GarthP2000

Ya know, I hestitated on mentioning this before but, ... Mass ordinations?... Now why does that give a distinctive 'Moonie' ring to it? :unsure: ... As likened to 'mass weddings'?

Did they put their green card on a PDF so you can sign it and mail it (along with the ca$h) back to them? "Watch me do my song and dance, ... do-dahh, ... do-dahh. ....."

You know what I'd like to see. A Dog the Bounty Hunter episode where Paris tries to run from the jail sentence, and they set the Dog out after her. :lol: :lol: Now that would be reality TV worth watching.

Mark, First off, your presumption that I am 'evangelizing' for atheism is flawed. (I mean, I didn't give you the proverbial 'green card' to sign for a class to take, did I?) Am I being an 'apologist' for atheism? Only in the sense of showing the discontinuity between atheism and Communism to counter arguments made that try to link the two. Now OK, you aren't doing that, as I see your formula of: A->B # B->A in general terms. But I also see that you use the word necessarily, as in "just because A implies B does not necessarily mean that B automatically implies A." ... Ie., atheism isn't inherently Communist at all. ... Just wanted to set that record straight for those who don't know better like you do. I mean, you'd want to set the record straight about flawed statements re: the Catholic Church, right? ... Like how the Church Fathers really aren't a bunch of losers? ;) Just thought of something. ... Your comparison of Muslim countries and Communist countries in regards to laws against heresy is also flawed. Muslim countries who do have laws against heresy directly deal with heresy in the true religious sense. Ie., in practice, the only god allowed in those countries is the Muslim one. In Communist countries, like any other form of dictatorship, those supposed 'anti-heresy' laws deal with any form of openly spoken/written opposing views of the government, be they from Christian sources or otherwise. ... Ie., believe anything you want in your church, ... just keep your mouth _shut_ as regards to any complaints about the government. You'll find that tactic shared fully by many non-Communist dictatorships as well, even those supported by the U.S. in the name of 'fighting Communism'. ... perhaps there wouldn't be so much of the Vatican-condemned 'liberation theology' spread about if this wasn't so much the case, ya think? <_< Anywho, back to our regularly scheduled topic about how the Church Fathers are supposedly a bunch of losers. :B)

It's Bush's fault.

Talking about the Mother of all Dumb Blonde BIMBO Jokes, Paris Hilton is it! Link to LJWorld.com about conviction That bimbo should not be allowed to drive at all.

Mark, My 'expertise' as regards Communism vis-a-vis atheism has largely come, more or less, from observation; 1) that of getting to know atheists/reading their deconversion stories/listening to their multi-spectral political views, and 2) rethinking and scrutinizing the oft-taught premises that endeavor to link atheism with Communism. I have taken note of that last sentence, and it is a point of view that is very similar to those espoused/found agreeable to many writers, even before Marx. Particularly to many during the Enlightenment period. Such as the author of this piece, for example: For 200 points and the game, can you name the author? Hint: Altho' he wasn't an orthodox Christian, he was neither an atheist, ... nor a Marxist for that matter. I also find it rather ironic that you find criticism of religion implicative of its rejection. <_< Have ye no faith in religion itself, whereby it (ought to be) able to withstand criticism? Or is it indicative of the Catholic faith to reject any forms of criticism of religion outright because of that risk? No doubt Marx was an atheist, and his atheist views did show some influence on his Marxist philosophy. Keep in mind tho' that Marxism wasn't born in a vacuum. Various similar socialist ideologies were being floated about at the time, and (as you also pointed out) a good number of them were practiced by religious people. And because Marxism was practiced by various religious people means that the atheistic component that is supposedly a central piece to Marxism isn't so much a central piece as originally thought. It has been/is made a required component by those who want to trash atheism, and for no better reason than that it does not believe/submit to any god. Regardless of your (out of context perhaps? ;) ) usage of Marx's quotes, it still stands that Marxism is nothing more and nothing less than an economic/political/social philosophy. Period. Nothing to do directly with the beliefs in religion, or the lack thereof. And any type of atheism that does go along with it is incidental at most. Not causal. By the way, the view that religions are man made has been bandied about well before Marx was a gleam in his daddy's eye.

Be glad that the eagle didn't come swooping down and pluck it from your hand. :o That would have _really_ been an experience for you.

