General Interest > Tacitus' Realm
is-it-possible-to-be-astonished-but-not-surprised?
Botched Programming:
Damn Anne... You put some work into that.... But you are right... this seems like a continuence of the other thread but more detail...
Tell it like it is sista !!!!
Anne Bonney:
--- Quote from: "Botched Programming" ---Damn Anne... You put some work into that.... But you are right... this seems like a continuence of the other thread but more detail...
Tell it like it is sista !!!!
--- End quote ---
I can't take the credit. I copy/pasted from the Skeptics Annotated Bible. Really, really interesting reading!
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Botched Programming:
--- Quote from: "Anne Bonney" ---
--- Quote from: "Botched Programming" ---Damn Anne... You put some work into that.... But you are right... this seems like a continuence of the other thread but more detail...
Tell it like it is sista !!!!
--- End quote ---
I can't take the credit. I copy/pasted from the Skeptics Annotated Bible. Really, really interesting reading!
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
--- End quote ---
Throw the hammer on them Sledge.... :seg:
Antigen:
Great link, Kim. I have to throw this in too, though it's only tangentally related to the discussion. Almost everybody gets the "turn the other cheeck" thing wrong. Here's a quote from some biblical schollars site.
--- Quote ---To illustrate with the saying about turning the other cheek: it specifies that the person has been struck on the right cheek. How can you be struck on the right cheek? As Wink emphasizes, you have to act this out in order to get the point: you can be struck on the right cheek only by an overhand blow with the left hand, or with a backhand blow from the right hand. (Try it).
But in that world, people did not use the left hand to strike people. It was reserved for "unseemly" uses. Thus, being struck on the right cheek meant that one had been backhanded with the right hand. Given the social customs of the day, a backhand blow was the way a superior hit an inferior, whereas one fought social equals with fists.
This means the saying presupposes a setting in which a superior is beating a peasant. What should the peasant do? "Turn the other cheek." What would be the effect? The only way the superior could continue the beating would be with an overhand blow with the fist--which would have meant treating the peasant as an equal.
Perhaps the beating would not have been stopped by this. But for the superior, it would at the very least have been disconcerting: he could continue the beating only by treating the peasant as a social peer. As Wink puts it, the peasant was in effect saying, "I am your equal. I refuse to be humiliated anymore." That is not all. The sayings about "going the second mile" and "giving your cloak to one who sues you for your coat" make a similar point: they suggest creative non-violent ways of protesting oppression.
--- End quote ---
There's more along the same lines. I think Peter McWilliams' "Ain't Nobody's Business" covers some interesting stuff. Point is that, like Islam, Christianity started out as a rebal movement, came to power and becamse murderous as opposed to self defensive.
BP's right, though. Force of law is not the way to respond to an idea or movement. Education is. I remember reading somewhere that the Muslim terrorist cells have had an extremely hard time retaining sleepers. Once the dudes are over here, living the life, not quite so cloistered as they were back home, the brainwashing wears off and they lose fidelity to their religion.
Eliscu2:
O0
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version