Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
--- Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there's nothing wrong with opposing the unjustifiable attack on Iraq, why are you so committed to twisting the tits of everyone who does oppose it? Because so many of them say things like calling it unjustifiable, when, of course, it's extremely justifiable. It might or might not have been the right decision, but there were very good reasons for making it. It always amazes me that people who make fun of the President for being unintelligent are apparently unable to see why someone might disagree with them on this issue. As for my original reasons for opposing the war -- two years ago I was thinking more in terms of how we'd look to the rest of the world, particularly since, in my view, Afghanistan still needed a lot of attention, and OBL was at large and *not* in Iraq. I hadn't thought, then, of the morass that it's become, and the expense of it went way beyond anything I would have guessed. Had I known then what I know now, I would have opposed the attack more strenuously than I did. Wow, Warren, your ability to ignore everything that's happening in Iraq right now is pretty impressive. It appears to be, you know, working. It might not, of course - I'd say it's something like 60/40 right now that it will, which are _far_ better odds than I gave it before the war, much less a few months ago. I asked you this before and you didn't have any sort of answer. What will you do if this works? It appears to be working. The odds for a democratic government in Iraq are better than they have ever been. 10 years from now, if Iraq is a stable democracy that looks sort of like Turkey - if it is the least-badly governed state in the Middle East- will it still be an unjustifiable war? People do things for many reasons, and WMD were only one of the many reasons we invaded Iraq. What will you do if this works? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 7, 2005, at 11:07 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there's nothing wrong with opposing the unjustifiable attack on Iraq, why are you so committed to twisting the tits of everyone who does oppose it? Because so many of them say things like calling it unjustifiable, when, of course, it's extremely justifiable. I don't think it is. We can't just bomb the crap out of a nation that's done nothing to us in the name of regime change. That's arbitrary and, I believe, wrong. As for my original reasons for opposing the war -- two years ago I was thinking more in terms of how we'd look to the rest of the world, particularly since, in my view, Afghanistan still needed a lot of attention, and OBL was at large and *not* in Iraq. I hadn't thought, then, of the morass that it's become, and the expense of it went way beyond anything I would have guessed. Had I known then what I know now, I would have opposed the attack more strenuously than I did. Wow, Warren, your ability to ignore everything that's happening in Iraq right now is pretty impressive. It appears to be, you know, working. I haven't ignored that, actually. It might be working. But at what cost to US image worldwide, at what cost in terms of incentive for further terrorism, and at what cost to human life? It might not, of course - I'd say it's something like 60/40 right now that it will, which are _far_ better odds than I gave it before the war, much less a few months ago. I asked you this before and you didn't have any sort of answer. What will you do if this works? I answered. You ignored it. Just like you ignored the cites I sent along disproving your claim that bald eagles aren't endangered. You're pretty good yourself at ignoring things, it seems. Here's a quick little piece of unsolicited advice: Admitting you were wrong about something will not kill you. It appears to be working. The odds for a democratic government in Iraq are better than they have ever been. 10 years from now, if Iraq is a stable democracy that looks sort of like Turkey - if it is the least-badly governed state in the Middle East- will it still be an unjustifiable war? Yes. Because it was not a war pressed by the Iraqis in the name of freeing themselves from a tyrant. It was an assault on a nation that did *nothing at all* to us. We have killed thousands of civilians, tortured dozens of prisoners and pushed Islamic extremists even further over the cliff. In the name of doing what? Establishing a democracy? Why didn't we focus on doing that in Afghanistan first? I think it's because -- and this is really important -- Iraq was sexier. GWB would be able to finish what Daddy was unable to see to fruition. That's the elephant in the room very few conservatives seem to want to face with honesty. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 12:10 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 7:49 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:59 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: though there's some wiggle room there -- IIRC the original text had it as behold, a young woman shall conceive. Which is correct, afaik. And hardly remarkable. Young women conceive pretty regularly. Embedding such a phrase in a prophecy is a little like predicting rain in Seattle. Lazarus was never dead. No one else was resurrected either. I take it you were there, then? I don't have to have been there. Resurrection is not possible. It has not reliably, verifiably occurred in the history of humanity, not once, not twice, not ever. And the epistles of Paul, while effective at establishing and maintaining the infant cult of Iasus, read like a lot of hard-right propaganda, which to me is more or less what they are. Revelation is also hooey. You say that like someone who has the sure word of God on that issue . . . Nope, just healthy (lay) biblical scholarship. It is interesting that you are much more likely to state things as absolutes than most people I know who do claim to have the sure word of God on issues. --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 10:58 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:59 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Not really. Virgin conception is impossible, I am not a fertility specialist, nor do I play one on TV, but even I can think of ways to implant a fertilized egg in a woman's uterus without her having ever had sexual intercourse and while leaving her a _virgo intacta_ to examination. I have heard that it's possible (but not entirely likely) for a woman to become pregnant after ejaculate gets just to the opening of the vagina. (The space that's enough for the menstrual flow to get out is certainly enough for some other fluid to get in) That's a lot easier than implanting a pre-fertilized egg (and it's more likely to take and produce a live birth -- IVF isn't the most reliable way to get things done). That is indeed one of the ways. --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gun Free Household sticker
At 10:49 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:10 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 8:50 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 07:52 AM Wednesday 4/6/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 07:31:53 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote I like little snakes. I don't trust big snakes. Must *every* conversation eventually turn to politics? I thought she was referring to sex . . . No, that would be a length vs. width thing. Sheesh. What about calibre? As someone once said, It'll be hard to find another man of his caliber. Large Bore Maru Large Bore indeed -- this thread is getting tiresome. ;) Julia Got it in one! --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 12:04 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I am not a fertility specialist, nor do I play one on TV, but even I can think of ways to implant a fertilized egg in a woman's uterus without her having ever had sexual intercourse and while leaving her a _virgo intacta_ to examination. There was a case years ago of a woman who was a virgin and became pregnant because she engaged in anal sex and just happened to have a fissure between her rectum and her vagina. Sigh. Reproduction via union of sperm and egg is sex. It's not meaningful to speak of an asexual pregnancy, and it's impossible for artificial insemination techniques to have existed 2K years ago. But the fact that we know how to do it now contradicts your absolute assertion that Virgin conception is impossible. All it would prove if such a case did occur some 2 millennia ago is that it required intervention by someone or something with access to knowledge and technology at least equal to that available to a twenty-first-century doctor, whether that someone or something was space aliens or God. I think it's a real stretch, Ahem. BTW, to say that a woman who's experienced penetrative anal intercourse is a virgin. