Jesus Christ was a Liberal.
I win.
He was also quite the fiscal conservative, according to the voting record. You lose, independents win.
|
... "fat people simply have no self control" is a sterotype that marginalizes a whole host of people, in America, mainly poorer people...
An eternally-fascinating reversal: America's poor are also, statistically, America's most overweight, ostensibly because unhealthful food is also the cheapest to buy, and those same poor folk tend to live in smaller homes with no space for exercise, and in neglected, crime-ridden neighborhoods where it is factually too dangerous to exercise out-of-doors.
ostensibly because unhealthful food is also the cheapest to buy,
...but it really isn't. For what you get, it's actually quite expensive.
and those same poor folk tend to live in smaller homes with no space for exercise,
You can undertake a reasonable workout in a space the size of your loungeroom... of course doing the roadwork (running) for cardio would be a problem, but not a total show stopper.
and in neglected, crime-ridden neighborhoods where it is factually too dangerous to exercise out-of-doors.
The benefits to running at 0600 is it is WAY TOO EARLY for the nutters to be out of bed. At that time (and earlier) of the morning, its just me and the birds. 3xWeek@35mins is all you really need - and the average suburban block is just fine for this purpose.
Getting fit costs practically nothing, and having decent food is pretty cheap but can be rather dull for a while. What it does require (the food) is prior preparation, and a decent refrigerator (to keep leftovers)
I like to think of myself as a centrist (for example, I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment as a personal freedom that ought to be largely unregulated), however, I must raise my flag as Liberal... at least leaning liberal.
For example, it is my opinion that Glenn Beck is a rotten, awful, festering pile of human feces who is the embodiment of how someone can unabashedly rape the first amendment and fill the ears of the nation with filth.
I am offended on the behalf of feces. :P
I am offended on the behalf of feces. :P
Amen. At least feces serve a positive role in the world.
Jesus Christ was a Liberal.
I win.
Honestly, it's fine with me that the conservatives want to claim him. I've never been much of a fan of seizing historical or mythological figures as totems. If ideas are good, they should be able to stand without celebrity endorsement.
It might be politically pragmatic to have those endorsements anyway, but I'm not much for sacrificing intellectual principles to expediency.
|
Jesus Christ was a Liberal.
I win.
Honestly, it's fine with me that the conservatives want to claim him. I've never been much of a fan of seizing historical or mythological figures as totems. If ideas are good, they should be able to stand without celebrity endorsement.
It might be politically pragmatic to have those endorsements anyway, but I'm not much for sacrificing intellectual principles to expediency.
Yeah, but when God is on your side, what mortal dares to argue? Oh, and yes, God takes sides (Cain and Abel, anyone? Clearly displaying that even a liberal hates a vegan). If anyone were to disagree with my analysis, lets take a closer look at His Great Liberal Works:
Peacemaking, not War Making: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute
you
The Death Penalty: Thou shalt not kill
Crime and Punishment: If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to
you.
Justice: Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your
trespasses.
Corporate Greed and the Religion of Wealth: In the temple courts [Jesus] found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and other
sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle;
he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. Watch out! Be on your guard against
all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. Truly, I say unto you, it will
be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. You cannot serve both God and Money.
Paying Taxes & Separation of Church & State: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the
things that are God's.
Community: Love your neighbor as yourself. So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you.
If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.
Equality & Social Programs: But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed,
because they cannot repay you.
Ta Da! See, you are right, celebrities blahblahblah, intellectual stuff I can't follow, but why go through that when you can go "I'm right because God says so"?
The Death Penalty: Thou shalt not kill
This is a misquote. The correct phrase is "thou shalt not murder" which has an entirely different meaning than the people saying "God does not like the Death Penalty" are reading into it.
You know, I'm not doing so well these last few days. While what I wrote above might be true for a very, very few people, it's a cop-out for most. I'm going to have to start using sarcasm BBCode tags...
But see, because it is a line run out at the first opportunity we just roll with it at face value - our incredulousness at being faced with such an argument has faded now we realise they tend to be serious! :p
Which bible are you reading?The Death Penalty: Thou shalt not killThis is a misquote. The correct phrase is "thou shalt not murder" which has an entirely different meaning than the people saying "God does not like the Death Penalty" are reading into it.
New King James with Strong's Concordance and Vine's Expository Dictionary. Occasionally Old King James and New American Standard as well, but NKJ is my preference.
New King James with Strong's Concordance and Vine's Expository Dictionary. Occasionally Old King James and New American Standard as well, but NKJ is my preference.Which bible are you reading?The Death Penalty: Thou shalt not killThis is a misquote. The correct phrase is "thou shalt not murder" which has an entirely different meaning than the people saying "God does not like the Death Penalty" are reading into it.
