The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[turbo]

Can't we just enjoy the gift of humor that is O'Donnell and not think about the details? It doesn't seem that she's bothering to do much thinking... or talking... she's now hired a lawyer to speak to the more substantive issue in regards to her candidacy: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/20/embezzlement-accusation-frivolous-odonnell-says/

O'Donnell has glommed onto the Tea Party tactic of avoiding any contact with mainstream media, though she has taken it a march farther and even canceled her appearance on the FOX Sunday show where she could have gotten great exposure in a friendly environment. That's paranoia or a critical case of unpreparedness.

 

[brainstorm]

I think it's a non-issue. She's been born again. End of story. I think you can only start examining what she's done after the rebirth, like trying to bilk her college out of its tuition money, maybe.

If she's born again, it would explain her strong moral sense. Often people are born again because they have experienced spiritual "death" through shame for sins they couldn't repent for. Once they go through the deliverance from shame, they come to feel deeply indebted to the power of good will for having spared them continuing pain of guilt/shame. It is sad that people will try to shame and harass her for her vocal morality. Why is it that people attack politicians for expressing morality? They are just trying to be good leaders in the best way they know how. People who think moral relativism provides the best example lead with that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And ... no surprise ... I wasn't too far off when I suggested the "born again" angle. Apparently, she is a Born Again Evangelical!

Aren't most tea party candidates Born Again Evangelicals? I took that as a given.

I think it's a non-issue. She's been born again. End of story. I think you can only start examining what she's done after the rebirth, like trying to bilk her college out of its tuition money, maybe.

I think it will be a factor for some people, esp the old-school religious conservatives. The image of her writhing in passion on the blood-stained altar of Satan, is political comedy to say the least, and an image that will surely stick for some. Personally, I don't really care what people did in high school.

[2005]
Delaware - Religion
The religious affiliations of the people of Delware are:

Christian – 79%

Protestant – 68%
Methodist – 22%
Baptist – 21%
Lutheran – 4%
Presbyterian – 3%
Pentecostal – 3%
Other Protestant or general Protestant – 15%
Roman Catholic – 10%
Other Christian – 1%

Other Religions – 2%
Non-Religious – 19%

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Delaware_-_Demographics/id/4977366

 

[nismaratwork]

If she's born again, it would explain her strong moral sense. Often people are born again because they have experienced spiritual "death" through shame for sins they couldn't repent for. Once they go through the deliverance from shame, they come to feel deeply indebted to the power of good will for having spared them continuing pain of guilt/shame. It is sad that people will try to shame and harass her for her vocal morality. Why is it that people attack politicians for expressing morality? They are just trying to be good leaders in the best way they know how. People who think moral relativism provides the best example lead with that.

What part of lying about her college education and improper use of campaign finance was an expression of (positive) morality?

I also agree with Gokul; the "witchcraft" bit was one of 20+ appearances on Bill Mahers show as a pro-abstinence, much as she did for MTV. She was at least, sufficiently "anti-sex" that she viewed masturbation as having lust for one's self and... well... not being abstinent because you were... ****ing yourself.

Add that to. "One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. I mean, there’s little blood there and stuff like that. … We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar." and you get one huge, WTF?!

I just wan to know how you figure that your first date should be on ANY alter, let alone one with blood on it. Oh yes honey, just a movie and then dinner on my satanic alter...

I have to ask what this has to do with being a witch (something I find absurd) which as I understand it has absolutely nothing to do with Christian mythology, but Wicca or other similar earth-worship. As I understand it, satanists don't claim to be witches, they're... satanists. I realize that's a little off-topic, but it's pretty weird. Frankly I assume that she was lying about those experiences as a means of trying to be sensational and push her message of how scary and bad sex before marriage is. How ironic that she's not hoisted on the petard of what was probably complete fabrication to begin with.

Anyway, her "teenage" errors aside, the fact remains that she's on the hook for money, her current financial state, and her education. Speaking through a lawyer on these matters does not bode well for this little nut.

 

[skeptic2]

If she's born again, it would explain her strong moral sense. Often people are born again because they have experienced spiritual "death" through shame for sins they couldn't repent for. Once they go through the deliverance from shame, they come to feel deeply indebted to the power of good will for having spared them continuing pain of guilt/shame. It is sad that people will try to shame and harass her for her vocal morality. Why is it that people attack politicians for expressing morality? They are just trying to be good leaders in the best way they know how. People who think moral relativism provides the best example lead with that.

