anything on it; but I’ll be happy to discuss it if you do.
[quote][…] It hasn’t gone anywhere yet. But it wasn’t soundly rebuked either. That is cause for concern. Europeans don’t think things through. They will be all happy to give the government a dangerous weapon because it will be used on a handful of bad guys like the nazis, but they don’t stop to think about how this same weapon could also be turned upon themselves.
The really bad part is when a leader who is also a lawyer says he supports such a law. A lawyer should understand very well the implications of such a law in setting legal precedent.[/quote]
It’s getting hard to find a politician who isn’t a lawyer these days. But again - the law hasn’t been put in place, and it doesn’t look like they will, so the discussion is a bit moot. I can’t really comment on whether ‘Europeans’ think things through - I try to work with facts and evidence, not platitudes.
[quote][…]
It is hard to know what the full extent of support is in Germany because of the laws there. They haven’t eliminated the nazis but they have driven them underground. That is the problem with making laws that restrict what people can say. You don’t get rid of the ideology as much as take it out of the public view.[/quote]
Well, voting is still free, equal and secret - while there is no national socialist party (as it indeed is forbidden), the NPD and the DVU offer the (just about) legal alternative. And yes, look at election results and you do get an idea of how right wing people are - especially the ones within impoverished areas of post-socialist East Germany. Real nazi organisations belong underground and prosecuted by law as the German basic law (our constitution) bans organisations whose aim it is to destroy the democratic state. That’s something I can live with, as it enables the state to protect itself and its citizens.
[quote][…]
My point is not crazy at all. The unanimity rule is in article 48 of the treaty on European Union. This is a procedural rule that was put into the treaty to prevent the large states like Germany from steamrolling over small states like Ireland. The Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty/EU constitution by a democratic vote. The EU has decided to break it’s own rules of procedure and is trying to continue trying to inflict this unwanted constitution on everyone. Implementing the constitution through illegal means is what is crazy.[/quote]
Let’s have a look at Article 48. Here is the currently valid text (from 2003, including amendments by the Treaty of Nice). The last line is important in this context, I have therefore abridged the text and emphasised it:
“The government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded.[…] The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.” http://europa.eu/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/c_325/c_32520021224en00010184.pdf
Ok, this would basically mean that formally all member states would have to go through the process. The Irish referendum can and has stopped the treaty from coming into force, but it cannot take the right away from (perhaps all) other members to ratify. There’s no breach of procedure. As detailed in my earlier post, the EU has a number of options.
Oh, and on another note, the German President has halted ratificaton as well until the Constitutional Court has decided about a few legal challenges to it. I doubt that that helps with the alleged bullying.
Like the Irish or the British did - to their great advantage. Yes, the EU seems to be quite successful in stabilising economies and improving standards of life. I can live with that.
The EU moves with the speed of its democratically elected parliaments. There are plenty of challenges and legal complications and they are being addressed as part of due process. That’s the fun of it.
Which part of ‘the Irish referendum has stopped the treaty from getting into force’ did you not get? This is starting to get really tiring.
The UK has not opted out - it can at any point. It hasn’t. Especially the UK has been very successful in securing exceptions defending its own national interests.
Well, that ends the discussion for me. Too bad, I liked the discussion while it was based on evidence and fair debating.