Trump's wall

[Elixir]

Belief in Trump's wall is religion for many people.

Another good argument for maintaining separation of church and State.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Christianity is contained, surely, in the New Testament minus Revelations. Religion is anything you please, and its father.

Wait what? This is the protestant view of Christianity. First you got Christianity. Then Christianity produced a shit load of various Bibles. Then they tried agreeing on just one of those Bibles. And then they spent 1000 years trying to keep that Bible more or less coherent because of problems with copying errors. Then we got the printing press, after which point the text in the Bible suddenly became important, at which point they rejected the papacy. Which is preposterous, since it was the Catholic papacy that produced the Bible.

It's like buying an IKEA bookcase and insisting on a personal and new literal interpretation of the assemblage manual, to get at the core meaning. Because it surely can't be IKEA who understands these things best.

You're going about it all backwards. The Catholic church produced the Bible, ie the religion came first. Then the sacred text. Trying to argue something else is cute, but a bit loopy.

- - - Updated - - -

Belief in Trump's wall is religion for many people.

Another good argument for maintaining separation of church and State.

Or just build a wall around the White House. Seems to be the safest way to maintain a separation of church and state.

 

[Playball40]

Don't forget he's cut funding for security at all the embassies around the world.

The money to build the wall? Well, we may need to make some hard choices. Who wants to cut funding of the Coast Guard. We won't need it as much if we build the wall, right? And FEMA? Who needs it?!

The Trump administration, searching for money to build the president’s planned multibillion-dollar border wall and crack down on illegal immigration, is weighing significant cuts to the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration and other agencies focused on national security threats, according to a draft plan.


The proposal, drawn up by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), also would slash the budget of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which provides disaster relief after hurricanes, tornadoes and other natural disasters. The Coast Guard’s $9.1 billion budget in 2017 would be cut 14 percent to about $7.8 billion, while the TSA and FEMA budgets would be reduced about 11 percent each to $4.5 billion and $3.6 billion, respectively.

 

[funinspace]

Christianity is contained, surely, in the New Testament minus Revelations. Religion is anything you please, and its father.

Wait what? This is the protestant view of Christianity.

Ah, the fun of arguing over what ‘Christianity’ is or is not…. Christianity is a super-set that most definitely includes Revelations. And for the vast majority of Christians one has to include the OT, unless one wants to rebirth Marcionism.

First you got Christianity. Then Christianity produced a shit load of various Bibles. Then they tried agreeing on just one of those Bibles.

You are correct that there are many differing Bibles within the super-set of ‘Christianity’, from ones like the most expansive Ethiopian canon to the slightly tweaked JW NWT.

And then they spent 1000 years trying to keep that Bible more or less coherent because of problems with copying errors. Then we got the printing press, after which point the text in the Bible suddenly became important, at which point they rejected the papacy. Which is preposterous, since it was the Catholic papacy that produced the Bible.

It's like buying an IKEA bookcase and insisting on a personal and new literal interpretation of the assemblage manual, to get at the core meaning. Because it surely can't be IKEA who understands these things best.

You're going about it all backwards. The Catholic church produced the Bible, ie the religion came first. Then the sacred text. Trying to argue something else is cute, but a bit loopy.

The RCC papacy did not produce the Bible. That is a gross distortion of Christian Bible formation(s). Another problem with declaring the RCC in charge, is that there is no singular date at which one can reasonably claim that the Church of Rome had dictatorial power in the early centuries. Though the RCC certainly did lock down what the west called the canon for a millennia as their power grew. Marcion was the first to try and establish a canon, which probably was a significant factor driving other Christian power centers to start listing what the canon should be. Irenaeus (died c. 202) listed 21 of the 27 Protestant books, with only missing one significant book being Hebrews. Origen of Alexandria and other fragmentary lists suggest that by the end of the 3rd century Christian groups were settling on a distinct list of books, with a few remaining as debatable.

