''If your not with us, your against us''

[Mise]

Silly troll question

Agreed 100%.

Btw, Mise...I am still waiting for your answers to your own questions.

You know it was 4.30 in the morning when you posted this, right...? I hope you didn't wait too long.

Probably white people. Which would you save?

Same, because white people contribute more to GDP than black people.

Straights....which would you save?

Same, because a plane full of gay people is not very likely to have many soon-to-be-orphaned children back at home, whereas the straight people are more likely to have kids that need looking after.

I would save the women. Which would you save?

Not sure about this one. Men contribute more to GDP, and there are less of them in the world, but I still don't think I could bring myself to letting a plane full of women die. It just seems to go against every fibre of my being. That said, I'm not sure I'd let my own irrational sense of right and wrong get in the way of a logical decision on the issue. This is the toughest one, I feel. Perhaps there are more single mums in the world than single dads?

Protestants. Which would you save?

Protestants, because I'd imagine they contribute the higher proportion of GDP, since it's quite likely that any given protestant will probably come from the USA.

I'm using "economic worth" as a basis of comparison because I think that the more you contribute to society, the better society is. Even if the person in question doesn't actually WANT to pay for welfare, education, healthcare, etc, he still does, and it would be a bit silly to deprive the country of such resources for the sake of some moral argument.

Whether you believe me or not, and whether you agree with me or not, that's my reasoning. I'm not going to stand here and tell you that your "us or them" reasoning is any more wrong than my "societal worth" reasoning.

Someone said that the question was meaningless because there's only one piece of information. But that's not true - there's LOTS that we know, or can accurately infer, about particular groups. And that's the real problem - deciding what piece of information we use to asses the "worth" of the plane, compared to the other plane.

For you, however, the "worth" of your group is inherently greater than the worth of someone else's group. I'm not going to pretend that I won't be subjective, but you don't even try. The only criteria for your judgement is that you belong to one group, and don't belong to the other group. I'm not saying that that's not a perfectly valid way of determining worth, but it's certainly not the only way, and to simply look at that, instead of the myriad of other alternatives, suggests to me that you don't WANT to look at the alternatives; that being part of a group means more to you than escaping immorality. It reveals an inherent bias in your opinion, that doesn't necessarily exist elsewhere. Again, whether or not that particular bias is a good thing or a bad thing, I won't debate. But I will say that completely ignoring the alternatives IS a bad thing.

You asked the question, because you were expecting us to answer with "English, because ... uhh ... oh well I guess you were right!"

But mobboss, the world doesn't always see things with "us or them" eyes. That you think it does reflects only on your own prejudice. "A thief thinks everyone is a criminal."

 

[GenMarshall]

(and because there are some hot catholic girls here )

Dang, can you go one day without getting your brain in the gudder?

Thats fine, and I would say the same about the Protestants, my point is that MobBoss was one page ago being extremely condescending and accusing CivGeneral of being a bad Catholic, When its quite obvious that he doesn't know or care about catholic doctrine.

That what boggles my mind is why would Protestants care about Catholic Docrines that dont even apply to Protestants. They dont listen nor accept the authority of the Pope (Orthodox Christians are a separate and unque topic), why should Protestants care about Catholic Docrines. If they cared about em, they would'nt be Protestants.

 

[MobBoss]

Well now your supposing that the catholic priest or Bishop would tell CivGeneral to ignore the pope, in which case I'd seriously question the priests credentials, and recommend him for Excommunication. So now its less a question of "CivGeneral is a bad catholic" to "CivGeneral disagrees with MobBoss". Wven though the point still stands that what CivGeneral says is not only acceptable for a Catholic, it is of the Highest orthodoxy, and what you're saying amounts to heresy in the Catholic church; I will indulge you and make the case for papal infallibility within the bible
* Matthew 10:2 ("And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,...") (Peter is first.)
* Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles: Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, Matthew 26:37, Luke 5:3, Matthew 17:27, Luke 22:32, Luke 24:34, and 1 Corinthians 15:5 (Fund., Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §5).
* John 1:42, Mark 3:16 ("And to Simon he gave the name "Peter", "Cephas", or "Rock")
* Matthew 16:18 ("thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church"; cf. Matthew 7:24-28, (the house built on rock)

Thus, any church of Christ, indeed, the only church of christ, will be based around St. Peter, and him alone amongst the apostles. Peter goes on to make himself the first Pope. If you question the importance of the pope, you are yourself questioning the Bible.

* Luke 10:16 ("He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.")

Right, so again, you reject the apostles, including St. Peter, you reject Christ.