Huh. My Zondervan King James says "kill".
Huh. My Zondervan King James says "kill".New King James with Strong's Concordance and Vine's Expository Dictionary. Occasionally Old King James and New American Standard as well, but NKJ is my preference.Which bible are you reading?The Death Penalty: Thou shalt not killThis is a misquote. The correct phrase is "thou shalt not murder" which has an entirely different meaning than the people saying "God does not like the Death Penalty" are reading into it.
(Old) King James does say kill there. It's one of the biggest sources for the misquote. While the word there can be translated "kill", "murder" is more accurate.
Well, at any rate, it's my belief that it is morally reprehensible for one man to take another's life when a different option is both possible and safe. A man can do no good works on the Earth if he is dead.
While the word there can be translated "kill", "murder" is more accurate.
In what language? Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic?
I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure the 'suffer not a witch(poisoner)' comes from Greek/Aramaic though.
Yeah, there's a lot of that stuff. Like the original Hebrew "virgin" for Mary might really mean "young woman" instead, calling the whole virgin birth thing into question. Personally, I can't see how it would make a difference; the dude was either divine or he wasn't, and whether he was born of a woman or a virgin or a lotus blossom shouldn't affect that... but as a non-Christian, my opinion on that matter counts for exactly zero, I suppose.
While the word there can be translated "kill", "murder" is more accurate.In what language? Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic?
I believe its Hebrew. Don't have either of the reference books on hand at this time.
Yeah, but when God is on your side, what mortal dares to argue?
*raises hand*
It's a trifling task to comb through myths and find support for just about anything. If someone performs this exercise and determines that character X or Y is on my side, what of it? My arguments can't be made better by that endorsement. They are good or bad on their own. Likewise if the same thing is done and we discover that God is not on my side, what of it? It wouldn't make their arguments any better either.
And frankly I only think the opinions of divine beings and tenets espoused in holy books only have any relevance in governance in a theocracy. Since I'm not interested in living in one of those, or assisting in the creation or maintenance of one or anything like it, I must dig my heels in and oppose the application of such endorsements regardless of the policy in question.
Yeah, there's a lot of that stuff. Like the original Hebrew "virgin" for Mary might really mean ...
Once you start picking on a fe obvious thread like that though, the whole tapestry starts falling apart :)
I believe its Hebrew. Don't have either of the reference books on hand at this time.While the word there can be translated "kill", "murder" is more accurate.In what language? Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic?
Thou Shalt Not Kill (or whatever the word translates best as) is from the Ten Commandments. Depending on one's denomination, these are to be found in various parts of the Torah. That's all-Hebrew territory. The only Aramaic writings are much later on. (Physically in the book, anyway. The dating of individual texts is more complicated and contentious.)
Greek doesn't enter the picture until the Christian canon, where it's generally considered the original language for the lot. A minority of scholars still argue some texts (chiefly Matthew) existed in Hebrew or Aramiac originals before they came into the Greek form we know.
That's all-Hebrew territory. The only Aramaic writings are much later on.
So how does the Hebrew word translate, or is it equally vague? Anyone speak Hebrew here?
That's all-Hebrew territory. The only Aramaic writings are much later on.So how does the Hebrew word translate, or is it equally vague? Anyone speak Hebrew here?
As I said above I don't have my books on hand, but an internet search turned this up:
That site goes on a long ramble after that paragraph and doesn't bother to delve into the etymology of the word, so I searched for "rasah hebrew" instead. This came up:
That site actually does a much better job, and provides other scriptures where the same or similar terms were used. It also repeatedly links to an etymology article on "rasah", also anglicized as "ratsach":
Hope that helps.
That's all-Hebrew territory. The only Aramaic writings are much later on.So how does the Hebrew word translate, or is it equally vague? Anyone speak Hebrew here?
Beats me. I've never looked into it.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Greek doesn't enter the picture until the Christian canon, where it's generally considered the original language for the lot. A minority of scholars still argue some texts (chiefly Matthew) existed in Hebrew or Aramiac originals before they came into the Greek form we know.
For one brief moment, I thought you were saying I was a scholar :-)
Greek doesn't enter the picture until the Christian canon, where it's generally considered the original language for the lot. A minority of scholars still argue some texts (chiefly Matthew) existed in Hebrew or Aramiac originals before they came into the Greek form we know.For one brief moment, I thought you were saying I was a scholar :-)
Why w- Oh, right then.