Athanasius provides the first time that we know of in 367, with the list of what the western world considered the NT cannon. And he was repeatedly embroiled in conflict with various church councils and the Roman Empire. In this early period I think it becomes hard to say whether the emperor or the churches had more power on various church decisions. It is also debatable even during the first council of Nicea in 325 just how authoritative Bishop of Rome was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would formally become the New Testament canon.

Only by the end of the 4th century do we see the Churh of Rome forming into what we know today as the RCC and the papacy, is the below aludes to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_primacy

The bishops of Rome sent letters which, though largely ineffectual, provided historical precedents subsequently used by supporters of papal primacy. These letters were known as decretals from at least the time of Siricius (384–399) to Leo I provided general guidelines to follow which later would become incorporated into canon law.

This large fragment has a 'most probable date' between 175 and 225, and has portions of many of Paul’s letters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

There are many large fragments of the Gospels from 150 – 250 AD:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

Yes, this new religious faith came first before the various books we know were written, but these ‘sacred texts’ were certainly not produced by the RCC. Again, the RCC may have further locked down what the west called the canon, but it was already very much solidifying before the RCC has significant power.

 

[bilby]

That sounds like transgenderism

If you can use words to mean anything you choose, you have to be careful not to have a great fall - all the king's horses and all the king's men won't be able to put you together again. Lewis Carroll obviously knew such people!

Words mean what their users mean by them.

Christianity is a pretty vague category, so it has a number of definitions - amongst which 'early socialism' is one of the least frequently used, and therefore least accurate.

Of course it's fine to define any word as having any meaning for the purpose of a particular conversation - but only if you can persuade all parties to agree to use your new definition. It's generally a bad idea to use a word in an uncommonly used sense, in conversation with people who use it in a more commonly used sense - unless your objective is to be misunderstood.

If you want to discuss 'early socialism based on the words of the New Testament minus Revelation' then you need a word or phrase that is not already in use with a different meaning; 'Christianity' is already being used to mean 'Following the teachings of a Church or sect that holds Jesus to be divine', so it is not available for your use in this ideosyncratic way - unless confusion is your objective.

Clearly Hitler was not a follower of the early socialist ideas in the New Testament minus Revelation. But as he very clearly was a follower of the teachings of a church that holds Jesus Christ to be divine, he was very definitely a Christian. Despite your pointless attempt to redefine the word to mean something nobody else here uses it to mean.

 

[J842P]

Clearly Hitler was not a follower of the early socialist ideas in the New Testament minus Revelation. But as he very clearly was a follower of the teachings of a church that holds Jesus Christ to be divine, he was very definitely a Christian. Despite your pointless attempt to redefine the word to mean something nobody else here uses it to mean.

No, I think I showed that Hitler was very clearly not a Christian under the normal definition - a follower of the teachings of Jesus, and one who holds Jesus to be divine. Hitler thought that was all claptrap. He imbued his messaging with German, protestant Christianity, but that was not because he was a believer, but for political reasons.

Of course, the virulent anti-semitism of Protestant christianity in particular was the cultural backgdrop that made the Holocaust possible.

But Hitler's "religious views" were probably best summed up as a vague mysticism or "spirituality." He denied being an atheist, but denied being a Christian too.

 

[J842P]

Of course he was a Christian.

So were the murdering, whore-mongering, conniving, greedy despicable Popes of the Crusades and the Renaissance.

They were just bad ones.

Circular argument, kid, and just opinion. Nothing whatever suggests any of the nazis ever had anything to do with Christianity: neither did the Popes; neither did Genghiz Khan. You are just calling anyone you dislike 'Christian', and all that produces is intellectual confusion. Jesus was an early socialist, whereas Hitler murdered and died to save capitalism, as you know.

- - - Updated - - -

What was on the German soldiers buckle? Got mit uns or something.

'God' has nothing to do with the matter, as very well you know. You think anyone who uses thst word is a Christian, you live in a dream world.

You are just defining Christianity as "something I like." Christianity was not socialism. That doesn't make any sense, and only the most ideologically motivated people can make that claim. Christianity is an apocalypse cult. Jesus preached the end of the current world, and the coming Kingdom of Heaven. That was his main message. All the stuff about giving away your things to the poor were in that context, not any socialist political context.