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 12:52 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 10:40 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: _There's nothing wrong with opposing the war_. Knowing what I know now about the competence of the Administration, I don't think _I_ would have supported the war (not knowing then what I know now, I don't regret my stance then - it was impossible for me to know then what I know now). What's wrong is pretending that _not_ going to war didn't also have costs. If there's nothing wrong with opposing the unjustifiable attack on Iraq, Nothing beats an argument which starts by assuming what you are supposed to be proving. --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 01:28 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Why didn't we focus on doing that in Afghanistan first? I think it's because -- and this is really important -- Iraq was sexier. GWB would be able to finish what Daddy was unable to see to fruition. That's the elephant in the room very few conservatives seem to want to face with honesty. Perhaps they felt that Daddy should have finished it when he had the chance. --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 7, 2005, at 11:45 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:04 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Sigh. Reproduction via union of sperm and egg is sex. It's not meaningful to speak of an asexual pregnancy, and it's impossible for artificial insemination techniques to have existed 2K years ago. But the fact that we know how to do it now contradicts your absolute assertion that Virgin conception is impossible. I should have said asexual conception. That's what's meant, I think, by the term virgin conception. All it would prove if such a case did occur some 2 millennia ago is that it required intervention by someone or something with access to knowledge and technology at least equal to that available to a twenty-first-century doctor, whether that someone or something was space aliens or God. Or, much more simply, that Mary was not a virgin. That's a considerably more likely explanation than aliens or a deity. I think it's a real stretch, Ahem. :D -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 7, 2005, at 11:47 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:10 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: And the epistles of Paul, while effective at establishing and maintaining the infant cult of Iasus, read like a lot of hard-right propaganda, which to me is more or less what they are. Revelation is also hooey. You say that like someone who has the sure word of God on that issue . . . Nope, just healthy (lay) biblical scholarship. It is interesting that you are much more likely to state things as absolutes than most people I know who do claim to have the sure word of God on issues. Well, when arguing facts, I tend to do that. I'm just as certain of gravity, Earth's rough sphericity and the heliocentric solar system. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think it's very likely. John, when he wrote Revelation, was using cryptic symbology that didn't make the book look like a polemic against the contemporary institutions of power, but that's what it was intended to be. He wasn't writing of events in either the year 1000 or 2000; he was writing about the world he lived in right then, ~70 AD, and how he hoped things would turn out in his lifetime. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 8, 2005 3:21 AM, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And we refuse to fund DDT usage why, exactly? The environmental movement has (and, in fact, continues to) push for a worldwide ban on DDT usage because...I'm sure you'll explain it to me, Martin. The same reason the WHO continue to push for a world ban: because it is a nasty organophosphate Actually, DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane ) is a chlorinated hydrocarbon, not an organophosphate or an organofluorophosphate. Sorry, organochloride, I stand corrected. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: DDT, was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 8, 2005 3:23 AM, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, I came across this website: http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm Yes, Steven Milloy is the perfect example of the astroturf hacks who are paid to smear that I was talking about. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity L3
On Apr 7, 2005, at 6:59 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Not really. Virgin conception is impossible, though there's some wiggle room there -- IIRC the original text had it as behold, a young woman shall conceive. Bishop John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: When I became aware that neither the word /virgin/ nor the concept of virginity appears in the Hebrew text of Isaiah that Matthew quoted to undergird his account of Jesus' virgin birth, I became aware of the fragile nature of biblical fundamentalism. The understanding of virgin is present only in the Greek word /parthenos/, used to translate the Hebrew word /'almah/ in a Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures. The Hebrew word for virgin is /betulah/. /'Almah/ never means virgin in Hebrew. I had to face early on in my priestly career the startling possibility that the virgin tradition so deep in Christianity may well rest upon something as fragile as the weak reed of a mistranslation. Once again, our resident atheologian is right on the mark (or the Matthew, anyway). Lazarus was never dead. No one else was resurrected either. It is clear from the earliest New Testament sources that Jesus was an extraordinary healer. Perhaps he healed a man who appeared, in the medical darkness of that time, dead. In any event, we are likely to get more out of the stories of Jesus' healings and resurrections if we allow them to have the metaphorical power that he apparently intended. It was not just the parables of Jesus -- the Just So Stories that he made up to illustrate his teachings -- that were intended to be taken metaphorically. Much of what he (apparently) actually /did/ has a metaphorical purpose. His healings of the blind, if they happened as told, were certainly of benefit to the individuals whose eyesight was restored, but their greatest value is the message they sent about Israel's spiritual blindness and the hope he offered to remove it. Perhaps this is what the priest meant when he said The Bible is true, and some of it happened. And the epistles of Paul, while effective at establishing and maintaining the infant cult of Iasus, read like a lot of hard-right propaganda, which to me is more or less what they are. Spong is definitely not one of those Christians under the spell of the man from Tarsus. After reciting a full page of Promise Keepers favorites (Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. If anyone will not work, let him not eat. and so forth), the Bishop of Newark begins his two-chapter investigation of the man from Tarsus: Is this the Word of the Lord? As such, these verses would certinly present us in this age with problems. But these words make no claim to be the words of God. They are rather the words of Paul, a first-century Jewish convert to Christianity, lifted verbatim out of his voluminous correspondence. There is no doubt that this man Paul was a powerful shaping influence on Christianity. There is also no doubt that he was passionate, specific, complex, emotional, frail, controversial, self-centered, and human. He was a pioneering missionary figure who felt an intense vocationto be an apostle of Christ to the gentiles. As