Some scholars think you're a priority, if it helps. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Greek doesn't enter the picture until the Christian canon, where it's generally considered the original language for the lot. A minority of scholars still argue some texts (chiefly Matthew) existed in Hebrew or Aramiac originals before they came into the Greek form we know.For one brief moment, I thought you were saying I was a scholar :-)Why w- Oh, right then.
Some scholars think you're a priority, if it helps. :)
pity my wives never did ;-)
|
|
I think what I'm trying to say is that Liberals tend to lean towards the spirit of the New Testament, where everyone just cool beans with Jesus, while most Conservatives point towards things said in the Old Testament as the basis of their arguements. And I pause to wonder, why be a Christian when your beliefs are so very Jewish? Didn't Jesus point out many things in the Old Testament and go "Whoa, hold on, that's ridiculous?"
On a less serious note, he has well documented history of animal abuse, particularly when he attacked an innocent herd of pigs by casting a demon into them. I often wonder why there was even a herd of pigs nearby to begin with-what are Jews going to do with pigs?
|
I think what I'm trying to say is that Liberals tend to lean towards the spirit of the New Testament, where everyone just cool beans with Jesus, while most Conservatives point towards things said in the Old Testament as the basis of their arguements. And I pause to wonder, why be a Christian when your beliefs are so very Jewish? Didn't Jesus point out many things in the Old Testament and go "Whoa, hold on, that's ridiculous?"
On a less serious note, he has well documented history of animal abuse, particularly when he attacked an innocent herd of pigs by casting a demon into them. I often wonder why there was even a herd of pigs nearby to begin with-what are Jews going to do with pigs?
Little did he know that we had a fiendish plan! By telling Jesus to cast a demon to the pigs, we secretly implanted the first H1N1 virus. It took centuries to fester, but then, an ancestor of those pigs traveled to Mexico on a visa with the intention of causing a terrorist attack of the flu. It's all part of our super-secret Protocols! You can read all about it in that super-secret book we wrote to double-bluff the gulible into thinking we were trying to take over the world.
I think what I'm trying to say is that Liberals tend to lean towards the spirit of the New Testament, where everyone just cool beans with Jesus, while most Conservatives point towards things said in the Old Testament as the basis of their arguements. And I pause to wonder, why be a Christian when your beliefs are so very Jewish? Didn't Jesus point out many things in the Old Testament and go "Whoa, hold on, that's ridiculous?"
On a less serious note, he has well documented history of animal abuse, particularly when he attacked an innocent herd of pigs by casting a demon into them. I often wonder why there was even a herd of pigs nearby to begin with-what are Jews going to do with pigs?
A lot of the rules in the old testament (Leviticus for example) had to do with the Jews saying "Lord, we need rules! Help us!" and God was all "Alright, b!~*#es, here's some rules!"
Now, it's not that Jesus said these rules were stupid or wrong... far from it (that would be heresy, after all, which was actually pretty frowned upon back then). The whole point of the Jesus thing is that you are a sinner and you will sin and it is definitely still sin when you break all those ridiculous old rules. The trick is, as long as you have Faith in Christ and you are truly repentant and trust in Him, well then you're good to go. At least that's how I was taught as a kid.
Some faiths require actual penance and all that stuff which kind of allows you to sin on purpose but if you pay for it with pain and MAKE yourself regret doing it, then you'll be Saved. That's where the indulgences came from. You paid for your sin. It got a little out of control.
On a less serious note, he has well documented history of animal abuse, particularly when he attacked an innocent herd of pigs by casting a demon into them. I often wonder why there was even a herd of pigs nearby to begin with-what are Jews going to do with pigs?
The Levant of the era was far from a Jews-only club. In fact it's always been a pretty diverse area, with with the trade routes and all. They could easily have been the swine of a non-Jew. Or just invented for the purposes of the story. Since pigs were unclean, offing a herd of them via demon enema probably gave someone a nice theological kick back in the day.
murder vs. kill
Not that I would have gone through all the legwork, I just wanted to chime in and say you are on the money. It should be murder, not kill.
Makes will save on self defense/second amendment debate.
Equality & Social Programs: But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed,
because they cannot repay you.
Don't forget his advice to the wealthy man who wanted to know how he could reach the Kingdom of Heaven: "Sell all that you have and give it to the poor." He also observed that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom.
