The Rise of Middle Eastern Democracy

Post Reply New Topic

I laughed so hard I pissed my pants.

Fortunately, no. He's cool. Just a bit slanted on some subjects.

Oh, cool yes. Sane? I can't imagine using that word. No offense though. Never really could deal with the sane anyhow.

Pretty much.

For both Griff and Aspers, here's the start of the answer.

With your minds jacked open slightly, do the search yourself.

What about other Muslims? In Iraq and Palestine, the radicals won elections by a landslide (so did Ahmadinejad, but in defense of Iranian voters it has to be said the clergy rigged the elections by excluding most moderate candidates); radicals in Egypt and Pakistan ahve done well even though the system was rigged against them. Polls show confidence in bin Laden is a mainstream opinion in Muslim countries, and a significant minority of British Muslim youth sympathised with the London bombings (something most of the British public will neither forgive nor forget). Now, I have met moderate Muslims (and have a high opinion of those I've met), but nevertheless the ME looks like central and Eastern Europe in the 30s (the rise of a violent, intolerant, anti-democratic ideology with widespread popular support).

pbcoll, I was just playing about with some prose, there. I'm not even going to bother further with it. ttyl

Still doesn't matter. Secularism has been taking root in Islam, and this trend has no reason not to continue. If Christianity can be tamed and caged, so can Islam.

I thought it would be a good conversation starter. George Bush is not that much of a Christian -- if at all. I know, I've read these fables of him praying and weeping and what-all else. But then I've seen him do things that a Christian would be hard-pressed to justify.

In history, there was an emperor who was in trouble, trying to keep up a constituency to stay in power. You see, there was no such thing as a retired emperor; they were either alive or dead. Suddenly, a brainstorm hit. There's all these hated Christians around. The country is full of them. Maybe I could risk all by siding with the Christians, legalize Christianity and they would be my constituency! Nothing to lose.... So the emperor talked with a bishop, saying he had become a Christian. He put red plus signs on his army's shields and led his troops out on a minor battle, saying "By this sign we shall conquer!" The battle was won. He said this was a sign that Christianity was right, so he legalized Christianity. It turned out to be the right decision; most of the government civil service were Christians! The Emperor was Constantine. He didn't bother getting baptized until he was about to die anyway. Fables sprang up, about wonderful deeds he supposedly had done. His prior persecution of the Christians was forgotten. He converted pagan temples into churches and innovated Christian "priests", giving them the authority the pagan priests had had.

Was he really a Christian or was he merely pro-Christian as an expediency? I suspect the latter. Is George Bush a Christian -- or only pro-Christian as an expediency? If everyone else in the political field are mildly anti-Christian, what choice do the white Christians have?

you're completely dismissing the probability that bush is just a figurehead with a warm smile and a fuzzy disposition. he also seems overly focused on letting everyone know he makes the decisions.....pretty much like as if he doesn't believe the statement himself.


i believe he's a christian because i know that's what logically happens for addicts....when they convert, they give up one addiction for another...it's extremely commonplace and he does have a big past of drug and alcohol abuse.


and since you're talking converts how about the biggest ruiner of christianity? st augustine of hippo. he almost single-handedly introduced all the sexual repression and guilt put forward today by christian churches. all because he was a sex addict who turned his addiction towards god and used the addiction to his faith to attack his previous addiction of sex. which, really, is just another addict who replaced his addiction with religion. extremely commonplace.

Unless they get into the occult as an addiction, in which case they can go a long way down.


St. Augustine may have influenced the Roman Catholic church a little (especially with his "just war" thesis), but his influence waned with the Protestant reformation where we went back to the Bible. But I realize the church's position runs counter to your Satanist faith.

I see your point, and agree in regards to Constantine. I also agree that what I would see as a true Christian would probably not do the things that Bush has done. Nevertheless, I think that the President believes that he is a Christian, and it seems unreasonable to dispute the meaning of a person's own beliefs. Rather like calling someone a Satanist, who doesn't believe in that themselves. This kind of thinking is what caused the violence and destruction of the Reformation period - and surely could not be attributable to any so called good God. Seems rather in line with my own beliefs actually (in intended effect if not in honesty).

