Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Hmmmm
I'm bored so I'm going to get all political again.
The "Christian Right" (now that's an oxymoron in my book) or at least the part of it that stands firmly behind George Bush (no matter what country they are in) must be reading a different bible from me.
"Thou shalt not kill" (I like old school language for the ten commandments it sounds kind of official). I haven't seen the translation that reads "thou shalt not kill, unless you're pretty sure about weapons of mass destruction, or something"
But let's just say that the Old Testament (I'm sure my father will jump on this one and say it should be called something else, but anyway) version of God did really appear in a burning Bush (my vote is for burning the whole clan, but anyway) and demand that America smite the Iraqis. Israel had to kick a bit of ass back when it was God's chosen nation, so it probably makes sense that God's new (self-)chosen nation gets the call to war.
But I've set this argument up as something of a straw man You see, it only works if we forget about some guy called Jesus. Now, my amateur opinion is that he kind of updated the rules about acceptable behaviour by making rules about turning the other cheek.
This guy seems to believe that Jesus would own a 9mm (although most of his argument is based on the Old Testament). It's a decent read and has some plauaible parts.
Anyway, I always thought Christ was the most important teacher in Christianity (you know, like Bhudda is the man when it comes to Bhuddist stuff, Confucious kind of founded Confucianism, and so on) but I guess not. When Jesus doesn't pander to an extreme right wing agenda, he is conveniently forgotten by his "followers".
I had a lot of nice half-liners about "I-can't-believe-it's-not-Christianity", and "Jehovans vs Christians", but couldn't quite work them in, even on the edit. It is a shame we can't vote the lunatic fringe off the Church Island though - especially people who commit murder (even the gun-lover linked to above admits that the sixth comandment can't be translated much more permissively than "thou shalt not murder") to promote a "pro-life" agenda - the irony is beautiful.
But anyway, I'm not one of those political bloggers, not yet, anyway, and have no great desire to be. Politics, especially on the internet, is pretty much one giant screaming match - and the funniest thing is that both sides are screaming at people who already agree with them. The wonder of the internet is that nobody has to read anything they disagree with.
Well, nobody except our Anonymous friend in the comments. I strongly suspect he came in through blogexplosion (one of those traffic exchange programs - it's taken me to some rather good blogs actually). So during the 30 second minimum they impose, he read a couple of sentences and got riled up enough to leave a poorly thought out and anonymous comment.
Choosing not to get a "real" job (or didn't you read that bit?) makes me an idiot? OK, whatever, I work pretty hard for my $8 an hour, and far prefer the lifestyle it allows me. So I won't be buying a new SUV this year, I don't care.
Or is it my refusal to get a haircut that decreases my intelligence? The eminently sensible North Korean dictatorship seems to think so.
Anyway, Richard's lesson for the day - just because someone disagrees with you they are not automatically an idiot (although in this case, it's highly likely that Anonymous is an idiot - someone who wasn't an idiot would probably have had the courage / courtesy / desire for debate to leave a name, if not his own URL). A non idiot would have also recognised that anonymous comments are generally shunned in the blogging world and would have wanted the extra plausibility that a name gives.
But whatever, like the man said, there's no point arguing with an idiot. On the other hand, there is a lot of fun to be had in ridiculing an idiot. It might not achieve much, but as I found out while editing my response into this post, it's fun.
One final thought, I promise.
Jesus was a hippy.
Yes he was - long hair, sandals, preaching about love, didn't have many possessions, didn't have a real job during the important years of his life, and so on.
The "Christian Right" (now that's an oxymoron in my book) or at least the part of it that stands firmly behind George Bush (no matter what country they are in) must be reading a different bible from me.
"Thou shalt not kill" (I like old school language for the ten commandments it sounds kind of official). I haven't seen the translation that reads "thou shalt not kill, unless you're pretty sure about weapons of mass destruction, or something"
But let's just say that the Old Testament (I'm sure my father will jump on this one and say it should be called something else, but anyway) version of God did really appear in a burning Bush (my vote is for burning the whole clan, but anyway) and demand that America smite the Iraqis. Israel had to kick a bit of ass back when it was God's chosen nation, so it probably makes sense that God's new (self-)chosen nation gets the call to war.
But I've set this argument up as something of a straw man You see, it only works if we forget about some guy called Jesus. Now, my amateur opinion is that he kind of updated the rules about acceptable behaviour by making rules about turning the other cheek.
This guy seems to believe that Jesus would own a 9mm (although most of his argument is based on the Old Testament). It's a decent read and has some plauaible parts.