On the original topic of the thread, it seems to me there are some pretty liberal* writers and editors working at Paizo. I commented on that in my LJ a couple of weeks back:
The inhabitants of Sandpoint, where the campaign takes place, include at least one gay couple both of whom are prominent citizens (Cyrdak Drokkus, the owner of the Sandpoint Theater Company, and Sir Jasper Korvaski, the manager of the Mercantile League, which serves as a combination bank, trading house, and chamber of commerce). Their relationship is one of the town's worst-kept secrets, and the vast majority of citizens accept it without censure. The minority who do disapprove are, for the most part, not Good-aligned; instead they're either Lawful Neutral or some form of Evil. Jasper, on the other hand, is a paladin. For those who don't play the game, a paladin is a champion of a Lawful Good deity, all of whose abilities are dependent on remaining in good standing with that deity. Creating a paladin who's also a practicing homosexual is essentially a slap in the face to anyone who thinks of homosexuality (or sexual relationships outside of marriage, for that matter) as inherently sinful.* This makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
There's also the Neutral Good elven cleric who serves as the town's midwife and provides discrete contraception and abortion services. Alignment in D&D (or Pathfinder) is based on what you do. Again, by simply including such a character in the adventure, the authors are stating that in their world, helping a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is a virtuous act, which a servant of a good deity may carry out with that deity's implicit approval or even direct aid. Since I personally regard coerced pregnancy and childbirth (the necessary consequence of banning abortion) as violations of a woman's autonomy tantamount to rape, this also endears the authors to me.
Then there's the town brothel, owned and operated by the Chaotic Good Kaye Tesarani, who employs only adults who choose to be sex workers, pays them well and doesn't allow the patrons to abuse them. This establishment, too, is generally accepted by most of the population, and the one "secret" romance in Sandpoint that's even less secret than Jasper and Cyrdak's is that between Madame Tesarani and the town's very popular sheriff, Belor Hemlock. The brothel's main detractors are the conservative, Lawful Neutral Scarnetti family, and the Neutral Evil head of the local thieves' guild, who wants prostitution banned so that he can control it (using slave labor methods and underage workers, of course).
† A lot of gamers who are old enough to remember the eighties feel that smacking the Christian Right is worth doing for its own sake, whatever their other political or religious opinions. Back then, Dungeons and Dragons was one of the favorite targets of the hysterical "OMG Satan is everywhere we must fight the Occult!" strain of American Christianity, which led to gamers being harassed, game materials being difficult to find in some parts of the country, and even occasional cases of certain adults (particularly teachers) getting it into their heads that they had a right and a Christian duty to confiscate and destroy any D&D books they noticed in the possession of a minor, whether that minor was their own child or not.
* Socially liberal, anyway -- they could be libertarians, in the honest sense of the word, as opposed to the Ron Paul racist homophobic misogynistic Christian Fundamentalist "libertarian" b~+#*#~& sense.
This makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
You and me both.
I would just like to say I found this by accident. Enjoy!
Here is one of my favorite lines from the web page.
It is impossible to 'win' at D&D. Your character will die eventually no matter what you do.Ah, but there is a hint of truth in the article!
4th edition killed Gary Gygax, not the other way around.May the greatest man the world has ever seen rest in peace on which ever plane the percentage dice sent him...
I just shot some Boston Lager from my nose when I read the fact that Michael Jackson should be included in every 4e game so you can have your 'in-game child molestation scene', which reminded me of the time that Gandalf was grabbing at Elijah's Wood while he was recuperating in that comfy bed. In fact, I wish I could replace Gandalf with Michael Jackson so it would look more natural with Pippin and Merri jumping on the bed at the same time.
Any school of thought that lumps liberal, Obama, Democrat, Christianity, the corporate environmental shell-game, thought crime and censorship into one category is something I refuse to subscribe to and something I refuse to accept as true liberalism.
It is a rare, rare day that I find myself defending pres man. But, as much as I agree with Shifty about gun control, I find his use of two phrases in his posts on this thread things I can't abide: "I'd tap that" and "fat kid on a cake." Why? Because it is fundamentally dehumanizing. I'm not a Sarah Palin fan, but as a woman, and as someone who is told by society that focusing on my weight is "what I should do," I get a little angry at those expressions.
We're not maple trees or faucets or other objects to "tap." Is it too embarassing to come out and say, "Sarah Palin turns me on sexually, even though I'm offended by her politics?" Or is it because saying it that way doesn't marginalize her while shielding you from your emotions (and the actual word S-E-X)? Likewise, "fat people simply have no self control" is a sterotype that marginalizes a whole host of people, in America, mainly poorer people.
They're just common expressions, but beneath the words is a hurtful etymology. Go ahead and call me an overly sensitive PC liberal, maybe I am. But it's because I care deeply about words and their meanings.
+1 Zeugma. :-)
I would also like to point out that if you recommended a murder mystery novel to your friend, and she told you that she doesn't like those kinds of books because they bring back painful memories of when her father was murdered, you wouldn't get all huffy and tell her that she's overly sensitive (at least, I hope you wouldn't). You would apologize and make a mental note not to recommend those kinds of book to her anymore.
