Jump to content
270soft Forum
NYrepublican

The EU breaking the internet

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

I do not believe that any follower of any Abrahamic Monotheist religion, be it Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, should ever support the military or foreign policy of ANY nation where that policy is backed by nuclear weapons - an obvious, to any fool (though such fools seem to abound) blasphemy and high affront to God and His Creation by splitting the very building blocks He built the world on to produce unholy destruction and blight upon His Earth to prosecute vane wars - and that the nations who use these implements of high sacrilege - probably the greatest every commit by humanity upon the Earth to date, if you think about what it means and what is it - should be denounced, called to task, and have their sinful governments and evil engines of sin cast down by any pious member of any Abrahamic Religion - be that nation the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, Pakistan - or the nation and government of Israel.

A bunch of hot air. This is just your opinion with no data or anything empirical cited whatsoever and I'm in no way bound by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

A bunch of hot air. This is just your opinion with no data or anything empirical cited whatsoever and I'm in no way bound by it.

It is true that my statement is not EXPLICITLY stated in any Abrahamic Monotheist scriptures, ALL of which were written in a day an age when they're writers couldn't even fathom such a monstrous as being possible - that such a thing could even be done in their wildest imaginations and flights of fancy, let alone the sober, contemplative mind one transcribes scripture in. But, can you REALLY defend God's attitude being otherwise to this issue in terms of how He's portrayed, how His Creation is portrayed, and the attitude, protectiveness, and sovereignty over His Creation He is portrayed with in ALL such scripture, and His reactions toward much lesser violations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

 It is true that my statement is not EXPLICITLY stated in any Abrahamic Monotheist scriptures, ALL of which were written in a day an age when they're writers couldn't even fathom such a monstrous as being possible - that such a thing could even be done in their wildest imaginations and flights of fancy, let alone the sober, contemplative mind one transcribes scripture in. But, can you REALLY defend God's attitude being otherwise to this issue in terms of how He's portrayed, how His Creation is portrayed, and the attitude, protectiveness, and sovereignty over His Creation He is portrayed with in ALL such scripture, and His reactions toward much lesser violations?

I've yet to see a sefer (Jewish religous text) which includes a commandment "Thou shall not wage unneccessary wars."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

I've yet to see a sefer (Jewish religous text) which includes a commandment "Thou shall not wage unneccessary wars."

Nevermind that no definition of "unneccesary wars" has been provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I've yet to see a sefer (Jewish religous text) which includes a commandment "Thou shall not wage unneccessary wars."

And how many of these sefer were authenticity were written after the Manhattan Project. The sin I strongly believe is at work here is FAR, FAR worse than "unnecessary wars," and FAR more recent, and I think you realize that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

And how many of these sefer were authenticity were written after the Manhattan Project. The sin I strongly believe is at work here is FAR, FAR worse than "unnecessary wars," and FAR more recent, and I think you realize that.

Many Many Seforim (Plural of Sefer or Jewish Religous Texts) have been written post-Manhattan project.I'm still waiting for a quote along the lines of "One is obligated to work towards a nuclear-free world."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Many Many Seforim (Plural of Sefer or Jewish Religous Texts) have been written post-Manhattan project.I'm still waiting for a quote along the lines of "One is obligated to work towards a nuclear-free world."

Can you defend the concept of God, as He is portrayed in EVERY Abrahamic Monotheist scripture of any significance, having no problem with such a fundamental violation at the building blocks of His Creation to produce to unholy destruction and blight upon His Earth? I would like know how you rectify that, and so easily and dismissively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

 Can you defend the concept of God, as He is portrayed in EVERY Abrahamic Monotheist scripture of any significance, having no problem with such a fundamental violation at the building blocks of His Creation to produce to unholy destruction and blight upon His Earth? I would like know how you rectify that, and so easily and dismissively.

Nuclear weapons actually ensure peace by discouraging war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Nuclear weapons actually ensure peace by discouraging war.

Quick question, why do you think wars are fought? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WVProgressive said:

Quick question, why do you think wars are fought? 

For control of material resources. People will (hopefully) be less likely to wage war if there's a reasonable risk of self-destruction (at the very least it'll discourage escalation of a minor territorial dispute into a full-blown war)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Nuclear weapons actually ensure peace by discouraging war.

That is a mortal diplomat and strategist's reasoning. It's not the type of viewpoint God ever takes in scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

So?

If I REALLY have to answer this question, then you will have achieved a new level of demands for the "spoon feeding" from me I often complain about...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

If I REALLY have to answer this question, then you will have achieved a new level of demands for the "spoon feeding" from me I often complain about...

Even if you're correct who cares? The question is given empirical data which is the best course of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

For control of material resources

Well at least you're smart enough to know America's never been the guardian of "freedom and democracy" it bills itself as.

4 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

People will (hopefully) be less likely to wage war if there's a reasonable risk of self-destruction (at the very least it'll discourage escalation of a minor territorial dispute into a full-blown war)

So are you saying Iran and North Korea should be allowed to have a nuclear bomb to defend against the US (who would doubtlessly strike first), and what about the countless wars started by US and Capitalist imperialism (Iraq and Afghanistan just being the most notable of recent examples).  

13 minutes ago, Patine said:

That is a mortal diplomat and strategist's reasoning. It's not the type of viewpoint God ever takes in scripture.

