Our President
Pages
| Author | Topic: Our President |
|---|---|
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Saturday, August 6 2005 12:09
Profile
Homepage
Well, no, he's more of a representative. A figurehead, too, but not near as much as, say, Queen Elizabeth. No offense meant to any British members, of course. -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Saturday, August 6 2005 17:29
Profile
Homepage
The president is a representative, and he holds the majority of executive power. He's only a figurehead because someone needs to be. The president is analogous to the UK's prime minister, not the monarch. —Alorael, who doesn't object to fighting terrorism because it's evil. Whatever word games you want to play, that's really the reason everyone objects to it whether or not you decide to expand the definition of evil. Using evil as a catchall term for anyone different is very different and very dangerous, though, and Bush always seems to be on the verge of doing just that. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Saturday, August 6 2005 17:51
Profile
To say we are fighting all of Islam is a misnomer. We are fighting a specific fanatical branch of Islam. The "Taliban" or Al-Qaeda is a pretty specific fundamentalist bunch of crazies. They are drawing from a fairly obvious branch of Islamic terror-- a mixed of old style assassin-- you will go to heaven if you kill someone, and if you die in the process you get a nice heavenly bonus -- get twenty virgins, thirty goats, etc and as much hash as you can smoke and the more modern mad bomber which is endemic to most separatist groups. We've managed to avoid the truly crazy jihadists for the most part. We aren't fighting a crusader type war which would be a far worse mess than the one we are in now. There is no truly central figure who has convinced the more modern states to jump in an alliance-- Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Syria aren't fighting in a pan arabic alliance. These folks are not the Ottomans or Ataturk as they would like to view themselves or convince other people. They haven't lit a fire under the central Asian muslims who are the ones known for conquest and hard fighting. We are not fighting Indonesia. We are in the quagmire of history-- Afghanistan and Iraq, which go from one conqueror to the next. I do not think of this as a huge overwhelming fight with the "muslim" world. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 08:02
Profile
Certainly terrorists are a minute minority among Muslims. Islam as a world religion has ample credentials as an enlightened and tolerant faith. But there is a but, I think. The Muslim tradition of holy violence, and of revering anyone who kills lots of infidels, is also a real one and an old one. It is very difficult for modern Muslims, who want to point to the confidently cosmopolitan empires of the early Caliphs and the Mughals and the Ottomans, as the true icons for Islamic civilization, to entirely dissociate themselves from the fact that these same tolerant empires were intitially founded by violent conquest of nations whose only crime was to be infidel. The success of Muslim arms, in wars of conquest, was one of the oldest cited evidences for the validity of the Muslim revelation. I have seen with my own eyes the sword and bow of the Prophet, and the swords of the first four Caliphs (the only ones to be considered 'rightly guided'). They are in the Topkapi museum in Istanbul, having been carefully preserved by a long succession of Muslim rulers for nearly 1400 years. There is little reason, in my view, to doubt the authenticity of these relics: the successors of Muhammed had both the capability and the motivation to preserve such things. There are a few other interesting relics of Muhammed, including a letter supposed to be written in his own hand (and again I don't really doubt this). But it is the weapons that have always been given pride of place. To be sure, other religions have fostered aggression in many times and places. But I think that other major religions can more easily classify those episodes as abhorrent aberrations from a faith fundamentally opposed to them. It is the great problem of Islam today, at least to non-Muslim eyes, that violence worked very well for Islam in its beginning. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3368
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 08:39
Profile
quote:Ben, the God that Muslims worship (Even violent, fundamentalist Muslims) is just as real as you, or anyone elses God. It is irrelevant whether anyone else believes in it. Their belief in their God is what makes it real. -------------------- "Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending" Posts: 287 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 09:38
Profile
Homepage
quote:You know, the only reason that Christianity didn't do the same thing is that it managed to convert an empire that had already been conquered. But the Middle Ages saw the Crusades and later eras saw Christian holy wars on a massive scale. (Tell the Germans of the early seventeenth century that Christians don't have a long tradition of holy war). Spain did some serious conquest and mass conversion, too, in the colonial era. However, I see your point that Muhammad himself was thought of as a conqueror (and so were his immediate successors), while Christians didn't start doing this until almost a thousand years after the religion was founded. But I think this is only because they didn't need to conquer more during the classical era and were not able to conquer more during the Early Middle Ages. The two religions do have different histories, but I think those histories have more to do with their contexts than they do with the tenets of the religions. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 10:50