* John 21:15-17 ("Feed my lambs or sheep.") (stated three times)

* Luke 22:31-32 ("confirm thy brethren")

Clearly Jesus has plans for the Apostles and their church, and he entrusts it to do his work.
* Matthew 16:19 ("whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven")
The pope has "loosed" Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews etc. Unless your going to start arguing for a figurative interperetation of the bible.

Everything that applies to the Apostles applies to the Apostles' Apostles, I.E. the Pope.

Interesting arguement. I am sure you are aware of all the counter-arguements against it as well. Couple of thoughts though. If Peter is indeed the first pope and he is indeed infallible, then why did he deny Christ three times? Why did Jesus have to rebuke him in the garden? Why was Peters faith insufficent to keep him walking on water when Jesus called to him? etc. etc. etc. Dont get me wrong, out of all the disciples, I identify with Peter the most...however, he also seemed the most 'fallible' of the disciples to be honest, thus making it odd to consider him 'infallible' as it were.

 

[MobBoss]

Same, because white people contribute more to GDP than black people.

Huh? Odd that you would base this upon GDP, but ok...

Same, because a plane full of gay people is not very likely to have many soon-to-be-orphaned children back at home, whereas the straight people are more likely to have kids that need looking after.

Ah...but Gay people are probably going to have a higher GDP...

Not sure about this one. Men contribute more to GDP, and there are less of them in the world, but I still don't think I could bring myself to letting a plane full of women die. It just seems to go against every fibre of my being. That said, I'm not sure I'd let my own irrational sense of right and wrong get in the way of a logical decision on the issue. This is the toughest one, I feel. Perhaps there are more single mums in the world than single dads?

So, since its women, GDP doesnt really apply? I would agree with that.

Protestants, because I'd imagine they contribute the higher proportion of GDP, since it's quite likely that any given protestant will probably come from the USA.

Errr. Catholics have a lot of money too....not sure about the GDP breakdown on this one.

I'm using "economic worth" as a basis of comparison because I think that the more you contribute to society, the better society is. Even if the person in question doesn't actually WANT to pay for welfare, education, healthcare, etc, he still does, and it would be a bit silly to deprive the country of such resources for the sake of some moral argument.

Whether you believe me or not, and whether you agree with me or not, that's my reasoning. I'm not going to stand here and tell you that your "us or them" reasoning is any more wrong than my "societal worth" reasoning.

Thats fine. However, you did compromise your 'economic worth' more than once in your own answers. Btw, I feel obligated to point out, that if you did decide such a thing based on economic worth, you would probably be saving a plane load of Americans over anyone......kinda funny that.

But I will say that completely ignoring the alternatives IS a bad thing.

I would be more than willing to bet that your choice of choosing who to save based upon GDP in the extreme, and I do mean extreme, minority of choices.

You asked the question, because you were expecting us to answer with "English, because ... uhh ... oh well I guess you were right!"

I think the vast majority of people would exactly make that choice. Now all you have to ask yourself is did you answer truthfully, or did you merely answer in a manner to disagree with my premise? Personally, I really dont see people making such a decision purely based upon GDP....and given the questions you asked, I am not completely sure you can actually make the call that one plane produces more GDP than the other....

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sigh. Please, please go read the bible. This is also what many of his followers thought, but that simply was not the case. He didnt come or mean to fight the romans in any way, shape or form, but to establish his kingdom in heaven...not upon the earth.

/sigh.

Snort. Did you miss my Life of Brian reference?

/snort

I also know it's the Book of Revelations that is considered by some to be propaganda against the Romans.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Interesting arguement. I am sure you are aware of all the counter-arguements against it as well. Couple of thoughts though. If Peter is indeed the first pope and he is indeed infallible, then why did he deny Christ three times? Why did Jesus have to rebuke him in the garden? Why was Peters faith insufficent to keep him walking on water when Jesus called to him? etc. etc. etc. Dont get me wrong, out of all the disciples, I identify with Peter the most...however, he also seemed the most 'fallible' of the disciples to be honest, thus making it odd to consider him 'infallible' as it were.