The reality is, it doesn't hurt anyone or anything, other than perhaps one's own ego, to say, "I'm sorry. I really didn't mean to offend you." It doesn't mean that you're weak. It doesn't mean that you are wrong. All it means is that you recognize that other people have their own feelings, their own opinions, and their own beliefs, and that while you may not agree with them, you value them as people, and you don't want to hurt them. That's all.
Any school of thought that lumps liberal, Obama, Democrat, Christianity, the corporate environmental shell-game, thought crime and censorship into one category is something I refuse to subscribe to and something I refuse to accept as true liberalism.
Oddly as a strict constructionist I feel your pain as it where.
While I live in Sweden and so don't have the split in liberal/conservative, I think I'd adhere more to the liberal side. However, American liberals are generally for a big state, which I am not, they are nationalistic (albeit a bit less than conservatives it seems), which I am not, and they are pro-capitalism, which I am not.
I believe in socialistic anarchism with a hint of mutualism, I guess you could call it. I'm more anti-capitalism than I'm anti-state per ce, but as the state is a capitalist in both the US and in Sweden the difference isn't very large.
I'm generally more inclined to agree with liberals in ideals, but I disagree with their methods.
I would also like to point out that if you recommended a murder mystery novel to your friend, and she told you that she doesn't like those kinds of books because they bring back painful memories of when her father was murdered, you wouldn't get all huffy and tell her that she's overly sensitive (at least, I hope you wouldn't). You would apologize and make a mental note not to recommend those kinds of book to her anymore.
Which is all fine and dandy, until she then adds that I am not allowed to like murder mystery novels, display their covers, or talk about their content anywhere she dictates. That would be censoring freedom of expression, and that would be bad.
The reality is, it doesn't hurt anyone or anything, other than perhaps one's own ego, to say, "I'm sorry. I really didn't mean to offend you."
Isn't that what happened?
|
|
He was also quite the fiscal conservative, according to the voting record. You lose, independents win.Jesus Christ was a Liberal.
I win.
Fiscal conservative?!? He didn't have an ounce of fiscality in him! (Or even an ounce of copper on him.)
"Leave unto Caesar that which is Caesar..."Obviously saying do your duty as a conquered nation and pay up.
|
|
ostensibly because unhealthful food is also the cheapest to buy,...but it really isn't. For what you get, it's actually quite expensive.
Actually, "poor" people are too far away from any kind of health food for it to be cheaper than garbage food. Garbage food lasts longer than healthy food, due mainly to its preservatives, and so it can be bought in bulk, minimising transportation costs. Anyway, Americans are spending less than 10% of our income to buy food, and since the majority of people eat garbage food, it can be surmised that garbage food is what is bringing that percentage down. Look at Italy; they spend 25%+ on food, and the majority of their food is fresh and unpackaged (meaning without corn syrup).
Getting fit costs practically nothing, and having decent food is pretty cheap but can be rather dull for a while. What it does require (the food) is prior preparation, and a decent refrigerator (to keep leftovers)
If you believe that time is money, then the time that poor people spend exercising is a loss of money. So it does cost money, and most people don't want to spend this money exercising instead of resting.
... and the majority of their food is fresh and unpackaged (meaning without corn syrup).
If you believe that time is money, then the time that poor people spend exercising is a loss of money. So it does cost money, and most people don't want to spend this money exercising instead of resting.
Two points:
1) Corn syrup. Do not under estimate the evil. The US has a subsidized corn industry which leads to corn syrup being the #1 cheap sweetener. Corn syrup is far more unhealthy then sugar for the purposes of sweetening foods.2) Exercise also requires drive and energy. Once you get into a job cycle where you have rough hours (whether by start time or length) and on a high carb high fat diet you lose the long lasting energy that a more healthy balanced diet provides. This makes it hard to exercise.
Also most people have never been taught how to have/use drive. One of the biggest myths is that you just 'do something'. It is both a perfectly correct instruction (to those that go out and are active) and perfectly unfathomable to those that know naught what they are to 'do'. People expect that they will receive a magical drive instead of a slow steady grind. In other words it has little to do with a mythical drive and more to do with a schedule, pattern or habit. But most people keep searching for the mythical drive.
But if you do know of how to find this 'drive' I will happily through away this effortful enterprise for the effortless drive orientated one.
Oh and unhealthy food is much cheaper and quicker then healthy food, especially when you account for the time and effort that is required in planning and prepping for a healthy meal. Unhealthy meals require little to no thought.