Somehow I don't think a claim of being born again would have worked for Bill Clinton had he decided to claim to be born again after failing to inhale, the way it worked for George Bush who abused alcohol and drugs for years. I think the right's forgiveness has more to do with how much they like the person rather than whether they believe he is truly contrite.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If she's born again, it would explain her strong moral sense. Often people are born again because they have experienced spiritual "death" through shame for sins they couldn't repent for. Once they go through the deliverance from shame, they come to feel deeply indebted to the power of good will for having spared them continuing pain of guilt/shame. It is sad that people will try to shame and harass her for her vocal morality. Why is it that people attack politicians for expressing morality? They are just trying to be good leaders in the best way they know how. People who think moral relativism provides the best example lead with that.

The problem comes when people impose their religious views on political issues. This has made many of us gun shy and suspicious. A strong sense of morality in this regard often comes with a strong sense of inside [heavenly] information.

Consider that Glenn Beck, who played a crucial role in establishing the Tea Party movement, has begun to transform his message to a religious one. His tea party rally turned into a sermon. Is this a religion or a political movement? Frankly, I can't tell.

One thing is for sure, much of their gospel is fact free.

 

[Galteeth]

That's fairly outlandish claim (O'donnell thinks "sexuality is evil"). On what are you basing that statement?

um, this:


and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsk-5eRzS_4&feature=channel

 

[WhoWee]

The problem comes when people impose their religious views on political issues. This has made many of us gun shy and suspicious. A strong sense of morality in this regard often comes with a strong sense of inside [heavenly] information.

Consider that Glenn Beck, who played a crucial role in establishing the Tea Party movement, has begun to transform his message to a religious one. His tea party rally turned into a sermon. Is this a religion or a political movement? Frankly, I can't tell.

One thing is for sure, much of their gospel is fact free.

I find it humorous that nobody on the Left had a problem with Reverend Wright spewing his political views from the pulpit (to Obama). There also doesn't seem to be much criticism this week of the Iranian leader.

Is this because Left is aligned with the content of their messages or because it's not the "be nice to your neighbor" message that Beck is spewing?

 

[mugaliens]

Aren't most tea party candidates Born Again Evangelicals? I took that as a given.

Hardly. Two separate axes.

 

[nismaratwork]

I find it humorous that nobody on the Left had a problem with Reverend Wright spewing his political views from the pulpit (to Obama). There also doesn't seem to be much criticism this week of the Iranian leader.

Is this because Left is aligned with the content of their messages or because it's not the "be nice to your neighbor" message that Beck is spewing?

I think they had plenty of problems, but they didn't want it to keep Obama out of office... sort of the way that the right undoubtedly DOES have a problem with O'Donnell's issues, but is willing to put them aside to deny the seat to their opponents. I believe it's called "politics". I'd add that Rev. Wright wasn't saying crazy **** AND running, it was a case of guilt by association; O'Donnell IS running and is the one who said the crazy ****, in addition to lying about her education and the campaign money misuse.

Oh, and as for Ahmedinajad... who cares what he has to say? He's the public (crazy) face of his country, and doesn't make key decisions. Ignoring his ranting is probably the best tactic in my view.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find it humorous that nobody on the Left had a problem with Reverend Wright spewing his political views from the pulpit (to Obama).

Did you even read the entire quote from Wright, or did your information come from Beck? I would bet that all you heard was "God damn America", right? There was a big IF in there, but Fox didn't cover that part, did they?

Nonetheless, as nismar stated, this was Wright, not Obama. Old men often get a little nutty

There also doesn't seem to be much criticism this week of the Iranian leader.

Who doesn't think this guy is a nut? Is Beck saying otherwise? What sort of conspiracy theory is he promoting now?

Is this because Left is aligned with the content of their messages or because it's not the "be nice to your neighbor" message that Beck is spewing?

How is that not a completely insincere comment? Be nice to your neighbor is Mr. Roger's message. What keeps Beck fans tuning in is misplaced rage, and propaganda.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hardly. Two separate axes.

I'm not so sure about that. It would be interesting to list all tea party favorites, their religious affiliations, their experience, and their level of education.

I would esp be interested to see who are dispensationalists - those who want to help usher in the end times [the end of the world]. It worries me when we elect people who WANT the world to end.

I know Palin is planning for everyone [the saved people] to come and live in Alaska when the end times comes. They are preparing. A video of her saying this has been posted before.

 

[WhoWee]

I would esp be interested to see who are dispensationalists - those who want to help usher in the end times [the end of the world]. It worries me when we elect people who WANT the world to end.

