Old Content from Yahoo 360

Christians for Torture ...

From "To Hell With Them" hawks to "Christians for Torture"

The above link to a Salon article discusses a recent survey which found that "57 percent of the people who describe themselves as "secular" say that torture is either never or rarely justified. Only 49 percent of white Protestants and only 42 percent of Roman Catholics are similarly torture-averse."

So it seems pretty clear from this survey that Christian beliefs actually INCREASE your chances of justifying torture. I am wholly mystified by that. There are many parts of Jesus philsophy that are deateable, but his feelings on violence are extremely clear. "You have heard it was said, 'An eye for an eye' but I say unto you, do not resist one who is evil. If he strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also."

Thats a damned clear statement. It specifically repudiates the old system of physical torture (ie, gouge out the eye of someone who did that to someone else), and shows that Christians do NOT react with violence when faced with violence.

It is, in fact, inconceivable to me how any Christian can justify torture of any living thing without contradicting their beliefs. Nothing in Jesus' views on violence gives permission to torture people if it will save lives. Nothing in his views on violence gives people permission respond with force when someone attacks them. Jesus specifically councels us to never harm another person ... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and more inportantly perhaps, Do not unto others that which you would not have done to you.

To me, it comes down to a simple question. Who would Jesus torture? You can be a Christian, and support a rational response to violent and dangerous terrorists, one that even includes measured violence to prevent wider violence. But support for the torture of individuals for ANY reason isn't to be found in Jesus' teachings. If have a simple rule to see if something I am doing or plan to do is 'Christian.' I try to imagine Jesus himself doing what I do, and if there's no contradiction between that image and the teaching I know, I am happy. There's no question in mind, that when the question is torture, the contradictions that arise when Jesus himself is placed in the role of torturer are just FAR too great to ignore. Jesus would never torture another person for information of any kind, and if its not something that Jesus would do, then its not a very 'Christian' thing.

Friday March 24, 2006 - 09:04am (PST) Edit | Delete | Permanent Link | 0 Comments

Finding Drunks in a bar ... the logic astounds ...

Finding drunks in a bar -- what are the chances? (Reuters)

Reuters - Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said on Wednesday. View Feed Entry

Feeds -

Thu Mar 23 08:12am PST

Source: Yahoo! News: Odd News

===============================================================
My first reaction to this was a sarcastic "Well, at least their logic circuits are working correctly, lol." But as preposterous as this first sounds, its actually a pretty good idea, IMO. We've all been in the pub when someone goes over the limit for what they can handle, becoming beligerant or worse. Does being in a bar give people the right to drink so much they become violent? I'd argue that the legal definition of public drunkeness applies just as much in a bar as it does on the street and the notion that being in a bar somehow is permission to get drunk.

Initially, I think people read this as drinkers being arrested for DRINKING in a bar, which is why it sounds silly to us. But in fact, they are being arrested for being drunk, for causing a disturbance and being inside a bar is no excuse for criminal behaviour. If a person is drunk enough to be criminally drunk, then whether they are on the street or in a bar is immaterial ... what is important is that the person is drunk enough to be a danger to themselves and/or those around them. I actually think this could make the experience of going to the local pub a bit better, especially if I could presume that someone will get kicked out and arrested BEFORE they start a violent altercation, instead of afterwards. Going to a bar is a valid excuse to drink ... its NOT a valid excuse for getting violent and beligerant.

Thursday March 23, 2006 - 10:49am (PST) Edit | Delete | Permanent Link | 1 Comment

A question of faith or science?

http://help4rlds.com/LATimes-BedrockofaFaithIsJolted.htm

I wonder why people aren't applying the same scientific vigour trying to prove to Catholics that people don't rise form the dead? It seems there's a lot of effort by mainstream press and science and other institutions to make believers of Mormonism or Scientology, or other 'new' faiths feel silly, but I wonder why believing that Joseph Smith found gold tablets and translated them, or that ancient Hebrews sailed to the Americas in 600BC, is any more preposterous than some dude parting the Red Sea, or walking on water, or rising from the dead after 3 days? And why is so much effort spent to make the former look silly, when what they believe is no 'sillier' than any other religious ideas.

elron

Saturday March 18, 2006 - 07:57pm (PST) Edit | Delete | Permanent Link | 0 Comments

More Universal Musings ...

Richard ... the sun will burn out, but that which the sun is composed of will go on to become other suns, and other planets, and other Richard's and other Elron's ... it is thus no matter where in this 'temporal' universe you look. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. From stardust, we return to stardust. The temporal is eternal, when we look at its process, and not its specifics ... perhaps we will never agree.

elron

On 3/8/06, richard kelly <richwkelly@yahoo.com> wrote:

Elron:

Well, we clearly are never going to agree on this.
I would say the universe is material, things material
are temporal, things temporal obviously can't be
eternal. The sun will some day burn out. I don't
pretend to know a lot about entropy but the general
idea is that everything in the universe is winding
down. However, you have this theory about bubbles,
chickens and eggs. Some may find it convincing.

Thanks for explaining your theory, let's move on to
some other topic.