such, he lived upon that edge of prejudice and hostility that always accompanies the crossing of a boundary. Spong doesn't hate Paul, but he knows that Some Christians who treasure the Bible will feel that my efforts in this enterprise will be only destructive. He doesn't much like him, either. He recognizes that he was a thoroughly weird guy whose words have been accorded the authority of God, and Yet I believe [that] the message of Paul, freed from its literal distortion, can still speak with power to the human experience. I write to realize that potentiality. Revelation is also hooey. Yup, and it's biblical literalism that makes it so in large part. People who treat John as a kind of Christian Nostradamus do more harm than good. The revelation might be plain hooey, and it might not be, but my Christian brother and sister goof-balls who are constantly trying to map world events onto it as signs of the end times are systematically killing Christianity. Visions look like hooey to me, too, but then, I'm not a spiritual ecstatic. It would suck to be one. Nikos Kazantzakis' The Last Temptation of Christ pictures the spirit's visits to the young Jesus as a bird of prey sinking its talons into his scalp. No thanks. The irony is that the movie version got so much abuse from self-righteous Christians, even though Kazantzakis said that he wrote it so that people might know Jesus better, appreciate his sacrifice more and love him better. To that end, the book was many times more effective than Mel Gibson's snuff film for me. As for the OT, the Decalogue contains some pretty sound ethics too. Sure, but the rest of the OT is full of some
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 7, 2005, at 10:10 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 7:49 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:59 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: though there's some wiggle room there -- IIRC the original text had it as behold, a young woman shall conceive. Which is correct, afaik. And hardly remarkable. Young women conceive pretty regularly. Embedding such a phrase in a prophecy is a little like predicting rain in Seattle. I think your lay scholarship isn't serving you too well here. The prophecy in question is not just that a young woman shall conceive, which, as you point out, is hardly news. I think the message of the prophecy is something like There will be this young woman, see, and she'll conceive and bear a Son, who will be... and it goes on from there. The point isn't that a young woman will conceive (well, duh), but that a particular young woman will conceive a particular son, who will be ... special. It's just a way of telling a story, that's all. Dave And behold, I shall write an email... Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gun Free Household sticker
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julia Thompson Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 5:49 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Gun Free Household sticker Oh, a handgun is one thing. Most of what everyone around here has are rifles shotguns. We wanted the BB gun for the snake. :) A hunting rifle would be a bit much, for something in a hole that close to the house. (I shudder to think of the ricochet possibilities right in that spot) Or you could call your local Animal Protection Agency (or whatever it is called in your area) and ask them to capture and remove the snake for you, and then release it into the wild. That way you won't have to murder an innocent animal. If *you* show up at the doorstep of someone who doesn't want to see you, would *you* think it would be reasonably for that person to just kill you, rather than ask you to leave or call the police? Americans and their guns. Bah. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [SPAM] Re: Woobs (was: Tits (a womans perspective))
Be careful not to leave out the -. George A - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 5:33 AM Subject: [SPAM] Re: Woobs (was: Tits (a womans perspective)) From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Woobs (was: Tits (a womans perspective)) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 21:32:50 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote: Robert Seeberger wrote: Damon Agretto wrote: http://www.nice-tits.org/ I feel cheated... You were. There were not nearly enough pictures of tits on that site. G xponent Titular Maru rob Did you check out the shops? Some of those items are tempting I especially liked the picture of the girl in the wet tit shirt. Allegorical Al says, Nice tree! (http://www.nice-tits.org/field_trip.html) -Travis _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 02:08 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 11:47 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:10 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: And the epistles of Paul, while effective at establishing and maintaining the infant cult of Iasus, read like a lot of hard-right propaganda, which to me is more or less what they are. Revelation is also hooey. You say that like someone who has the sure word of God on that issue . . . Nope, just healthy (lay) biblical scholarship. It is interesting that you are much more likely to state things as absolutes than most people I know who do claim to have the sure word of God on issues. Well, when arguing facts, I tend to do that. I'm just as certain of gravity, Earth's rough sphericity and the heliocentric solar system. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think it's very likely. As a scientist, I tend to make statements which allow for the possibility that I might be wrong, even though the claim I am making in the statement seems pretty certain in light of our current understanding. Of course, that can lead to misunderstandings, frex the different meanings that a scientist and a lay person assume for the word theory in the expression theory of evolution. And like I tell students when the topic comes up in class (usually when we're discussing Galileo, if not before): I've got pieces of paper which allow me to claim credentials in both science and religion, so one might naively think I can give an answer to the questions of how to reconcile their apparent disparities, but all I can say is that the more that I study both, the less I can say that I know for certain about either . . . John, when he wrote Revelation, Actually, I read your original comment as being dismissive of revelation in general (with the capitalization being due to its initial placement in the sentence), not the last book of the Bible in particular, hence the response I made. was using cryptic symbology that didn't make the book look like a polemic against the contemporary institutions of power, but that's what it was intended to be. He wasn't writing of events in either the year 1000 or 2000; he was writing about the world he lived in right then, ~70 AD, and how he hoped things would turn out in his lifetime. Perhaps, but who could sell a miniseries to NBC based on _that_? Unlike Them At Least You Spelled It Right Maru --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: DDT, was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 02:41 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Martin Lewis wrote: On Apr 8, 2005 3:23 AM, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, I came across this website: http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm Yes, Steven Milloy is the perfect example of the astroturf hacks who are paid to smear that I was talking about. I was interested in what response the site might get, which is why I presented it without any comment or summary of its content. --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 22:28:38 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote ... What you are talking about is a slow and uncertain process. Compared to what? The speedy and certain process underway in Iraq??? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Change without war (was something else)