I know Palin is planning for everyone [the saved people] to come and live in Alaska when the end times comes. They are preparing. A video of her saying this has been posted before.

Sounds like she's promoting tourism - a la Arnold.

 

[mheslep]

Aren't most tea party candidates Born Again Evangelicals? I took that as a given.[...]

Hardly. Two separate axes.

From some quick googling

Evangelical / Born Again (Yes/No)

No:
Marco Rubio (Fla for US Senate) is a Roman Catholic.
Sen Scott Brown (Ma) is a presbyterian in an evangelical leaning church but does not identify as 'born again' per bios / googling.
Joe Miller (Ak for US Senate) is a non-denominational Christian, not evangelical.
Rand Paul (Ky) is a Presbyterian, not evangelical.
Sharon Angle (Nevada for US Senate) is a Southern Baptist, not evangelical.

Yes:
Christine O'donnell is reported as a convert from Catholicism to an evangelical, but no mention of born again.
Jimmy Carter (self identified in Playboy)

Others?
Wiki plus:
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100916/UPDATES01/100916020/Tea-Party-s-newest-darling-turned-her-life-around-in-Morris-County-NJ
http://www.lvrj.com/news/gop-senate...ing-on-conservative-credentials-88756137.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/who-joe-miller
http://www.randpaul2010.com/about/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I should have said those practicing fundamentalism and who take the bible literally [there was no evolution, no big bang, who reject science, who want the world to end so that we can reap our reward, etc]. The "non-denominational" claim can mean just about anything - the do it yourself Gospel. Because even a neighborhood church may answer to no one, these can be some of the wackiest. A work associate goes to a "non-denominational" church where the pastor is alleged to be a prophet.

I wouldn't consider Presbyterian to be evangelical by any means. They are just Catholics with grape juice, and yeast in their bread.

Southern Baptists lean heavily towards fundamentalism.

Perhaps the best single cover-all test would be whether they believe in evolution. This helps to keep the religion out of it.

 

[brainstorm]

I would esp be interested to see who are dispensationalists - those who want to help usher in the end times [the end of the world]. It worries me when we elect people who WANT the world to end.

I know Palin is planning for everyone [the saved people] to come and live in Alaska when the end times comes. They are preparing. A video of her saying this has been posted before.

I would assume too quickly that this is a bad thing. There are two approaches to bad economic news. One is the pessimism that if recession doesn't recover, the result will be death and destruction. The other is that people have the ability to weather bad times and come up with ways to adapt to new economic conditions without exploiting/killing/harming each other. If Palin actually sees herself as having the leadership skills and vision to lead optimistic people into a new life despite economic adversity, I think she sounds like she'd make a good president.

Seriously, though, if you can live in the Alaskan climate and come up with ways to conserve energy without freezing or starving, then I would say you need to win a nobel prize or something.

 

[nismaratwork]

I would assume too quickly that this is a bad thing. There are two approaches to bad economic news. One is the pessimism that if recession doesn't recover, the result will be death and destruction. The other is that people have the ability to weather bad times and come up with ways to adapt to new economic conditions without exploiting/killing/harming each other. If Palin actually sees herself as having the leadership skills and vision to lead optimistic people into a new life despite economic adversity, I think she sounds like she'd make a good president.

Seriously, though, if you can live in the Alaskan climate and come up with ways to conserve energy without freezing or starving, then I would say you need to win a nobel prize or something.

I don't understand what you're saying here: Sarah Palin believes that this is the end of the world, and because she's planning on an Alaskan refuge for those who are "saved" this shows Presidential leadership qualities?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would assume too quickly that this is a bad thing. There are two approaches to bad economic news. One is the pessimism that if recession doesn't recover, the result will be death and destruction. The other is that people have the ability to weather bad times and come up with ways to adapt to new economic conditions without exploiting/killing/harming each other. If Palin actually sees herself as having the leadership skills and vision to lead optimistic people into a new life despite economic adversity, I think she sounds like she'd make a good president.

Seriously, though, if you can live in the Alaskan climate and come up with ways to conserve energy without freezing or starving, then I would say you need to win a nobel prize or something.

We are talking about the end of the world and the second coming of Christ.

This is the basic question in my mind. Do these people view the world on a factual basis, or do they base their beliefs on faith alone? Most of my exposure to the tea party tells me that these are not people who view the world objectively. They live and will govern according to their faith, and not the facts.

"Do you believe in evolution?", is a pretty good test in my mind. People can believe whatever they want, but don't run MY government according to the voices in YOUR head.

 

[nismaratwork]

We are talking about the end of the world and the second coming of Christ.