Bush is neither as clever nor as competent as Constantine was.

It's disgusting that a muslim killer is allowed on WrongPlanet. Shouldn't he be in jail?

Umm, Timothy, George W. Bush is a Christian and has been for some time; the days of his involvemnt in a thoroughly unChristian fraternity are gone. His sincerity might be questioned, but cannot be refuted without the aid of telepathy; he seems fervent if misguided. Of course the term humanist could be used in connection with regard to certain renaissance Christians such as Desiderius Erasmus or Thomas Moore (dubious about the latter myself - are you familiar with his attitude to heretics?) but I do not really think it applies to the current President of the United States of America. He is not a Humanist, by any stretch of the imagination. You imagine your foes alike; they are diverse, as are your potential allies...

And are you seriously advocating genocide on that scale? With regard to the Qur'an/Koran, the claim of it being more about politics than religion is not sustainable. The separate issue of some of the passages being succeptible for use as support for violence could equally be raised with the Bible. This does not remove the question for moderates of the "Abrahamic" faiths as to how these passages are to be reconciled with the image of a God of love and peace, but if we are talking about texts where it is difficult to plead misinterpretation, your post is a fine example. You are inciting violence. Practice your exorcism upon yourself.

Not true, TimT. Augustine's exegesis of Pauline theology clearly influenced that of Luther and Calvin, particularly on predestination. Just War has also been formative. I see skafather is familiar with Augustine's past. Actually having had a mistress and an illegitimate son, while not to be condoned, hardly translates to the sort of promiscuity associated with an addiction to copulation. Could not genuine repentance be considered as an option? And sexual repression was rather earlier. Consider Origen, admittedly heretical from the point of view of many Christians contemporary and later, making himself a eunuch (perhaps inspired by the passage in Matthew about eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven or the declaration that to look lustfully upon a woman is to commit adultery with her in one's heart; a similar thing happened more recently with the male adherents of the Heaven's Gate cult) or earlier than Origen with one of the interpretations of the protognosticism in Corinth advocating celibacy (another drew a completely different conclusion, lol). Paul's attitude towards celibacy is interesting. On the one hand in his epistle (letter) to his friend and coworker Timotheus, TimT's namesake, he both advocates every overseer/bishop being the husband of one wife, and warns against certain people in times to come who will fall away from the truth, give heed to seducing spirits and devils' doctrines, and have their consciences seared with a hot iron, who will apparently forbid marriage and command to abstain from meats (about the nicest thing he says about vegetarians is that they have weak faith, and that those with sufficient faith for omnivorous diet should not eat meat in front of them lest it cause them to stumble or sin). On the other hand, in his first extant and canonical letter to the church in Corinth (chapter seven to be precise) he sounds quite positive about celibacy (apparently his own state, whether initially voluntary or involuntary) and rather equivocal about marriage, although its necessity for most is acknowledged; further on in the chapter he is positive about both states. Nowhere is he permissive towards fornication; some may consider this sexual repression. To be honest, I personally think some restraint is rather called for. Issues as to possible inconsistency, as with the contrast between "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female," and "Wives, submit to your husbands," call for discussion.

Constantine was an anitsemite. So of course was Martin Luther, at least later in life. A similar shift in interfaith relations might be observed in Muhammad (sorry ASPER, and I utterly and unconditionally reject TimT's Muslim-killing statements). Of course antisemite would be a curious choice of word in that last context.

Calvin was less antisemitic than Luther, but then again he had Servetus executed for essentially being a Socinian/Unitarian, so he does not come out of the reformation smelling of roses either. As with the Baptists, Servetus was considered to be a heretic worthy of death by Roman Catholics, Calvinists and Lutherans alike; there was practically only one lone voice of reason calling for mercy.