Anyway, I always thought Christ was the most important teacher in Christianity (you know, like Bhudda is the man when it comes to Bhuddist stuff, Confucious kind of founded Confucianism, and so on) but I guess not. When Jesus doesn't pander to an extreme right wing agenda, he is conveniently forgotten by his "followers".
I had a lot of nice half-liners about "I-can't-believe-it's-not-Christianity", and "Jehovans vs Christians", but couldn't quite work them in, even on the edit. It is a shame we can't vote the lunatic fringe off the Church Island though - especially people who commit murder (even the gun-lover linked to above admits that the sixth comandment can't be translated much more permissively than "thou shalt not murder") to promote a "pro-life" agenda - the irony is beautiful.
But anyway, I'm not one of those political bloggers, not yet, anyway, and have no great desire to be. Politics, especially on the internet, is pretty much one giant screaming match - and the funniest thing is that both sides are screaming at people who already agree with them. The wonder of the internet is that nobody has to read anything they disagree with.
Well, nobody except our Anonymous friend in the comments. I strongly suspect he came in through blogexplosion (one of those traffic exchange programs - it's taken me to some rather good blogs actually). So during the 30 second minimum they impose, he read a couple of sentences and got riled up enough to leave a poorly thought out and anonymous comment.
Choosing not to get a "real" job (or didn't you read that bit?) makes me an idiot? OK, whatever, I work pretty hard for my $8 an hour, and far prefer the lifestyle it allows me. So I won't be buying a new SUV this year, I don't care.
Or is it my refusal to get a haircut that decreases my intelligence? The eminently sensible North Korean dictatorship seems to think so.
Anyway, Richard's lesson for the day - just because someone disagrees with you they are not automatically an idiot (although in this case, it's highly likely that Anonymous is an idiot - someone who wasn't an idiot would probably have had the courage / courtesy / desire for debate to leave a name, if not his own URL). A non idiot would have also recognised that anonymous comments are generally shunned in the blogging world and would have wanted the extra plausibility that a name gives.
But whatever, like the man said, there's no point arguing with an idiot. On the other hand, there is a lot of fun to be had in ridiculing an idiot. It might not achieve much, but as I found out while editing my response into this post, it's fun.
One final thought, I promise.
Jesus was a hippy.
Yes he was - long hair, sandals, preaching about love, didn't have many possessions, didn't have a real job during the important years of his life, and so on.
Comments:
<< Home
The actual translation is "Thou shalt not commit murder." A little different. And as far as Jesus turnin' the other cheek, well... Where was that idea when He was tossin' tables and moneylenders all over the Temple?
PS. Ignore that previous commentor--no it wasn't me. Idiots are all over the place. Just wish they'd stop messin' with Christianity.
PS. Ignore that previous commentor--no it wasn't me. Idiots are all over the place. Just wish they'd stop messin' with Christianity.
Your father, having read about halfway through would object to your talking about "the Old Testament God" as if s/he were different from some other God (presumably the NT one, or Jesus' one).
The article you point to seems quite good in its discussion of the "other cheek" passage - even if I don't agree with him - the real glaring error though comes in the jump at the end:
"I am thoroughly convinced that the Scriptures allow us to defend ourselves. That means that I have God-given rights to "bear arms” in order to do so. Only God can take away that right."Being "allowed" defence does not equate to an individual right to bear arms, the state might provide that defence! And no where has the author argued for a "God-given" right to bear arms. What God never gave God can certainly take away. Anyway the NRA was not much defence against O bin L was it?
I wish gun nuts would stop messing with Christianity too.
The article you point to seems quite good in its discussion of the "other cheek" passage - even if I don't agree with him - the real glaring error though comes in the jump at the end:
"I am thoroughly convinced that the Scriptures allow us to defend ourselves. That means that I have God-given rights to "bear arms” in order to do so. Only God can take away that right."Being "allowed" defence does not equate to an individual right to bear arms, the state might provide that defence! And no where has the author argued for a "God-given" right to bear arms. What God never gave God can certainly take away. Anyway the NRA was not much defence against O bin L was it?
I wish gun nuts would stop messing with Christianity too.
so Jesus had long hair, eh? He was also apparently white and blue eyed, too. Who knew?
As for the first comment, it's pretty self-defeating: labelling someone as an "idiot" on such very loosely related and largely ignorant assumptions pretty much disqualifies such a person from pertaining any sense of intelligence themselves.
Oh, get a haircut and a job you fucking hippy! ;)
Post a Comment
As for the first comment, it's pretty self-defeating: labelling someone as an "idiot" on such very loosely related and largely ignorant assumptions pretty much disqualifies such a person from pertaining any sense of intelligence themselves.
Oh, get a haircut and a job you fucking hippy! ;)
<< Home