This is the basic question in my mind. Do these people view the world on a factual basis, or do they base their beliefs on faith alone? Most of my exposure to the tea party tells me that these are not people who view the world objectively.

"Do you believe in evolution?", is a pretty good test in my mind. People can believe whatever they want, but don't run MY government according to the voices in your head.

It would also seem to me that people preparing for "the end of days" would be relatively unconcerned with anything but being survivalist and spiritual matters... sounds like a kind of super-cult. In fact, it sounds like the kind of super-cult that's getting ready for the spaceship to appear from behind the comet at any minute...
If you think the world is ending, you're going to heaven, and the "sinners" are stuck with a 1000 year war ending in doom... what is your economic strategy? For that fact, why would you be concerned with long-term planning at all?

 

[brainstorm]

I don't understand what you're saying here: Sarah Palin believes that this is the end of the world, and because she's planning on an Alaskan refuge for those who are "saved" this shows Presidential leadership qualities?

You see what you're doing here? I just explained what is reasonable about survivalism in an arctic climate as an ultimate challenge for dealing with economic hardship and energy/fuel constraints, and you reply with wording that completely ignores my point and recapitulates language that marginalizes Palin and the prospect of surviving economic recession in Alaska. Why would you do that unless you're purely opposed to her on party-grounds to the point of wanting to obfuscate any possible validity in ideas she talks about? I don't personally have any love for this woman, but it irritates me that there are people who are opposed to her just because of the party or ideologies she represents. Why not put your own forth instead of undermining someone else on the basis of you thinking they're crazy?

We are talking about the end of the world and the second coming of Christ.

I don't think you even have a clue what you're talking about from a Christian perspective so why do you mention it? You can't take religious ideas and translate them into secular materialist interpretations and then react to them as strawmen. It's like fighting your own shadow projected onto someone else.

This is the basic question in my mind. Do these people view the world on a factual basis, or do they base their beliefs on faith alone? Most of my exposure to the tea party tells me that these are not people who view the world objectively. They live and will govern according to their faith, and not the facts.

The relevant fact is that there are two possible directions the economy can go in. 1) It will grow and everyone will get income and plenty of nice affordable commodities to buy and be healthy and happy. 2) recession will continue, more revenues and income will be lost and people will have to find ways to make due with less and less. Faith is how people overcome the tendency to freak out and react negatively to loss. They take the blows and seek divine inspiration as to what they can do to survive unemployment, poverty, etc. Why do people make this sound insane?

"Do you believe in evolution?", is a pretty good test in my mind. People can believe whatever they want, but don't run MY government according to the voices in YOUR head.

And how is believing in evolution going to help anyone survive income loss?

If you think the world is ending, you're going to heaven, and the "sinners" are stuck with a 1000 year war ending in doom... what is your economic strategy? For that fact, why would you be concerned with long-term planning at all?

You don't know how to interpret the ideas you're talking about, yet you strawman them (see part 1 of this post). I'm not going to explain it because I'll get criticized or banned for discussing religion. I don't know why the moderators feel it's fine to let people post about specific religious views when they're criticizing or ridiculing them but not to explain them, but I don't think you should be talking about them when the forum rules prevent anyone who actually has some understanding of them from explaining.

 

[nismaratwork]

You see what you're doing here? I just explained what is reasonable about survivalism in an arctic climate as an ultimate challenge for dealing with economic hardship and energy/fuel constraints, and you reply with wording that completely ignores my point and recapitulates language that marginalizes Palin and the prospect of surviving economic recession in Alaska. Why would you do that unless you're purely opposed to her on party-grounds to the point of wanting to obfuscate any possible validity in ideas she talks about? I don't personally have any love for this woman, but it irritates me that there are people who are opposed to her just because of the party or ideologies she represents. Why not put your own forth instead of undermining someone else on the basis of you thinking they're crazy?


I don't think you even have a clue what you're talking about from a Christian perspective so why do you mention it? You can't take religious ideas and translate them into secular materialist interpretations and then react to them as strawmen. It's like fighting your own shadow projected onto someone else.


The relevant fact is that there are two possible directions the economy can go in. 1) It will grow and everyone will get income and plenty of nice affordable commodities to buy and be healthy and happy. 2) recession will continue, more revenues and income will be lost and people will have to find ways to make due with less and less. Faith is how people overcome the tendency to freak out and react negatively to loss. They take the blows and seek divine inspiration as to what they can do to survive unemployment, poverty, etc. Why do people make this sound insane?