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 22:40:04 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote ... virtually no one thought that inspections were working _before_ the war. No one? No one? What is your definition of working here? Certainly no one saw Saddam stepping down immediately and no one thought he was particularly cooperative, but are those the only measures that inspections are working? And what about South Africa and India? Are they not examples of regime changes that were accomplished without war? Today, are we open to such possibilities, which seemed impossible to most people before they happened? Well, first, no, India is _not_ an example of a regime change without war. Not at all. India is an example of a country gaining independence without war, which is a different thing. Different in a way that matters? India was being run by a group of elites who mistreated and took advantage of the majority of people. Those people were British, rather than locals, but how does that make the situation significantly different from Iraq? Why couldn't the same justifications for the Iraq war have applied to India? South Africa reformed under F.W. De Klerk. Are you saying that it was led by De Klerk? Seems to me that without Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, De Klerk wouldn't have budged. Are you saying that this was an example of an oppressive leadership leading itself out of power? Neither of these regimes had much in common with Saddam Hussein's. What are you saying? That the British in India were much nicer than Saddam, and apartheid was nicer than Saddam, thus war was the only answer in Iraq because he was a nastier guy? Are you open to the idea that these changes came about without war because of the nature of the leaders of the peaceful revolutions? If the Brits were nastier, do you think Gandhi would have failed? They got pretty nasty, didn't they? Same for the white minority in South Africa. It seems that you look at the oppressors and say they're too powerful to take down without war, while I'm looking at the liberators and saying they're too powerful to be resisted. No empire has ever survived and they're usually brought down by their own arrogance, despite superior military strength. they didn't pretend that there was some magic option which could provide all good things. ... What's wrong is pretending that _not_ going to war didn't also have costs. Are you saying that you hear me using make-believe arguments? Like in Korea? What is the historical parallel for such a police action? Can you provide _one_ example of such a thing ever occurring? Congo, Cyprus, Lebanon, Haiti, Yougoslavia, Cambodia, Mozambique, and even Somalia... with varying degrees of success, of course. Neither of which are even vaguely similar situations. He's not arguing from his conclusion, he's arguing from reality. Are you saying that I'm arguing from fantasy? I prefer to call it hope and faith. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 1:26 AM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) At 10:58 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:59 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Not really. Virgin conception is impossible, I am not a fertility specialist, nor do I play one on TV, but even I can think of ways to implant a fertilized egg in a woman's uterus without her having ever had sexual intercourse and while leaving her a _virgo intacta_ to examination. I have heard that it's possible (but not entirely likely) for a woman to become pregnant after ejaculate gets just to the opening of the vagina. (The space that's enough for the menstrual flow to get out is certainly enough for some other fluid to get in) That's a lot easier than implanting a pre-fertilized egg (and it's more likely to take and produce a live birth -- IVF isn't the most reliable way to get things done). That is indeed one of the ways. Raymond Brown, in the Birth of The Messiah argues that this is a reasonable scenario. He discusses the theological reasons for including virgin birth in the infancy narratives...and thinks that they are not very convincing. There's other bits of evidence in scripture, like Jesus being called the son of Mary instead of the son of Joseph in Nazareth. He argues that there might have been some irregularities in the timing of the birth of Jesus. The obvious way for this to be possible, still allowing for Mary and Joseph to be honorable within their culture, is for Mary and Joseph to be fooling around after their betrothal but before he took her into his home. According to Brown, this sort of activity for people who are betrothed was probably within social norms. Before I end this, I should do justice to Brown...in that he argued that Jesus' birth was probably somewhat irregular...with this as one possible explanation. Given the presence of Jesus' family in the early Christian church, it is reasonable to assume that some knowledge of the circumstances of his birth existed as the oral infant narratives were developed. Since it is probable that the Septuagint was the scripture used by the early church (it is multiply quoted after all) it would be reasonable to think that this passage would be related to Jesus by his followers. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [SPAM] Re: Woobs (was: Tits (a womans perspective))
From: G. D. Akin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Woobs (was: Tits (a womans perspective)) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:13:16 +0900 Be careful not to leave out the -. The subtleties of the near esoteric remarks that I frequently encounter here, just as frequently fly right over my head... Would you mind explaining yourself, George? -Travis _ Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special stationery, fonts and colors. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 8, 2005 10:16 AM, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raymond Brown, in the Birth of The Messiah argues that this is a reasonable scenario. He discusses the theological reasons for including virgin birth in the infancy narratives...and thinks that they are not very convincing. There's other bits of evidence in scripture, like Jesus being called the son of Mary instead of the son of Joseph in Nazareth. He argues that there might have been some irregularities in the timing of the birth of Jesus. The obvious way for this to be possible, still allowing for Mary and Joseph to be honorable within their culture, is for Mary and Joseph to be fooling around after their betrothal but before he took her into his home. According to Brown, this sort of activity for people who are betrothed was probably within social norms. Before I end this, I should do justice to Brown...in that he argued that Jesus' birth was probably somewhat irregular...with this as one possible explanation. Given the presence of Jesus' family in the early Christian church, it is reasonable to assume that some knowledge of the circumstances of his birth existed as the oral infant narratives were developed. Since it is probable that the Septuagint was the scripture used by the early church (it is multiply quoted after all) it would be reasonable to think that this passage would be related to Jesus by his followers. Dan M. And even more reasonable to think the collaters and writers and mythmakers of the Gospels merely drew on the long tradition of Middle Eastern 'virgin births' origins of various heroes and stong men, and used it for Jesus. ~Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