MarkO, First off, whether or how much the material dialectic proposed by marxism is threatened by religious beliefs doesn't have as much to do with the religious persecution of religious believers as you might suspect or are taught. For one thing, Orthodox Marxism isn't as 'near and dear' to the Communist authorities as it might first appear, as there wasn't and isn't any real Communist/Marxist state (well, except maybe Cuba and North Korea) since Lenin died, and even he allowed free enterprise on a very limited scale. Ie., they were nothing more and nothing less than totalitarian dictatorships, tolerating NO competition for power whatsoever, _irrelevent_ of whether or not someone had religious beliefs.Classic example of this? Leon Trotsky, who once shared power with Stalin, and was with him and Lenin during the 1st days of the U.S.S.R., then broke with Stalin over issues in running the country. Very unfortunate for Trotsky. (As you are most likely well aware) Stalin banished Trotsky from the Soviet Union, and then put out a hit on Trotsky's head. Which was carried out in Mexico. With an ice pick. ... What's my point in this context? Trotsky was a solid atheist. Stalin didn't give a rat's a** whether Leon was religious or not. His only 'sin' was being imagined in Stalin's sick mind as being a competitor for power. And that was the main reason why churches were persecuted, or at least kept on a very short leash, in the Communist countries, just like they are in any totalitarian or authoritarian dictatorships. Churches and religious organizations are seen as competitors for power. Be it real or imagined. Look throughout history, and you will find Christians who were quite Socialistic (like the original author of the Pledge of Allegience?), and a few who even embraced Communism (I remember reading many years ago about one who even claimed that Jesus himself was a Communist. Go figure). Regardless of what you might have learned in parochial school about what Communism was all about, or that in order to believe in Communist viewpoints, one had to give up religion. Ie., my friend MarkO, at *most*, atheism is an incidental side item to Communism, NOT either causal nor a neccessary component to Communism, irrelevent to the factor of dialectic materialism or whether Marx muttered "Religion is the opiate of the masses". Ie., All Communism was and all it will ever be is just an ecomomic/social philosophy. A bad and deluded one, but that's what it was nonetheless. And one that did not need atheism to be a central part of its philosophy. Ie., all atheism deals with is that someone doesn't believe in a god or the spiritual world. ... Period. And lest McQuade feels left out for me not 'picking on' him, ... ;) First off, how can we be someone's enemies (from birth, according to your gospel) when we didn't even know the guy? And from birth? Please. Two, keep in mind that the O.T. God that Jesus proclaimed did things (and this is according to the very same scriptures) that FAR exceeded what the R.C. Church did as far as having people killed/tortured/conquered lands/etc. Didn't believe in Him back then? Off you go to be killed too. ... Its all right there in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament, those who do not believe are sentenced to cook in hell at Judgement Day. Right there in the Book pal. So who's the 'losers' now, hmmm? P.S., and speaking of examples, remember how V.P. Wierwille would react when talking about those who deliberately disbelieved 'God and His Word'? I remember plenty of times where that old kraut would go off ripping on 'those godless unbelievers', at least as venomous as LCM. John Lynn back in those days would refer to them in the initials of Body and Soul. ... as in B.S. ... as in Bull S**t, not worthy to breath _our_ (believers) air or take up _our_ space. Hhmmm, sounds like more 'losers' to me, ... ya think?

Very informative answer, thank you. And I'm glad to hear that you think that such 'punish the heretic' laws should not be enacted here in the U.S., altho' for different reasons that I could never agree with. And why I'm thankful that the U.S. isn't (and shouldn't be) a country that maintains a religiously specific national identity (be it Catholic, Protestant, Christian, or any other religion). However, there is a flaw as regards your usage of your source about the Chinese priest 'disappearing' due to the 'atheist' Communist Chinese government being displeased with his supposed speaking heresy against the 'state religion', a flaw that I believe is influenced by the commonly held, but widely mistaken perspective linking/associating atheism with Communism (an association which is getting really old, OK?). Looking at the link, and googling for some information mentioned in the article, I come to find that what the Chinese government was doing was trying to get the priest to join up with the governmental church organization 'Three-self Patriotic Movement Committee', a Protestant church organization legalized by the government (apparently the only Protestant church in China to have that distinction). Regardless of what you think of the Chinese handling of religious groups, or of Protestantism for that matter, ... this has nothing to do with atheism, supposedly state sponsored or not. (You earlier said that you just love it when someone uses a quote outside of the context of a larger work? Yeah, well I likewise love it when someone makes the oft-illogical and blind association/linking of atheism with Communism, and let me tell ya chief, some of the associations of the two, if people weren't so damned serious about it, would be f'ing comical.)

Year2027, No doubt the Church Fathers (ALL of them) had many good things to write and teach. That isn't disputed here (really Mark, it isn't). But the nice, and morally superior, thing about these days and in this society, is that we can _freely_ question, scrutinize, dispute, and walk away from said Father's Doctrine, ..... all without having to be 'turned over to the authorities' for having done so. Which causes me to wonder, ... what 'spiritual opinion' would those Church fathers have about that aspect of our society, hmmm? ;)

I then pose this question to you, Mark. And (as your manner often is) please give me a straightforward and honest answer to this question. Based upon what you believe to be right and true, do you find it moral, ethical, and lawful (spiritually speaking) that the church, after seperating themselves from the heretics, then sent them (the heretics) to the civil authorities to be put to death? And despite not quoting the WHOLE letter(s) that Augustine wrote, the quotes presented here weren't "out of context" enough where enough of their meaning wasn't justly conveyed. Not enough at all. Ie., the idea of inflicting pain upon someone in order to convince them of the Church's Doctrine where simply teaching wouldn't suffice, conveys enough of an idea, ... whereas people of sound and moral thought can reject that tactic out of hand, irrelevent of the Saint who wrote it. ... but then again, they might not be regarded by some people as 'good Catholics' either, I wager. <_< Written by someone who _definitely_ would not be a good Catholic.