And how is believing in evolution going to help anyone survive income loss?



You don't know how to interpret the ideas you're talking about, yet you strawman them (see part 1 of this post). I'm not going to explain it because I'll get criticized or banned for discussing religion. I don't know why the moderators feel it's fine to let people post about specific religious views when they're criticizing or ridiculing them but not to explain them, but I don't think you should be talking about them when the forum rules prevent anyone who actually has some understanding of them from explaining.

Wow... I just thought I was challenging your assertion that believing in the end of world according to the book of Revelations, and in doing so planning a survivalist group or metnality centered around ALASKA =

If Palin actually sees herself as having the leadership skills and vision to lead optimistic people into a new life despite economic adversity, I think she sounds like she'd make a good president.

I also would love to know what is optimistic about the belief that all people who haven't been saved are going to live in misery and eventual extinction, while others who will be "raptured" huddle in a Alaska waiting for Jesus. I would think Cheyenne Mountain or another such facility would be a far better, wait out the apocalypse" shelter, or perhaps a relatively uninhabited, but fertile region in South America?

Ah, but wait, because I am trying to introduce a spark of logic into what really is an insane viewpoint. You see, even if you believe that there is a god, that god is going to act in accordance with the expectations of those who believe that (from my understanding of Revelations) the antichrist has ALREADY BEEN BORN and is preparing the world for doom... why do you need to do ANYTHING to survive? Isn't the point that if you accept the right flavor of Jesus into your heart that you get whisked away to paradise before the **** really hits the fan? If you're 'left behind', you'd be dealing with supernatural forces so I'm unclear how a rugged wilderness stops THAT.

As for your final point, we're talking about something which doesn't have ONE interpretation, so even if you were to talk about it, which one would that be? Revelations is pretty clear that, at the end of it ALL, the dead rise for judgement, and the bad little boys and girls experience the "second death" in the "lake of fire", and the others get to heaven and a completely new world is created with the old wiped away. It's pretty explicit about that, and I'm fairly sure that the includes Alaska.

To more salient points:

You said that Ivan isn't speaking from a Christian perspective: which one? Protestant? Catholic? Southern Baptist? Anglican?

You ask the how believing in evolution will help anyone survive income loss... which is not what was said... he explicitly set that out as a TEST. I read that to be: anyone who believes that even if there is a god, and with all of the evidence to support it, evolution is a fiction... isn't bright, or isn't all there. (The latter I disagree with...) I would say that having people who can reconcile the notion of a god which sets the universe in motion AND allows for part of that process to include evolution (or as we call it in QM: superdeterminism lol) is probably preferable to someone who believes that the words of one version of a particular book is LITERAL.

I'd say that's a pretty basic test for dealing with cognitive dissonance, a good measure of how someone thinks about the world and their own faith (assuming they have it) and that they're sufficiently informed that they don't believe The Flintstones was a documentary. How that helps you survive income loss is, oddly enough, a REAL strawman, unlike the ones you claim I and Ivan have presented.

Your binary view of the economy is also downright simplistic, but I'll let Ivan and others who are better in that particular area deal with that. I will ask you: how does escaping from the reality of income loss with a particular religious view (You say faith, but there are many FAITHS, you're talking about ONE view) help you survive income loss?

I'm reminded of the old joke: "One day there was this preacher and he was having his usual sermon when all of a sudden it started raining, really, really, hard! After about 1 full hour of complete non-stop rain, they started making evacuations because the whole church was flooding, but the preacher just stood there in the ankle-deep water. A guy in a car came up to him and said. "Preacher, Preacher you better get in here before you drown!" But the preacher just replied "Don't worry God will save me." The man then said "Whatever!" and drove away. The water was now knee-deep and a guy in a raft came over to the Preacher and said "Preacher, Preacher you better get in here before you drown!" Despite the second warning the Preacher just stood there and replied "Don't worry God will save me." The man then said "Whatever!" and rowed away in the orange raft.

The water was now waist-deep and a guy in a power boat came to the Preacher and said "Preacher, Preacher you better get in here before you drown!" Despite the third warning the Preacher just stood there and replied "Don't worry God will save me." With that the man said "Whatever!" and jetted away in the power boat. The water was now neck-deep and a guy in a helicopter came and said "Preacher, Preacher you better get your butt in here before you drown!" The man still just stood there and replied "Don't worry God will save me." And with that the man said "Whatever" and flew away. The water then got so deep that the Preacher was sucked under and died. When he opened his eyes he noticed that he was in heaven. He then saw God and asked "God! Why didn't you save me from that horrible flood?!?" God then replied, " I sent you a car, a raft, a power boat, and a helicopter! What else do you want from me?!"