 

[credoconsolans]

Circular argument, kid, and just opinion. Nothing whatever suggests any of the nazis ever had anything to do with Christianity: neither did the Popes; neither did Genghiz Khan. You are just calling anyone you dislike 'Christian', and all that produces is intellectual confusion. Jesus was an early socialist, whereas Hitler murdered and died to save capitalism, as you know.

- - - Updated - - -

What was on the German soldiers buckle? Got mit uns or something.

'God' has nothing to do with the matter, as very well you know. You think anyone who uses thst word is a Christian, you live in a dream world.

You are just defining Christianity as "something I like." Christianity was not socialism. That doesn't make any sense, and only the most ideologically motivated people can make that claim. Christianity is an apocalypse cult. Jesus preached the end of the current world, and the coming Kingdom of Heaven. That was his main message. All the stuff about giving away your things to the poor were in that context, not any socialist political context.

This.

 

[credoconsolans]

Of course he was a Christian.

So were the murdering, whore-mongering, conniving, greedy despicable Popes of the Crusades and the Renaissance.

They were just bad ones.

Circular argument, kid, and just opinion. Nothing whatever suggests any of the nazis ever had anything to do with Christianity: neither did the Popes; neither did Genghiz Khan. You are just calling anyone you dislike 'Christian', and all that produces is intellectual confusion. Jesus was an early socialist, whereas Hitler murdered and died to save capitalism, as you know.

Nonsense. Jesus was the initiator of a doomsday cult. The End Was at Hand. "Those present will not yet taste death...blah blah blah...till the Kingdom of heaven arrives..." Jesus, his followers and Paul were expecting the end any day now. By the time the Book of John was written, it became some nebulous point in the future and not on earth.

And if you're arguing it's a circular argument, congrats. That's what we say about ALL religious beliefs, right? That doesn't mean the person involved, the person who considers himself a Christian goes along with it. So we get to the 'who gets to decide who a "real" Christian is?' And that is a fallacious argument.

We have Hitler's word for it. We have "god is with us" on the belt buckles of the Nazis. Hitler's manifesto Mein Kampf is full of Catholic religious references. Not sure what else you need as proof. That seems to me proof enough of the Christian connection.

 

[RavenSky]

I think we left it a while back.

Belief in Trump's wall is religion for many people.

Joedad for the win!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Clearly Hitler was not a follower of the early socialist ideas in the New Testament minus Revelation. But as he very clearly was a follower of the teachings of a church that holds Jesus Christ to be divine, he was very definitely a Christian. Despite your pointless attempt to redefine the word to mean something nobody else here uses it to mean.

No, I think I showed that Hitler was very clearly not a Christian under the normal definition - a follower of the teachings of Jesus, and one who holds Jesus to be divine. Hitler thought that was all claptrap. He imbued his messaging with German, protestant Christianity, but that was not because he was a believer, but for political reasons.

Of course, the virulent anti-semitism of Protestant christianity in particular was the cultural backgdrop that made the Holocaust possible.

But Hitler's "religious views" were probably best summed up as a vague mysticism or "spirituality." He denied being an atheist, but denied being a Christian too.

You're confusing Hitler with Himmler. Himmler was into mysticism. Hitler was not at all. Hitler was a traditional Christian who did all the Christian things, including hating Jews, as is the Christian tradition.

Hitler had no time for Himmlers mysticism. But as dictators go he let his upper echelons have quite a lot of freedom. So he didn't put his nose in Himmlers business.

Indiana Jones isn't reality

 

[J842P]

No, I think I showed that Hitler was very clearly not a Christian under the normal definition - a follower of the teachings of Jesus, and one who holds Jesus to be divine. Hitler thought that was all claptrap. He imbued his messaging with German, protestant Christianity, but that was not because he was a believer, but for political reasons.

Of course, the virulent anti-semitism of Protestant christianity in particular was the cultural backgdrop that made the Holocaust possible.

But Hitler's "religious views" were probably best summed up as a vague mysticism or "spirituality." He denied being an atheist, but denied being a Christian too.