-- Augustine, Treatise on the Correction of the DonatistsInteresting premise there. Influence them by teaching, and then when that doesn't work, use 'tough love' ie., pain. But make sure that they get the message. Whether they like it or not. Yeah, nice guy, this Augustine. <_< Why, he even came up with this little jewel. Hoo-k-a-a-y! :o

"Good catch Mark O'malley" ?????? Speaking of 'looking at the full context', let's go over his post and see if it indeed corrects what McQuade posted shall we? And the real difference is ... what? Oh I see. That the unbeliever is simply one that didn't believe at first, whereas the heretic is one who is taught 'the Truth', but still rejects it, right? ..... Yet the question remains. And the real difference is ... what? And this is in the context of whether someone should be put to death for refusing to believe the Gospel. See, that is where the difference between the two terms becomes miniscule. In the overall moral outlook of things, irrelevent really. ... Can you say 'nitpicking'? Now the all-too-convenient copout--err point is brought up that it was the civil authorities are really the ones to blame for the death penalty for heretical behavior, and this is technically true. However, since it was the Church who saw themselves as responsible for the 'Christianization' of the aforeto 'ungodly' governments, why would keeping the death penalty for heresy necessary, and from a moral/ethical point of view? Also keep in mind that those verses in Timothy and Titus about dealing with heretics made no mention about turning heretics over to the civil government, but just to have nothing more to do with the heretic. For another thing, the civil government at the time when those epistles were written was the pagan Roman government, and they wouldn't do anything about the anti-Christian heretic anyway. It was only after the 'Christianization' of later governments did the civil government make laws against heresy and using the death penalty as enforcement of this. Let me ask you all this. Does any Christian here actually believe that, morally and ethically, it is the right thing to do to have the death penalty for heresy? For 'false doctrine'? I know that most (if not all) here on Greasespot would radically oppose the concept of it being a moral thing for heretics to be put to death. Hell, even TWI at its worst, mostly didn't go that far (well, maybe some of Craigger's rantings did perhaps ). Mark, regardless of your attempt to 'civilize' Summa's writings regarding heretics, the belief that unbelievers/heretics should die is irrevoceably there. Hell guy, you even emphasised part of his quote stating as much. "On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death." Oh wow! At least the Church gives 2 chances to turn away from heresy, then turns them over to be killed. Whatta K-Mart Blue Light Special deal! <_< Face it Mark. Your denomination, regardless and irrelevent of your doctrinal and ecclesiastical loyalty to it, hasn't been exactly pure as the driven snow in its dealings with people over the past 1600-1800 years, and that includes a good number of things that it made Orthodoxically Official; its dealings with those who refused to submit to its Doctrines not being the least of these. Wordwolf, Regardless of McQuade's adulation of things Wierwille, generally speaking, he did get many of his points regarding the church's dealings with heretics correct. For one thing, there are independent and documentable sources that confirm at least many of the historical incidents that he brings up. ... Keep in mind the adage of "a broken clock is correct twice a day".

Sudo, Did you see where the old guitar players were beating their guitars on the ground ... like the guitarist in the Who did? All we need now is Mick Jaggar that looks more like Don Knotts in there, and you really got a party! Man, for a while there, I thought that it was a Woodstock 50th Anniversary Edition video! :B)

..... it's called eating fish dinners for the next 4 weeks!

Please! ... I just ate!!

:) WKRP, home of Dr. Johnny Fever and Venus Flytrap. One of my favorites!

rhino sandwiches, ...... hmmmm, ... meat's too tough, from what I hear.

..... there's always ham sandwiches. ((running & ducking))

... especially the politicians who want to capitalize on that fear for their own purposes or the purposes of the propaganda machine that they signed on with. <_<

The Onion seems to have a pretty good solution to our border problem too. In The Know: The U.S. Moat Ya know, maybe Bill O'Reilly could think of going to these guys if he ever gets sacked for offending somebody, ... ya know? ;)

Speaking of Baldwin's acting, I think Harrison Ford played the Jack Ryan character a lot better than Baldwin did. Harrison gave him more depth, whereas Baldwin's portrayal was too, ... ohh what's the word, ... shallow. ... a lot like the actor himself. <_< But hey, that's my Siskel & Ebert take on him. :B) YMMV.

??? ... and the punchline is ...? :huh:

Too bad you can't pull that on pesky door-to-door salespeople. Make _them_ say that.