... a strong consensus that nothing short of war would force Hussain out. Please remember that as of 17 Feb 2003, when I posted to the Brin List, the US government did not argue anyone should ... help the people of Iraq free themselves from a cruel dictatorship. During a long part of the military build up, freeing Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was *not* a stated US goal. Here is what I wrote to this list more than two years ago: ... four major arguments for such an invasion. The Bush administration claims to favor arguments two, three, and four. I think that argument number four is their prime reason, although their day-to-day rhetoric focuses on argument number three. [Find and destroy chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons] ... 1. To help the people of Iraq free themselves from a cruel dictatorship. Salmon Rushdie made this argument. No government that I know of has said that this is a prime reason to go to war, although all claim it would be a nice side effect. 2. To support UN Chapter 7 resolutions. International laws and resolutions are a Liberal, Democrat, and contemporary European ideal; they provide a mechanism for restraining the actions of a super power. ... UN Chapter 7 resolutions are supposed to be enforceable by military action if necessary, in contrast to Chapter 6 resolutions ... 3. Find and destroy chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons The French point out they lived for years next to a power that had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and that broke treaties. In this respect, the Iraqi government is neither special nor unusual. The US says that the Soviet government was successfully deterred but that the Iraqi government is unusual in that it cannot be deterred. ... 4. Overthrow the government of and establish a major US presence in an Arab country so as to frighten the other Arab dictatorships into greater efforts into policing against enemies of US. I think this is the primary motivation of the US government. As side effects, a successful US invasion of Iraq will also: * Enable the US to find and destroy chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons that might be used to threaten the US or US allies or US interests -- in other words, satisfy argument three. * Reduce the power of Europe and the Russia by establishing a Middle Eastern hegemony. * Maintain oil supplies from Middle East until new central Asian and west African supplies become available. * Extend the economic dominance of the dollar over the euro for a few more years, by ensuring that oil is priced in dollars. As Gautam Mukunda said on 7 Apr 2005, The _first task_ of the statesman is to make choices. For whatever reasons, US President Bush chose to invade Iraq rather than spend the same resources to find and develop alternative sources of energy. Obviously, if a country can implement alternative sources of energy and purchase less fossil oil, those Iraqis (and Saudis, Iranians, Russians, Nigerians, and others) who benefit from a high price are hurt when its price drops. In such circumstances, dictatorships may well become even more terrible, as rulers endeavor to retain power more through coercion when they lose part of their ability to bribe. (Interestingly, President Bush chose to occupy Iraq in a manner that reversed Maslow's needs hierarchy, making security for Iraqis a low priority; this is the opposite of what he and others did in the US at that time, where they focused on fear, making security a high priority.) -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [SPAM] Re: Woobs (was: Tits (a womans perspective))
On Apr 8, 2005, at 7:21 AM, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: G. D. Akin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Woobs (was: Tits (a womans perspective)) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:13:16 +0900 Be careful not to leave out the -. The subtleties of the near esoteric remarks that I frequently encounter here, just as frequently fly right over my head... Would you mind explaining yourself, George? Try going to nicetits.com and I think you'll know just what he's talking about. Caution: NSFW (not safe for work), unless you work in the -- ahem -- adult entertainment industry. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Maru Dubshinki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 10:49 AM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) On Apr 8, 2005 10:16 AM, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raymond Brown, in the Birth of The Messiah argues that this is a reasonable scenario. He discusses the theological reasons for including virgin birth in the infancy narratives...and thinks that they are not very convincing. There's other bits of evidence in scripture, like Jesus being called the son of Mary instead of the son of Joseph in Nazareth. He argues that there might have been some irregularities in the timing of the birth of Jesus. The obvious way for this to be possible, still allowing for Mary and Joseph to be honorable within their culture, is for Mary and Joseph to be fooling around after their betrothal but before he took her into his home. According to Brown, this sort of activity for people who are betrothed was probably within social norms. Before I end this, I should do justice to Brown...in that he argued that Jesus' birth was probably somewhat irregular...with this as one possible explanation. Given the presence of Jesus' family in the early Christian church, it is reasonable to assume that some knowledge of the circumstances of his birth existed as the oral infant narratives were developed. Since it is probable that the Septuagint was the scripture used by the early church (it is multiply quoted after all) it would be reasonable to think that this passage would be related to Jesus by his followers. Dan M. And even more reasonable to think the collaters and writers and mythmakers of the Gospels merely drew on the long tradition of Middle Eastern 'virgin births' origins of various heroes and stong men, and used it for Jesus. Well, the argument that the virgin birth is in the infancy narratives is not without merit. The gospel writers have clearly written their narratives with theology in mind elsewhere, so it is important to ask the question whether the virgin birth is the infancy narratives should be viewed theologically, and if so what is the theological statement about Jesus. The two arguments against this are: 1) The New Testament writers generally did not appeal to pagan sources of authority. Scripture was seen as authorities, not other writings. A reading of the New Testament shows that the evangelists did presume some knowledge of the Old Testament. It is regularly appealed to for authority. I cannot recall other examples of reference to pagan narratives for authority (Paul uses the unknown God, but that's not the same sort of thing). 2) There are other hints of Jesus having a somewhat irregular birth. I gave the main one I know...the reference to him as the son of Mary, not his father Joseph by his old neighbors. I should point out that I'm not arguing for a literal interpretation of the infancy narratives. Indeed, I use these narratives when teaching Confirmation class to get the kids to start reading scripture in a less literal fashion. I break the class into two teams and tell each to put one of the narratives in their own words. We find that they have two very different stories...which leads to worthwhile discussion. So, my point is that, while there are clearly non-historical and theological elements to the infancy narratives, a rich oral tradition (such as the one that most likely underlies these narratives) can include stories told by people who were well aware that the birth of Jesus was not more than 9 months after the marriage of Joseph and Mary. Personally, I could be persuaded either way on this question. One could indeed argue that someone who's knowledge of Isaiah is from the Septuagint and who is aware of the other virgin birth narratives could weave this into the tradition relied upon by Luke and Matthew. But, it is also possible that Christians had to defend the irregular birth of Jesus. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:40 AM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) Well, the argument that the virgin birth is in the infancy narratives is theologically based is not without merit. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Change without war (was something else)