You're confusing Hitler with Himmler. Himmler was into mysticism. Hitler was not at all. Hitler was a traditional Christian who did all the Christian things, including hating Jews, as is the Christian tradition.

Hitler had no time for Himmlers mysticism. But as dictators go he let his upper echelons have quite a lot of freedom. So he didn't put his nose in Himmlers business.

Indiana Jones isn't reality

For fuck's sake, I am not confusing Hitler and Himmler. Read the series of quotes I cited about Hitler's personal beliefs, most attributed to Hitler himself or his close inner circle. Indeed in one of them he makes fun of Himmlers neo-pagan beliefs. But at the same time, he thought Christianity was silly. And atheism. Perhaps that is hard to characterize his actual beliefs, but just like the Tao, we can say what it is not. And it is not Christianity, and it is not atheism. And it is not Himmler's neo-pagan mysticism.

 

[bleubird]

start a new thread ffs!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

start a new thread ffs!

Is there a corollary to Godwin that says that 'given enough time, the discussion will eventually get back on track, but it could take a long fucking while'?

 

[bilby]

start a new thread ffs!

Is there a corollary to Godwin that says that 'given enough time, the discussion will eventually get back on track, but it could take a long fucking while'?

I don't think it is guaranteed to occur prior to the heat-death of the universe.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Texans Receive First Notices of Land Condemnation for Trump’s Border Wall

The week before Donald Trump’s inauguration, Yvette Salinas received a letter she had been dreading for years: legal notice that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wants to build a border wall on her family’s land in Los Ebanos. The 21-page document, entitled a “Declaration of Taking,” is addressed to her ailing mother, Maria Flores, who owns the property with her siblings. The letter offers Flores $2,900 for 1.2 acres near the Rio Grande. If she chooses not to accept the offer, the land could be seized through eminent domain. “It’s scary when you read it,” Salinas says. “You feel like you have to sign.”

https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-border-wall-mexico-condemnation-letter/

 

[whichphilosophy]

Texans Receive First Notices of Land Condemnation for Trump’s Border Wall

The week before Donald Trump’s inauguration, Yvette Salinas received a letter she had been dreading for years: legal notice that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wants to build a border wall on her family’s land in Los Ebanos. The 21-page document, entitled a “Declaration of Taking,” is addressed to her ailing mother, Maria Flores, who owns the property with her siblings. The letter offers Flores $2,900 for 1.2 acres near the Rio Grande. If she chooses not to accept the offer, the land could be seized through eminent domain. “It’s scary when you read it,” Salinas says. “You feel like you have to sign.”

https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-border-wall-mexico-condemnation-letter/

In consideration I think a duty of any government is to offer her a location of alternative land where she could also gain the equivalent of the income earned before this deal. In this compensation for loss of income (allowing time to set up a new one) should be added.

There's nothing wrong however in the idea of keeping out non legal entries across the borders.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There's nothing wrong however in the idea of keeping out non legal entries across the borders.

Well, border. One border. A 2000 mile wall across inhospitable land, much of which is currently inaccessible to construction equipment, so we'll have to build roads, which does nothing for blocking entry by water, plane, or subterfuge, which we'll pay for by, among other things, decreasing the Coast Guard budget, thus improving the chances of illegal entry by water... No, nothing wrong with that idea.

 

[funinspace]

There's nothing wrong however in the idea of keeping out non legal entries across the borders.

Well, border. One border. A 2000 mile wall across inhospitable land, much of which is currently inaccessible to construction equipment, so we'll have to build roads, which does nothing for blocking entry by water, plane, or subterfuge, which we'll pay for by, among other things, decreasing the Coast Guard budget, thus improving the chances of illegal entry by water... No, nothing wrong with that idea.

It also has nothing to do with the hair brain idea of building a 2,000 mile wall...

 

[marc]

A 2000 mile wall across inhospitable land, much of which is currently inaccessible to construction equipment, so we'll have to build roads,

Hmm... wouldn't that mean those inhospitable areas would now be more attractive areas to cross? Once you get past the barrier, by tunnel, ladder, or whatever, you now have a road to follow to get to town.