Profile
Kel, you definitely know more about this era than I, but wasn't the Holy Roman Empire created using powers of both the church and the state? One may have been a tool of the other, but I thought they both were instrumental in driving the conquest across Europe in the first millenia. *this message sponsored by the republican road builders llc* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 11:11
Profile
Homepage
The Holy Roman Empire never conquered large expanses of territory. It varied from the size of a single European country today (France) to one and a half countries today (Germany and Northern Italy), but it was never like the massive Arab and Turkish conquests. Also bear in mind that the Holy Roman Empire is distinct from the classical Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire only existed for the last two centuries of the first millenium, but it existed for almost the entire second millenium. So in a word, no. [ Monday, August 08, 2005 11:13: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 11:17
Profile
Well, it can be argued both ways, of course. After a few centuries as a somewhat antisocial cult, Christianity definitely did get into the business of providing religious authority for power, and exercising power in order to maintain religious authority. And it stayed in this business for about as long as Islam has been in business at all. Arguably Christianity has not quite gotten out of that business yet, in the United States. It has pretty much everywhere else, though, state churches notwithstanding because the official status of bodies like the Church of England is essentially just an embarrassment to everyone concerned. It still seems to me that having founders whose relation to state authority differs so greatly, as between executed criminal and successful theocratic dictator, is bound to mean something. In both Christianity and Islam, it is the earliest history, and especially the career of the founder, that has always been invoked as fundamentally normative, with few later epochs lasting long before being widely denounced as corrupt deviations in some way. So the beginnings really matter to these religions. One reason why the beginnings still matter so much is that the easiest way for religions that began as revolutionary reform movements to reform themelves, without just abolishing themselves, is by going back to basics and back to their roots, to the days when the essential principles were fresh, and all the details were up for grabs. The problem I see is that the Islamic movement to extremist violence is itself such an effort at back-to-our-roots reform, and one that seems, to my understanding of Islamic history, to have a certain self-consistency, perhaps even legitimacy. Would-be liberalizers may call for an 'Islamic Reformation', but I think Al Qaeda sees itself as precisely that. Re the Holy Roman Empire: wasn't it Voltaire who first quipped that it was none of the three? -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 11:22
Profile
Homepage
I find it encouraging that even here on spiderweb some doubts about Bush and Iraq are being posted. Here are two cartoons, that exemplify my answer to the double question at the start of this thread:   Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 11:38
Profile
Homepage
quote:According to those that don't believe. -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 13:23
Profile
I'm with Ben on this one. The view that belief constitutes reality seems pretty silly to me, I'm afraid. It sure doesn't work for electrons, or Buicks, or unicorns. Why the heck should it work for Gods? Only if you've decided that in the context of 'God', 'reality' means something quite different from what it means for electrons and Buicks, perhaps something like what would otherwise be called 'vividness' or 'emotional significance'. That might be a viable terminological convention for atheists discussing religion, but it's hardly common usage. And it retains the common drawback of terminology that alters standard definitions without notice, of being confusing - perhaps not least to those who introduce it. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 13:44
Profile
Homepage
quote:Then what constitutes the existence of a god, if not belief? If gods can exist independently from belief, then what makes God more real than Thor or Allah? -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperment, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 13:51
Profile
Homepage
I don't think it's even theoretically possible for "God" to be any more real than "Allah," but we've had that conversation before. A god could be verifiably real. It'd just have to demonstrate itself and its power in a reliable, measurable way. None have lately, but they could. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5785
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 14:01
Profile
quote:If he did so, he would no longer be "God". That's the funny thing. -------------------- "..The seventh wave of Thrall stumbled and climbed over the slippery, piled dead and Mazzarin saw The Watcher with them and at last knew the number of his days." Posts: 522 | Registered: Wednesday, May 4 2005 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 14:14
Profile