Nick wrote: On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 22:40:04 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote ... virtually no one thought that inspections were working _before_ the war. No one? No one? What is your definition of working here? Certainly no one saw Saddam stepping down immediately and no one thought he was particularly cooperative, but are those the only measures that inspections are working? In fact I'd argue that nobody outside of the circle of Bush supporters (and the people he had frightened into believing we could be nuked at any moment) believed that the inspections were _not_ productive. Beyond that, I'd bet another Doug Nickle that Bush insiders had a good idea that if there were any WMDs in Iraq they were few and far between because they were directing the inspectors where to go and what to look for and apart from a few shells that had probably got lost in the bureaucratic shuffle, they couldn't find anything. They also knew that the evidence for an Iraq nuclear program was specious; the infamous aluminum tubes were not suitable for a centrifuge and the yellow cake letter was a fraud. But because they knew that there would be no support for the war unless we believed Iraq was a threat, they continued to delude and frighten the American people. So why did we go to war? Read up on the Project for the New American Century, a think tank that was established in 1997 by many of the people that control our government today. Here's a quote from their white paper written in 2000 (and available here http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semipermanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 8, 2005, at 12:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 10:10 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: And hardly remarkable. Young women conceive pretty regularly. Embedding such a phrase in a prophecy is a little like predicting rain in Seattle. I think your lay scholarship isn't serving you too well here. :D The prophecy in question is not just that a young woman shall conceive, which, as you point out, is hardly news. I think the message of the prophecy is something like There will be this young woman, see, and she'll conceive and bear a Son, who will be... and it goes on from there. The point isn't that a young woman will conceive (well, duh), but that a particular young woman will conceive a particular son, who will be ... special. It's just a way of telling a story, that's all. Yes -- but then, as Dan points out, the people living in the time of Iasus would be familiar with the Isaiah scriptural reference. So really the claim could have been made about *any* particular man. The other thing, of course, is the Gospels' non-contemporary authorship. They were not eyewitness accounts, which makes it *feasible* at least that the Gospel stories were written with deification, or at least exaltation, in mind. That is, the authors said in essence This guy was a really great teacher -- maybe he was the one mentioned in Isaiah -- hmm, well... And so the maiden's conception, which could have proved applicable to any extraordinary individual born any time after Isaiah's claims, was attached to the Iasus story. To bring it back to the Seattle thing -- Behold, on the day that it raineth in the northern city of the high tower, there shall be a salmon flung that is unlike any other; and he who eateth it will find it to be delightful, yea, great shall be his delight in it, and he shall declare that the salmon verily is the product of a most divine source. There's really nothing extraordinary being claimed in that prediction. And that's what guarantees that eventually it will be true -- every circumstance I've described (vaguely) will be fulfilled. Does that mean the fish is literally the product of a god, and that I have the gift of prophecy? That's the problem I have with the story in Isaiah. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 8, 2005, at 5:46 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:08 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: It is interesting that you are much more likely to state things as absolutes than most people I know who do claim to have the sure word of God on issues. Well, when arguing facts, I tend to do that. I'm just as certain of gravity, Earth's rough sphericity and the heliocentric solar system. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think it's very likely. As a scientist, I tend to make statements which allow for the possibility that I might be wrong, even though the claim I am making in the statement seems pretty certain in light of our current understanding. Fair enough. The trouble I have with remembering to use qualifiers is that they tend, I think, to weaken or water down a message. Of course, that can lead to misunderstandings, frex the different meanings that a scientist and a lay person assume for the word theory in the expression theory of evolution. I keep thinking of _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_... ARTHUR: Evolution! LANCELOT: Evolution! GALAHAD: Evolution! PATSY: It's only a theory. ARTHUR: Sh! John, when he wrote Revelation, Actually, I read your original comment as being dismissive of revelation in general (with the capitalization being due to its initial placement in the sentence), not the last book of the Bible in particular, hence the response I made. Ah. Well, I'm pretty dismissive of revelation in general as well. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 8, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Personally, I could be persuaded either way on this question. One could indeed argue that someone who's knowledge of Isaiah is from the Septuagint and who is aware of the other virgin birth narratives could weave this into the tradition relied upon by Luke and Matthew. But, it is also possible that Christians had to defend the irregular birth of Jesus. Or it could even be both; the early birth might have already been trouble, but the Isaiah prophecy provided them with a convenient escape that just happened to match their ideas about Iasus' divinity. The story that Mary was visited by an angel, BTW, is thirdhand at best. Presumably only she was privy to the vision (hallucination, dream, whatever) -- so she must have told someone, who told someone else, and it got written into the account. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Change without war (was something else)
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:18:57 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semipermanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. That certainly fits with what I've heard from returnees from Iraq -- we're not rebuilding Iraq, we're building U.S. bases. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 11:56 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) Dan wrote: My point was (however poorly I made it) that the invasive inspections that Hussein allowed were a measure of his weakness and his vulnerability to measures other than a full out invasion. He was weak in the sense that he would lose a war with the US, that's pretty clear. But, he allowed more invasive inspections before, stretched out over several years. I thought at the time that such inspections would allow us to continue to contain him. I'd be curious to see why the same type of inspections that we had before would do any more than what was done before. Why was Hussein more vulnerable in 2003 than in 1991? The main point that Gautam seems to be arguing is that whether or not to go to war in Iraq was a point that reasonable moral people can differ on. Words like unjustifiable tend to indicate that such a stand is impossible for a reasonable moral person to have taken. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 7:36 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:38:03 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Look at the historical police actions. They don't work against well armed fighters. For a police action to result in the overthrow of Hussian, the Republican guard would have had to let lightly armed units walk in and arrest Hussian. I wasn't talking about arresting him, I was talking about inspections. And what about South Africa and India? Are they not examples of regime changes that were accomplished without war? Today, are we open to such possibilities, which seemed impossible to most people before they happened? I think one is morally obliged to consider the likely outcome of choices not just hope for the best. Are you saying that I proposed that we just hope for the best? Analogies are risky, but let me try one. Let's say someone has serious heart problems, and the best chance for helping him that someone can come up with now is a risky surgery. How about if it is a risky surgery that will undoubtedly kill 10 bystanders and a few of the surgeons? That's what war is -- it always entails collateral damage and non-combatant injuries and deaths. OK, let's talk about medical policy then. According to UN figures, tens if not hundreds of