Well, to be honest, I've had a card up my sleeve this whole argument. None of the encyclacles I mentioned are infallible. The pope is only infallible when he specifically invokes it, which he has done--in the entire history of the Catholic churh--twice. The idea is that just as the Apostles could make mistakes in their everyday lives, and in their following of Jesus, they possessed the ability of divine revelation and their teachings are infallible. The Pope isn't whats infallible, its the Catholic church itself. Jesus created a church without flaw, and this is expressed through the unity of the pope.
That said, none of the teachings directly contradict the bible.
This first one, where I tried to establish for a less then literal reading of the bible, specifically that a great deal of it is stories where the purpose is moral, rather then factual. Argues just that, it argues the intent and meaning of the passages, not the truth of them.
The second, which is the more important one to our debate, states the very long standing belief (I know at least as old as the colonization of Africa and the America's by the Portuguese) that all religions are an attempt at finding Jesus. Not just the Muslim and the Jew, but the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Taoists, etc. are trying to find the supreme law of the universe I.E. god. The bible alone is the absolute truth about god, but the other religions are not without any vein of truth. When a Buddhists learns to not value this temporary existance, he has found some of the truth of god, when a confucian honors his mother and father, he is following one of Gods highest laws. The idea is that because god created the world, his laws and values are implicit in it, and wherever you look, god may be found. Therefor a good Confucian or Buddhist may enter heaven, because they have understood and obeyed Jesus more then a christian.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Interesting arguement. I am sure you are aware of all the counter-arguements against it as well. Couple of thoughts though. If Peter is indeed the first pope and he is indeed infallible, then why did he deny Christ three times? ...... I identify with Peter the most...however, he also seemed the most 'fallible' of the disciples to be honest, thus making it odd to consider him 'infallible' as it were.

Historical context *

Please note ther inconsitancies occur with peter and the denial of Jesus.
Mattews recalling is deemed those historically correct likley of all the versions. (* well the entire book of mattew but thats a whole long lecture on writting analysis)

The crow account is also not present in several of the books which has lead to debates about wheather the event acctually happend. Most believe the books were in fact redacted. Dose the crow crock three times or two dose the crow sound before of after the denail?

MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

EDIT: For or against
similar inconsitancies

MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
(default is against)

MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
(default is for)

LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
(default is for)

 

[Mott1]

The guy says he is a catholic.....who should a catholic get an opinion from if NOT a bishop or a priest????

I would say the Bible is the best source. But you already know this:

Please, please go read the bible.

I suppose as a catholic he should run down to the local witches coven or church of satan to get a good read?

/sheesh...some people.

No, but I have to admit that was funny. I just find it peculiar to ask someone to remain objective while acceding a source that may be fairly subjective.

 

[Mise]

I think the vast majority of people would exactly make that choice. Now all you have to ask yourself is did you answer truthfully, or did you merely answer in a manner to disagree with my premise? Personally, I really dont see people making such a decision purely based upon GDP....and given the questions you asked, I am not completely sure you can actually make the call that one plane produces more GDP than the other....

As I said, it doesn't matter whether I'm right or wrong, both in deciding whether to use "societal worth" as a criteria, or in deciding what is worth more (i.e. is my assumed/inferred GDP accurate?), but that I considered a wide range of criteria - as you have noticed, I chose to base it on the likelihood of dependants, as well, and not just GDP. Had I picked, for example, Murderers vs Doctors, it's obvious which one I would pick, and for what reason I would pick it. All you did was say, "us or them?".

Surely even you can see that "us vs them" is inadequate, even in this situation?

As for my honesty, as I said, I don't care whether or not you believe me. A thief thinks everyone steals. I was tempted not to bother posting such a long explanation, as I suspected you would ignore the crux of it. You did, as it happened, ignore the crux of it, and chose instead to question my honesty.

It's abundantly obvious that you don't see anyone else making decisions other than "us vs them", because it's so drilled into your brain that this is the ONLY way to make such a decision. You shouldn't assume that everyone is the same as you, even if it's hard to accept that there might be alternatives to your way of thinking.

I honestly hope you've taken SOMETHING from this, beyond questioning the honesty of those who question your assumptions.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Out of the door, one cross each, line on the left.

 

[Mott1]

Out of the door, one cross each, line on the left.

I'm not sure what that means, but sure whatever you say.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm not sure what that means, but sure whatever you say.

Allow me (read: other people) to clarify.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFDayEiwzYY&mode=related&search=

From 1:30 on will illustrate it nicely

 

[azzaman333]

There's a Monty Python quote for every situation.

 

[scy12]

MoBBoss you ignored my post . That is either because A) You lack the intellectual capacity to respond to my arguments . B) You lack the Will to do so.

Or a combination of the two. This is a free word but it is odd when you choose which posts not to respond to even when there directed at you. It is impolite but whatever... Just make it clear i have no intention to answer because A , B etc...

I don't think my arguments are weak though so whatever reason you may think it will be unsubstantial.

Moderator Action: Discuss the topic, not the member. - Rik

 

[MobBoss]

MoBBoss you ignored my post . That is either because A) You lack the intellectual capacity to respond to my arguments . B) You lack the Will to do so.