Should God really play a role in human affairs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WVProgressive said:

So are you saying Iran and North Korea should be allowed to have a nuclear bomb to defend against the US (who would doubtlessly strike first), and what about the countless wars started by US and Capitalist imperialism (Iraq and Afghanistan just being the most notable of recent examples).  

North Korea I don't really care about. Iran it really depends in whose hands it winds up in, I suspect some radical Islamic factions would consider using it (or at least using it as an excuse to get away with murder) and there's a reasonable chance of us getting unlucky enough that they'll wind up in power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Even if you're correct who cares? The question is given empirical data which is the best course of action.

You are a good example of a religious sheep - not the material to be a religious scholar, theologian, or mystic. You accept the words, commands, and interpretations of Scripture from those you are TOLD the proper religious, who themselves are selected from religious hierarchy, which is, from top to bottom, mortals, who are flawed and faulted, as MUCH as any other mortals, but whom you are TOLD have authority above others, and are not to question their viewpoints and decisions, or think in a way that deviates. Although, admittedly and certainly, religious scholars, theologians, and mystics are not always correct or right either, there is a penchant to review scripture, put it in new and modern contexts, check for corruptions and mistakes by the leaders of organized religion down the line that have gotten entrenched, and to consider the divine in ways that are neither hidebound nor aberrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

 You are a good example of a religious sheep - not the material to be a religious scholar, theologian, or mystic. You accept the words, commands, and interpretations of Scripture from those you are TOLD the proper religious, who themselves are selected from religious hierarchy, which is, from top to bottom, mortals, who are flawed and faulted, as MUCH as any other mortals, but whom you are TOLD have authority above others, and are not to question their viewpoints and decisions, or think in a way that deviates. Although, admittedly and certainly, religious scholars, theologians, and mystics are not always correct or right either, there is a penchant to review scripture, put it in new and modern contexts, check for corruptions and mistakes by the leaders of organized religion down the line that have gotten entrenched, and to consider the divine in ways that are neither hidebound nor aberrant.

This is just an insult and not an argument. Agreed @WVProgressive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

North Korea I don't really care about. Iran it really depends in whose hands it winds up in, I suspect some radical Islamic factions would consider using it (or at least using it as an excuse to get away with murder) and there's a reasonable chance of us getting unlucky enough that they'll wind up in power. 

In the LONG run, I don't trust any nuclear power, or aspiring nuclear power, on Earth, and believe weapons designed to commit genocide of populations and irradiation of terrain are NOT military weapons - they are the weapons of grand-scale terrorists, war criminals, and monstrous sociopaths by nature, and cannot help but be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

In the LONG run, I don't trust any nuclear power, or aspiring nuclear power, on Earth, and believe weapons designed to commit genocide of populations and irradiation of terrain are NOT military weapons - they are the weapons of grand-scale terrorists, war criminals, and monstrous sociopaths by nature, and cannot help but be.

Understandable.

Just now, Patine said:

Ah, you've played the SJW defense. "You have offended me" (shut the debate down immediately).

I ask for data and you respond with a rambly insulting comment telling me that I'm a "religous sheep who blindly follows authority and doesn't think for himself."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Ah, you've played the SJW defense. "You have offended me" (shut the debate down immediately).

Lol "SJW" you expect to be taken seriously using terms like that? Also you always pull the sheeple card whenever someone disagrees with you, which is rich coming from someone who claims "corporatism" exists and is in any way distinct from capitalism.

7 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

This is just an insult and not an argument. Agreed @WVProgressive?

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

Understandable.

I ask for data and you respond with a rambly insulting comment telling me that I'm a "religous sheep who blindly follows authority and doesn't think for himself."

Basically, what I was saying is that God's statements, viewpoints, and actions in traditional scripture are in-line with what I'm pointing out, but the Prophets and Apostles of old had no way to fathom or imagine such a thing as possible. You say that the omission of a strict condemnation of something whose context would have been nonsensical at the time means that God must NO PROBLEM with nuclear weapons, and in fact it's SAFEST to proceed with their current presence in the world without even questioning the issue. I admit, I got a bit carried away, and for THAT I apologize, but your responses became frustrating to deal with, because they felt like stonewalling tactics rather than debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WVProgressive said:

Lol "SJW" you expect to be taken seriously using terms like that? Also you always pull the sheeple card whenever someone disagrees with you, which is rich coming from someone who claims "corporatism" exists and is in any way distinct from capitalism.

Agreed.

It is different. It lacks the greatest benefits of capitalism, exaggerates many of it's worst parts, and takes some almost feudal aspects, under different names and guises, into itself that capitalism lacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Patine said:

Basically, what I was saying is that God's statements, viewpoints, and actions in traditional scripture are in-line with what I'm pointing out, but the Prophets and Apostles of old had no way to fathom or imagine such a thing as possible. You say that the omission of a strict condemnation of something whose context would have been nonsensical at the time means that God must NO PROBLEM with nuclear weapons, and in fact it's SAFEST to proceed with their current presence in the world without even questioning the issue. I admit, I got a bit carried away, and for THAT I apologize, but your responses became frustrating to deal with, because they felt like stonewalling tactics rather than debate.

Oh you want to start about the Bible and war. Deuteronomy:20:10-15 hardly condemns nuclear weapons or anything close. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...