Richard Kelly

--- Elron Steele <elron6900@gmail.com> wrote:

> I explained that already ... we are in the middle of
> a cycle that simply
> exists, has existed, will always exist. That we are
> here is an inevitable
> result of whatever the intial egg was, and in us, in
> the current state of
> the universe is everyuthing we need to know to
> explain how to recreate that
> initial egg and how the cycle continues. We may not
> be equipped to
> comprehend it in its fullness, but its obvious to
> me. If God can explain
> himself, then there's no need for God, because the
> universe can explain
> itself too.
>
> elron
>
> On 3/8/06, richard kelly <richwkelly@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Elron:
> >
> > Well, if "nothing else could have happened" you
> appear
> > to believe in something, some first cause or
> designer,
> > call it what you like.
> >
> > Richard Kelly
> >
> > --- Elron Steele <elron6900@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Makes sense to me, except its not random ... it
> is
> > > in the nature of matter
> > > to form planets and stars and galaxies. Its not
> > > random ... nothing else
> > > could have happened.
> > >
> > > elron
> > >
> > > On 3/7/06, Richard Kelly <richwkelly@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regarding this "the universe explains itself"
> > > argument.
> > > > The universe is matter, its atoms and
> electrons,
> > > the
> > > > basics. So if I follow the argument, this
> > > collection of
> > > > matter decided somehow to form galaxies,
> stars,
> > > planets,
> > > > of course having no voliton or thought
> process.
> > > And so
> > > > what we see today is the result of totally
> random
> > > chance
> > > > events...and I guess that makes sense to
> people?
> > > >
> > > > Richard Kelly

Thursday March 16, 2006 - 09:02pm (PST) Edit | Delete | Permanent Link | 0 Comments

A conversation of Universal Musings ...

Nicely said John ... it goes beyond the solid, liquid, gaseous thing too. Einstein said e=mC2 ... and that means that its ALL fundamentally the same stuff, matter, energy, whatever. Form and state may change, but substance never does, and thats the key, really.

elron

On 3/10/06, John Polifronio <counterpnt@earthlink.net> wrote:

What is temporal is the "form" that material things happen to be in at the time. But their materiality is no less eternal. That water can also be steam, or ice, etc., doesn't make "it" less eternal. "The sun will some day burn out," but what you call "burning out," is the substance of the sun, which, in one form or another, is expelled into the surrounding space. It never ceases to exist.

If a thing can be said to have existed at all, its existence would have to transcend its form, since it will have been some other form than the one it happens to have acquired at the time you perceive it. If you say that a thing will cease to exist if its form ceases, then, how can you say it exists in its current form, since it only exists in its current form because it was able to "emerge" from its previous form, when, if you're right, it presumably ceased to exist. Is there anything in the universe that has never changed its form during an eternity of time?

Accordingly, a person that believed that things ceased to exist, when these things lost their form, would in effect be saying that nothing exists.

Philosophy is fun.

jp

----- Original Message -----

From: richard kelly

To: The_Debating_Team@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:30 PM

Subject: Re: [The_Debating_Team] Universal musings

Elron:

Well, we clearly are never going to agree on this.
I would say the universe is material, things material
are temporal, things temporal obviously can't be
eternal. The sun will some day burn out. I don't
pretend to know a lot about entropy but the general
idea is that everything in the universe is winding
down. However, you have this theory about bubbles,
chickens and eggs. Some may find it convincing.

Thanks for explaining your theory, let's move on to
some other topic.

Richard Kelly

--- Elron Steele <elron6900@gmail.com> wrote:

> I explained that already ... we are in the middle of
> a cycle that simply
> exists, has existed, will always exist. That we are
> here is an inevitable
> result of whatever the intial egg was, and in us, in
> the current state of
> the universe is everyuthing we need to know to
> explain how to recreate that
> initial egg and how the cycle continues. We may not
> be equipped to
> comprehend it in its fullness, but its obvious to
> me. If God can explain
> himself, then there's no need for God, because the
> universe can explain
> itself too.
>
> elron
>
> On 3/8/06, richard kelly <richwkelly@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Elron:
> >
> > Well, if "nothing else could have happened" you
> appear
> > to believe in something, some first cause or
> designer,
> > call it what you like.
> >
> > Richard Kelly
> >
> > --- Elron Steele <elron6900@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Makes sense to me, except its not random ... it
> is
> > > in the nature of matter
> > > to form planets and stars and galaxies. Its not
> > > random ... nothing else
> > > could have happened.
> > >
> > > elron
> > >
> > > On 3/7/06, Richard Kelly <richwkelly@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regarding this "the universe explains itself"
> > > argument.
> > > > The universe is matter, its atoms and
> electrons,
> > > the
> > > > basics. So if I follow the argument, this
> > > collection of
> > > > matter decided somehow to form galaxies,
> stars,
> > > planets,
> > > > of course having no voliton or thought
> process.
> > > And so
> > > > what we see today is the result of totally
> random
> > > chance
> > > > events...and I guess that makes sense to
> people?
> > > >
> > > > Richard Kelly

Thursday March 16, 2006 - 09:01pm (PST) Edit | Delete | Permanent Link | 0 Comments