thousands were dying in Iraq due to conditions under Hussein. The war When I stated I was against the Iraq war I also stated that I acknowledged that this would result in the continuation of widespread torture and murder in Iraq. I don't see that in your posts. Rather, I see a hope that some vauge untried plan would work without cost. Without cost? I haven't addressed that issue here, so please don't assume. My belief is that peacemakers are called to exercise as much discipline and be prepared to sacrifice just as much as a soldier. OK, without collateral damage, then. Let me give my point of view considering recent genocide. If we went in with force to stop the genocide in Rwanda, we would kill innocents. As much as we would try to avoid it, it would be impossible to set the number of innocent deaths at zerojust as it is impossible to get friendly fire deaths down to zero. I don't think that means we shouldn't have intervened, if need be, to stop the genocide. I also believe that the What about the strong consensus among other constituencies that the war was wrong? I refer to the churches and nations of the world who opposed or failed to support it. While they may be wrong, it seems unreasonable to give any special weight to an academic or policy-maker consensus. Two different points are being argued. _I_ was opposed to the war, and I thought that, without such a war, Hussein would stay in power for the forseeable future. Gautam's mentors, who he listed, were opposed to the war and thought that, without such a war, Hussein would stay in power. I didn't see analysis of what would happen without war from the religeous figures opposed to the war. That sounds pretty reasonable to me because we shouldn't expect, for example, an exemplary moral theologian to have any special insights into the likelyhood of the fall of any government. On the other hand, widespead agreement among accademics and policy makes who differ greatly on other issues, seems to me to be our best shot at understanding consequences. We had two realistic choices: being willing to go to war to stop it or standing by and letting it happen. Wishing for a third choice would not have helped. I don't see anything there but an argument from your conclusion. Well, we've been discussing this for over two years: I saw three choices at the time: continuing containmnet, the war, and withdrawing the sactions and the no fly zones. Changing the containment slightly might have improved it slightly, but I didn't see anyone on the list or anywhere else lay out a program for regiem change that did not involve war. Everything I read from serious opponents to the war (by serious I mean that they weren't simply saying No Blood for Oil indicated that the alterntive they saw was continued containment. OK, let's say, the Korean Police Action notwithstanding, that we can distinguish between police actions and war. The Serbians came with significant force. They were not going to be stopped by lightly armed police. You're making so many assumptions. Why would we send lightly armed police into such a situation? When the United Nations undertakes a police action, it doesn't mean the troops go in lightly armed. It means that the goals and rules of engagement are dramatically different than in a war. All right, lets look at one of the first police actions: Korea, How were the rules of engagement in Korea limited, and how did that reduce civilian
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 8, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Dan Minette, voice of reason, wrote: The main point that Gautam seems to be arguing is that whether or not to go to war in Iraq was a point that reasonable moral people can differ on. Words like unjustifiable tend to indicate that such a stand is impossible for a reasonable moral person to have taken. I wonder if we couldn't have more effective discussions here if we said things like I couldn't find a compelling justification the invasion instead of the invasion was unjustified. The former asserts one's own observation, not subject to contradiction (ha!), while the other asserts an opinion as though it were truth, subject to lengthy and quarrelsome debates. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 06:17 PM Friday 4/8/2005, Dave Land wrote: On Apr 8, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Dan Minette, voice of reason, wrote: The main point that Gautam seems to be arguing is that whether or not to go to war in Iraq was a point that reasonable moral people can differ on. Words like unjustifiable tend to indicate that such a stand is impossible for a reasonable moral person to have taken. I wonder if we couldn't have more effective discussions here if we said things like I couldn't find a compelling justification the invasion instead of the invasion was unjustified. The former asserts one's own observation, not subject to contradiction (ha!), while the other asserts an opinion as though it were truth, subject to lengthy and quarrelsome debates. I think I was attempting to make a similar point. --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:03:39 -0500, Dan Minette wrote OK, let's talk about medical policy then. According to UN figures, tens if not hundreds of thousands were dying in Iraq due to conditions under Hussein. The war Did you leave that for me to finish? ... has increased the death rate dramatically. OK, without collateral damage, then. Let me give my point of view considering recent genocide. If we went in with force to stop the genocide in Rwanda, we would kill innocents. As much as we would try to avoid it, it would be impossible to set the number of innocent deaths at zerojust as it is impossible to get friendly fire deaths down to zero. I don't understand where the number zero came from. It would be nice if zero innocents were killed in police actions, but in reality, it happens often. I didn't see analysis of what would happen without war from the religeous figures opposed to the war. That sounds pretty reasonable to me because we shouldn't expect, for example, an exemplary moral theologian to have any special insights into the likelyhood of the fall of any government. On the other hand, widespead agreement among accademics and policy makes who differ greatly on other issues, seems to me to be our best shot at understanding consequences. I fail to see any reason to choose between the two in decision-making, which is why I offered no special weight to academics. Well, we've been discussing this for over two years: I saw three choices at the time: continuing containmnet, the war, and withdrawing the sactions and the no fly zones. Changing the containment slightly might have improved it slightly, but I didn't see anyone on the list or anywhere else lay out a program for regiem change that did not involve war. I suspect you can thank the media for that. Everything I read from serious opponents to the war (by serious I mean that they weren't simply saying No Blood for Oil indicated that the alterntive they saw was continued containment. There was a six-point plan from the churches, which Tony Blair took very seriously, while it was virtually ignored by the media and the administration on this side of the pond. All right, lets look at one of the first police actions: Korea, How were the rules of engagement in Korea limited, and how did that reduce civilian deaths? Korea is about the worst example to pick, since it looked far more like an undeclared war than a police action. Certainly it was *called* a police action, but that doesn't mean it was conducted like one. OK, but your point was that there was no just war theology that allowed premeptive wars. Aquinas was a theologian. I think Kant's work pretty well eliminates the litter bug nuking issue. I hope that Kant isn't needed for that degree of common sense. And Aquinas' arguments did not allow for an unprovoked or pre-emptive war. The principle of a just cause insists that *initiating* agression is wrong. But even that begs the question, since there are many meanings of aggression. I don't think we can invoke Aquinas and settle the issue. In any event, do you want to argue that *this* war fits into just war morality? OK, let me clarify this. You would be opposed to using unilateral military force to stop genocide on moral grounds, right? Even if we found that the killing in Sudan was intensifying and that the Arabs were planning a final solution, we would be oblidged to refrain from military action. Not military action, war. Are you saying that it would be a moral course of action for the United States to conquer the Sudan, as it has taken over Iraq? I think the point is that the power to deceive ourselves is not limited to those favoring war. Those who argue that it is not needed also need to be sure that they are making a concerted effort to see the most likely repercussions. Aren't we far more likely to deceive ourselves in ways that maintain our personal safety, wealth and power? Doesn't that make a presumption against war appropriate? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I am not a fertility specialist, nor do I play one on TV, but even I can think of ways to implant a fertilized egg in a woman's uterus without her having ever had sexual intercourse and while leaving her a _virgo intacta_ to examination. There was a case years ago of a woman who was a virgin and became pregnant because she engaged in anal sex and just happened to have a fissure between her rectum and her vagina. Sigh. Reproduction via union of sperm and egg is sex. It's not meaningful to speak of an asexual pregnancy, and it's impossible for artificial insemination techniques to have existed 2K years ago. Sure, this is readily apparent to *us*, but back then any pregnancy in concert with an intact hymen would be considered miraculous. I think the point that is being made is that there are several ways for a woman to become fertilized (not refering to that anal fissure hereG) that would have the appearance of being miraculous without actually being a supernatural event. Speaking for myself, I don't require supernatural events when unlikely occurance will fit the bill just as well and will be just as impressive to the natives. I think it's a real stretch, BTW, to say that a woman who's experienced penetrative anal intercourse is a virgin. But what would those ancient people think? Would they necessarily know if such a thing occured? I'm talking possibility as opposed to probability here, and i think you have to explore the one before you can assess the other. xponent Virginity Is Overated Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [SPAM] Re: Woobs (was: Tits (a womans perspective))
Travis Edmunds wrote: From: G. D. Akin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Woobs (was: Tits (a womans perspective)) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:13:16 +0900 Be careful not to leave out the -. The subtleties of the near esoteric remarks that I frequently encounter here, just as frequently fly right over my head... Would you mind explaining yourself, George? Simple http://www.nice-tits.org/ shows you pictures of birds. http://www.nicetits.org/ shows you cumguzzlingsluts as a part of its bestiary. xponent SemenSippingDamsels I Meant Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [SPAM] Re: Woobs (was: Tits (a womans perspective))
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Woobs (was: Tits (a womans perspective)) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 20:44:46 -0500 Travis Edmunds wrote: From: G. D. Akin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Woobs (was: Tits (a womans perspective)) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:13:16 +0900 Be careful not to leave out the -. The subtleties of the near esoteric remarks that I frequently encounter here, just as frequently fly right over my head... Would you mind explaining yourself, George? Simple I must be... http://www.nice-tits.org/ shows you pictures of birds. http://www.nicetits.org/ shows you cumguzzlingsluts as a part of its bestiary. -Travis _ Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [SPAM] Re: Woobs (was: Tits (a womans perspective))
From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Woobs (was: Tits (a womans perspective)) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:29:22 -0700 On Apr 8, 2005, at 7:21 AM, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: G. D. Akin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Woobs (was: Tits (a womans perspective)) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:13:16 +0900 Be careful not to leave out the -. The subtleties of the near esoteric remarks that I frequently encounter here, just as frequently fly right over my head... Would you mind explaining yourself, George? Try going to nicetits.com and I think you'll know just what he's talking about. Caution: NSFW (not safe for work), unless you work in the -- ahem -- adult entertainment industry. singing Your daddy works in porno now that mommy's not around... Merci buckets Dave. -Travis _ Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 8, 2005, at 6:19 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: Sigh. Reproduction via union of sperm and egg is sex. It's not meaningful to speak of an asexual pregnancy, and it's impossible for artificial insemination techniques to have existed 2K years ago. Sure, this is readily apparent to *us*, but back then any pregnancy in concert with an intact hymen would be considered miraculous. How much knowledge of a hymen was there ca. 2K years ago, though? I mean, did anyone in Galilee even know they existed? I think it's a real stretch, BTW, to say that a woman who's experienced penetrative anal intercourse is a virgin. But what would those ancient people think? Would they necessarily know if such a thing occured? What difference would that make? Ostensibly if the author in Isaiah had said virgin, he would have meant virgin -- or else scripture can't validly be applied to modern life, since other terms would surely have drifted as much. Besides that, of course, the word virgin wasn't used. There's a big difference between a young woman and a virgin. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 8, 2005, at 4:17 PM, Dave Land wrote: I wonder if we couldn't have more effective discussions here if we said things like I couldn't find a compelling justification the invasion instead of the invasion was unjustified. The former asserts one's own observation, not subject to contradiction (ha!), while the other asserts an opinion as though it were truth, subject to lengthy and quarrelsome debates. Well, why though? Isn't everything we state that is less than 100% provable an opinion? Isn't it valid to read in the phrase In my opinion... before any declaration, at least of values or judgments? Obviously that wouldn't work for things like math ... [In my opinion] 2 + 2 = 4. But isn't it self-apparent that when I say the Iraq war is unjustifiable, I am issuing my own opinion on the topic? And my understanding is that opinions are generally taken by their holders as truth, and that only lengthy and occasionally quarrelsome debates are how those opinions got aired and maybe changed -- or at least altered. But it seems excessive to me to feel that we *must have* the in my opinion part before an opinion is actually rendered; to me it's a little like instruction manuals that label the English section English, the French section Français and the Spanish section Español. Assuming one has moderate background in various languages, context will tell one very quickly which language one is reading. One's native tongue will be easiest, of course, and doesn't need to be labeled at all. I sometimes feel the same is the case with a forum wherein various topics -- many of them having to do with opinions -- are discussed. Do we really actually need to label the opinions as such, or is context sufficient to let us discern them? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Black holes 'do not exist'
Robert G. Seeberger wrote: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/pf/050328-8_pf.html Black holes are staples of science fiction and many think astronomers have observed them indirectly. But according to a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, these awesome breaches in space-time do not and indeed cannot exist. Thank you for posting this. I came across it a couple of days ago and meant to post something, so as to ask those better versed in physics what they had to say about it. Anyone? :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