In short, you can wait for godot, or get off your *** and try to do something for yourself and others. You can take an interest in the education of future generations which involves actual science (and therefore evolution comes in), and not mythology. You can turn your eyes from a possible heaven and stop looking at economics in the binary fashion one looks at "The Rapture". There are many MANY ways the economy can evolve that don't end in Utopia or Doom. Just because this feels like impending doom doesn't mean that doom is truly imminent. Maybe the US will recover, maybe not, but that's not the end of the world or paradise either way.

 

[brainstorm]

Wow... I just thought I was challenging your assertion that believing in the end of world according to the book of Revelations, and in doing so planning a survivalist group or metnality centered around ALASKA =

It's very narrow to interpret the broad philosophical lessons of scripture according to specificities like where and who. As far as I know the only really relevant idea from Revelations is that of armageddon, which basically just means there's an eternal war between good and evil in the world and people long to transcend the destruction by creating a better world/life.

I also would love to know what is optimistic about the belief that all people who haven't been saved are going to live in misery and eventual extinction, while others who will be "raptured" huddle in a Alaska waiting for Jesus. I would think Cheyenne Mountain or another such facility would be a far better, wait out the apocalypse" shelter, or perhaps a relatively uninhabited, but fertile region in South America?

I would interpret these things metaphorically. Salvation in Christianity is generally associated with understanding the suffering of Christ as a liberation through endurance. It makes sense that people would think that if they can endure arctic climate that they would again see the "light of Christ" by awakening the meaning of the story within themselves and hence giving them a sense of immanence for a "second coming." Such ideas are like figurative poetry, so why do you try to read them as literal?

why do you need to do ANYTHING to survive? Isn't the point that if you accept the right flavor of Jesus into your heart that you get whisked away to paradise before the **** really hits the fan? If you're 'left behind', you'd be dealing with supernatural forces so I'm unclear how a rugged wilderness stops THAT.

In the story of the persecution/crucifixion, Jesus does not easily transcend suffering. He has to endure it and struggle. Some Christians may get to the point of exposing themselves to death without struggle, but those who struggle and suffer can still get comfort and deliverance from attempting to persevere according to the example. It's really a personal thing how you do it. It comes down to a choice that ultimately makes as much sense in secular language as religious language: you can either choose to persevere through suffering or reject it and seek an easy life or bust. Some people choose for "easy life or bust" and end up busting - but then what?

As for your final point, we're talking about something which doesn't have ONE interpretation, so even if you were to talk about it, which one would that be? Revelations is pretty clear that, at the end of it ALL, the dead rise for judgement, and the bad little boys and girls experience the "second death" in the "lake of fire", and the others get to heaven and a completely new world is created with the old wiped away. It's pretty explicit about that, and I'm fairly sure that the includes Alaska.

Yes, and in the story of Jonah, Jonah sacrifices himself to a whale before getting spit out to go save Nineveh. Does that mean that being born-again has to involve whale-ingestion? If the city is Anchorage instead of Nineveh, are all bets off? No, the meaning of the story is applicable in terms of its literary meaning. Spiritual death, rising for judgment and experiencing hell or transcendence as a result is not hard to interpret if you understand the concepts. Revelations, imo, is mostly a realist description of what people go through when they are being spiritually born-again. It can be very intense, I believe.

You ask the how believing in evolution will help anyone survive income loss... which is not what was said... he explicitly set that out as a TEST. I read that to be: anyone who believes that even if there is a god, and with all of the evidence to support it, evolution is a fiction... isn't bright, or isn't all there. (The latter I disagree with...) I would say that having people who can reconcile the notion of a god which sets the universe in motion AND allows for part of that process to include evolution (or as we call it in QM: superdeterminism lol) is probably preferable to someone who believes that the words of one version of a particular book is LITERAL.

Evolution is a literal materialist analysis of how organisms live and die resulting in species changes. Evolutionists seem to be the people who apply the same literalness of analysis to scripture, and then accuse people who believe in scripture literally to be fools.

Using evolution as a measure of intelligence doesn't make sense. If you just wanted to measure people's intelligence, you could use an iq test or a reading-comprehension test.

From the perspective of many people who rely on scripture for spiritual comfort and guidance, I would say many people who preach evolution seem superficial and sheltered; as if they haven't had tough enough life experiences to gain direct experience with spirituality as transcendence of suffering. Spirituality has nothing to do with rationality. It is more like what happens to you when you have been so betrayed by power and irrationality that you give up rationality for faith. This is hard to understand for people who have always been rewarded for rational choices and never suffered at the hands of arbitrary domination.