Or C, I was tired and went to bed. Your insults were not needed nor appreciated.

Or a combination of the two. This is a free word but it is odd when you choose which posts not to respond to even when there directed at you. It is impolite but whatever... Just make it clear i have no intention to answer because A , B etc...

My life doesnt revolve around you. Sorry to disappoint.

I don't think my arguments are weak though so whatever reason you may think it will be unsubstantial.

Hardly anyone thinks their arguements are weak, even when that fact is paraded in front of them ceaselessly.

EDIT: I just went back and read what it was I was supposed to respond to. I didnt deem it worth responding to as the other conversations were much more interesting. /shrug. What was your point again?

 

[IglooDame]

You're kidding, right? Can you name one nation that was invaded and forced to support America as a puppet State because they disagreed with us over Iraq (well, besides Iraq of course.) We don't force other nations to do anything. They are perfectly free to do as they please without fear.

Surely there are ways of twisting arms of other nations' leadership besides invading them and making them a puppet state?

Okay, Jesus said it, great - I personally suspect he was referring to people that believed in his flavor of religion - sort of a reminder of the Second Commandment (in the Hebrew scheme, elsewhere it's the First Commandment).

If actually communicated to other nations on an international level, it's just bullying or blackmail like so much of international relations are, but more likely it is simply rhetoric designed to whip up the domestic electorate.

 

[amaterasu]

This has probably alredy been mentioned( I don't have the will to read the 10 pages atm) but ironically that was the soviet slogan for a time under stalin

 

[scy12]

]Or C, I was tired and went to bed. Your insults were not needed nor appreciated.

C = B . Which insults ? For example . If you Fail the test you have either not studied enough , are unlucky , not intelligent enough , etc . This isn't an insult necessarily. It is just a declaration of some reasons that lead to an action. In this case not responding.

My life doesnt revolve around you. Sorry to disappoint.

Ok. It is your right to choose and i respect that.

Hardly anyone thinks their arguements are weak, even when that fact is paraded in front of them ceaselessly.

Look at the mirror. Do that before you ask others to do so first.

EDIT: I just went back and read what it was I was supposed to respond to. I didnt deem it worth responding to as the other conversations were much more interesting. /shrug. What was your point again?

Whatever , this is now boring. I could expand on why and what but i don't care , really.

The point was that those that write history also dictate the rules and can make the choice of what means they use. .

If you do not understand where the freedom of a nation(insert name) starts and where it ends then Humanity will suffer.

 

[MobBoss]

If you do not understand where the freedom of a nation(insert name) starts and where it ends then Humanity will suffer.

The freedom of a nation begins with the blood of its patriots. My opinion and yours maybe different. But thats a far different question/point than illustrating that such 'rules' of warfare will only be adhered to so far.

 

[MobBoss]

The second, which is the more important one to our debate, states the very long standing belief (I know at least as old as the colonization of Africa and the America's by the Portuguese) that all religions are an attempt at finding Jesus. Not just the Muslim and the Jew, but the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Taoists, etc. are trying to find the supreme law of the universe I.E. god. The bible alone is the absolute truth about god, but the other religions are not without any vein of truth. When a Buddhists learns to not value this temporary existance, he has found some of the truth of god, when a confucian honors his mother and father, he is following one of Gods highest laws. The idea is that because god created the world, his laws and values are implicit in it, and wherever you look, god may be found. Therefor a good Confucian or Buddhist may enter heaven, because they have understood and obeyed Jesus more then a christian.

In my reading and trying to understand the Humanis Generis, what you say appears to be the opposite of what I glean from it and from the wiki that trys to explain it as well. Wouldnt such a concept be 'modernist' and if so, how can you say that the Humanis Generis supports it when it speaks out against such modernism? Again, please refer to both http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humani_Generis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_(Roman_Catholicism) especially where it says "The errors of this "new modernism" were condemned and refuted in the encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII."

To be honest I think you are espousing a 180 degree view of what it actually says and does in the Humani Generis.

If what you say is true and all that one has to be is a 'good person' in order to attain heaven then the reason for Jesus becomes moot. He is no longer, the way, the truth and the light and the concepts of forgiveness and redemption no longer carry any weight. If the door to heaven is open to unbelievers then the path is not narrow at all.

Sorry, but I tend to think the Humanis Generis speaks out against such modernist views....not for it; and I also think the bible directly addresses same in scripture.....there most definitely is a us or them mentality that defines believers from non-believers in scripture and thus far you havent linked to anything specific to counter what I have linked up as a refutation of your position.