Your binary view of the economy is also downright simplistic, but I'll let Ivan and others who are better in that particular area deal with that. I will ask you: how does escaping from the reality of income loss with a particular religious view (You say faith, but there are many FAITHS, you're talking about ONE view) help you survive income loss?

It doesn't really have to do with which one. It has to do with going into a freezing climate, dessert, or otherwise hostile conditions and persevering with faith and hope in deliverance despite practically unbearable conditions. It sounds like these people are just using religion to psych themselves up for that.

God then replied, " I sent you a car, a raft, a power boat, and a helicopter! What else do you want from me?!"

Part of religious faith involves deciphering which help is offered in good faith and which is given in exchange for accepting unacceptable obligations (the proverbial "deal with the devil")

In short, you can wait for godot, or get off your *** and try to do something for yourself and others.

What makes you think I view divine intervention and human self-help as mutually-exclusive oppositional categories?

You can take an interest in the education of future generations which involves actual science (and therefore evolution comes in), and not mythology.

What makes you think I see science and religious mythology as mutually destructive?

You can turn your eyes from a possible heaven and stop looking at economics in the binary fashion one looks at "The Rapture". There are many MANY ways the economy can evolve that don't end in Utopia or Doom. Just because this feels like impending doom doesn't mean that doom is truly imminent. Maybe the US will recover, maybe not, but that's not the end of the world or paradise either way.

True, but whether each individual experiences perseverance with hope and faith in the future or whether they curse their suffering and exploit and harm others in an attempt to extort money from its sources is the question. Realize that the economic means of production are there. They have not gone anywhere. The standoff is between those with the means to produce and those with the money to give them. If the producers shut down production until they get paid, they might produce very little and people will suffer with less as a result. If the people suffering are convinced to blame the people/banks with money for not giving it to the producers, they will become soldiers in a war to force people with money to spend or lose it in taxes. Personally, I think they should force the producers to produce instead of forcing those with money to give it up, but maybe they should just produce things for themselves and not bug others to do it for them.

 

[WhoWee]

Let's try to get back to the topic folks

 

[edward]

Will the real Tea party please stand up. Apparently there are a number of loosely affiliated groups. The tea party patriots, Tea Party nation, and Tea Party Federation

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/a-guide-to-tea-party-infighting/63389

All of them seem to disown the Tea party Express and Sal Russo although:

Russo’s group, based in California, is now the single biggest independent supporter of Tea Party candidates, raising more than $5.2 million in donations since January 2009, according to federal records. But at least $3 million of that total has since been paid to Russo’s political consulting firm or to one controlled by his wife, according to federal records.

While most of that money passed through the firms to cover advertising and other expenses, that kind of self-dealing raises red flags about possible lax oversight and excessive fees for the firms, campaign finance specialists said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...nsiders_tea_party_role_raises_some_questions/

sorry for the late edit

 

[WhoWee]

Will the real Tea party please stand up. Apparently there are a number of loosely affiliated groups. The tea party patriots, Tea Party nation, and Tea Party Federation

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/a-guide-to-tea-party-infighting/63389

All of them seem to disown the Tea party Express and Sal Russo although:




http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...nsiders_tea_party_role_raises_some_questions/

sorry for the late edit

There are many flavors of Tea
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Many-Flavors-of-Tea&id=869366

 

[nismaratwork]

There are many flavors of Tea
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Many-Flavors-of-Tea&id=869366

Yes, but they're apparently all being brewed with atropine...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, I would add that Karl Rove initially seemed horrified by O'Donnell on Fox News, until 'recalled' by them and giving a generalized endorsement of any republican candidate. I think the right has created something they have very little control over, and if the Democrats had a firing neuron between them they could capitalize on it. Sadly, they don't...

...one of the few times that Rove and I agreed on something. But he clearly sees the threat to the party here. The R party is having the human equivalent of a mental breakdown.

This has been coming for a long time. I think the fringe right will separate from the moderates and fade into oblivion. Right now there is a clear insurgency in which all but the purists are purged from the party. This is not sustainable so it has to fail. I just hope we don't see too many tea party types elected before this happens. Unfortunately, right now, the irrational fringe is bolstered by the anger caused by the lagging employment recovery. We have created a tremendous amount of wealth since the collapse [over 50% growth in the Dow, with pressure to break the 11,000 mark again], and that wealth eventually has to manifest generally, but until the job situation improves, the fringe has a hook.

And, sooner or later, the fact that the R economic platform has fundamentally failed, must come home to roost. The tea partiers are arguing for policies proven not to work. For example, they are angry about the collapse but want less government. That is irrational. One of the main reasons for the collapse was too little oversight by the government. It was proof that a free market left to run amok, is capable of destroying the global economy. Ayn Rand is truly dead, but the tea party and the Republicans never got the death notice.

 

[mheslep]

One of the main reasons for the collapse was too little oversight by the government.

And one of the main reasons for the collapse was the government.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And one of the main reasons for the collapse was the government.

Three of the primary reasons for the collapse were, black market derivatives trading, which led to the banking collapse, exotic home loans, which created a housing bubble, and loan bundling, which undermined accountability. These problems were the result of unregulated markets, or unregulated activities in regulated marktets.

The only fault one can lay on the government was a failure to regulate these markets. Much of that blame, in regards to the banking collapse, lands squarely in the lap of Greenspan, and he is the first one to admit that. He publically admits that his polices were flawed. His philosophy failed - the collapse should not have been possible. Greenspan was highly influential in the evolution of Reaganomics, and a key player in determining our economic policies since Reagan. In turn, he adhered to a modern libertarinism based on the works of his mentor, Ayn Rand, which are the bases for the political positions of the tea party - as Reagan would say, the best government is no government. I would add that thirty years of supply-side econonics have led to a debt-to-gdp ratio out of control. Beginning with Reagan, our debt-to-gdp ratio has grown from about 40%, to about 90%, with only a small percentage of that added by Obama, and that during an historic economic crisis brought upon us by the principles underlying the Republican economic platform. Therefore, the tea party is DOA, and the Republicans have a lot of soul-searching to do. The Republicans no longer have a viable economic philosophy.

 

[mheslep]

, black market derivatives trading,

False.

The only fault one can lay on the government was a failure to regulate these markets.

False.

- as Reagan would say, the best government is no government.

That's anarchy and no Reagan never suggested such. I think you mean:

That government is best which governs not at all - http://www.bartleby.com/73/753.html" , Civil Disobedience.

 

[Char. Limit]

False.

False.

Care to qualify those assertions?

 

[mheslep]

Care to qualify those assertions?

No. Start with the thousand words or so of assertions in #447 and #449.

 

[nismaratwork]

False.


False.

Cite or source? I've read a lot of your posts, and this is one of your most common requests. Rules are the rules after all... you can report Ivan for the same issue if you feel like it, but that doesn't give you the right to do the same thing does it?

That's anarchy and no Reagan never suggested such. I think you mean:

That government is best which governs not at all - http://www.bartleby.com/73/753.html" , Civil Disobedience.

AFAIK Reagan never said either Ivan's quote, nor Thoreau's. In fact, much as I personally think he was a clown, he specifically adressed the issue of the balance between government and anarchy.

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.

 

[Al68]

In fact, much as I personally think he was a clown, he specifically adressed the issue of the balance between government and anarchy.

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.

Even if you thought him a "clown", you have to admit he was (almost) right on target with that one.

Such misnomers are still standing in the way of legitimate debate in many cases, including in this forum. Not to mention the incessant practice of deliberately sabotaging legitimate debate with misleading figurative speech, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, fallacious premises, etc.

I would only disagree with his using the word libertarian to include anarchists, since libertarians, unlike anarchists, certainly believe protecting liberty is the legitimate function of government.

As far as being a clown, I'd say Reagan was about the tenth clowniest President we've had in the last 50 years.

 

[nismaratwork]

Even if you thought him a "clown", you have to admit he was (almost) right on target with that one.

Much as it pains me I do agree with much of that particular quote; specifically the distinction between what it is to be Libertarian, and an Anarchist.

Such misnomers are still standing in the way of legitimate debate in many cases, including in this forum. Not to mention the incessant practice of deliberately sabotaging legitimate debate with misleading figurative speech, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, fallacious premises, etc.

I would only disagree with his using the word libertarian to include anarchists, since libertarians, unlike anarchists, certainly believe protecting liberty is the legitimate function of government.

As far as being a clown, I'd say Reagan was about the tenth clowniest President we've had in the last 50 years.

Mmmmm... I'd say he was a pretty big clown, with getting busted for Iran Contra being a real "pants around the ankles" moment. Granted, he now has to contend with Clinton "my pants really ARE around my ankles", and Bush W. "Me no speak real good", but it's amazing the man lasted 2 terms.