I just missed the part where it was established that 'real' behaved differently when modifying 'God' or 'god' than when modifying, say, 'ostrich'. Since when does my belief in ostriches, or in any particular ostrich, affect their reality one way or the other? How much evidence you can amass for the reality of God is another matter entirely. Perhaps you are saying that it is so difficult to identify evidence for or against the existence of God, that the ordinary concept of reality lacks utility when applied to God, and is better replaced by a measure of believers' confidence. If so, I'd say that's a defensible position -- but one that could have been articulated more clearly :) . But otherwise, as a matter of principle, I don't see how the reality of anything, of God or of a pastrami sandwich, depends on anyone's belief. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3368
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 14:32
Profile
quote:That's not at all what I meant. I was saying that in the mind of whoever it is who believes, their idea of God is what they will use as justification for their actions. Their interpretation of God and (Instead of writing "he/she/it for God i'll just write "it") it's teachings are what matters. It is irrelevant what their deity "believes" because their deity has no tangible effect on them. Saying that our President is inspired by God is ridiculous. He is inspired by the Bible and his interpretation of Christianity. [ Monday, August 08, 2005 14:36: Message edited by: Bender Bending Rodriguez ] -------------------- "Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending" Posts: 287 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3368
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 14:34
Profile
(double post) [ Monday, August 08, 2005 14:34: Message edited by: Bender Bending Rodriguez ] -------------------- "Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending" Posts: 287 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 14:57
Profile
Homepage
God differs from electrons, nucleons, etc, because we cannot make reproducible experiments with her. So could God be categorized as abstract, like hope, like belief, like trust etc? Imho, no, because 1. We cannot agree. 2. Neither Jews nor Christians nor Muslims are allowed to depict God. God is meant to be outside all categories. As soon as you form a sentence about God, like "God exists", "God is real", the acceptance of that statement depends on what every one of us understands by the word "exist" or "real" as if the word God did not designate a noun but acted like a super question mark. [ Monday, August 08, 2005 14:58: Message edited by: No 2 Methylphenidate ] Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 16:44
Profile
Homepage
There are two ways you can view gods: 1. They do not exist, do not meddle in day to day reality, or do so in completely capricious and arbitrary ways that are really no different from luck. In this case, the true effect of a god is the belief of worshippers, which is independent of the god in question. hard-line, extremist fundamentalists are scary because of their beliefs, not because of the target of their beliefs. 2. Gods interfere in tangible ways, albeit ways apparently deliberately calculated to be unmeasurable by doubting and damned scientists. In this case, Ben is right. But so is a terrorist. As an outsider, I haven't seen any more convincing evidence of any gods on one side or the other. —Alorael, who will admit that believing in an ostrich produces no ostrich eggs, but think back to 1984 (the book, not the year). Or various cases of mass self-hypnosis, hysteria, or whatever you want to call it. Weird things start happening when people believe even when it's an unfounded or a patently false belief. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Tuesday, August 9 2005 08:46
Profile
Homepage
quote:Her? ... I suppose that's another argument in it's own right, too. -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Tuesday, August 9 2005 09:01
Profile
If God has no physical body what makes it male or female? Does it emotionally or mentally identify with one gender or the other, if so, why would it choose one over the other having never incarnated as either? -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Tuesday, August 9 2005 09:25
Profile
Homepage
I'd say that since man was made in God's image and Adam was a male, then God must be male. Then Eve, the first female, was created out of the male, hence man and woman and male and female. But still, if need be, God is still capable of encarnating in either gender, but Jesus was a male also. So while I'd say that God is male, one could argue that he's kind of Schrodinger's cat in heaven, but instead of being either dead of alive, he's either male or female. But there I just referred to him as "he" too, and proper grammar may have called for such pronouns to be capitalized also, but... whatever. -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Tuesday, August 9 2005 09:42
Profile
Using the gender specific pronoun may be an error of convenience, but I think not in this case. If we go by the theory that gods are created by people through the power of prayer, the Abrahamic god championed by christians was created by males and for males to dominate over the more pagan gods including the "earth mother" that was revered by some women. So, in this particular case, it is a he, although everyone is free to pray to their own incarnation of god. It just won't be the god that ben has in mind. But that brings me to an interesting question from something written by ben. Where exactly are you talking about when you use the phrase "in heaven"? I'm being serious here. What and where is this place that you call heaven? *this message funded by the god of the nematodes* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6102
|
written Tuesday, August 9 2005 09:49
Profile
A little off topic, since it seems the thread has shifted to talking about gods now, but would the United States ever get a female president in the near future or will it never happen? As for the god part, I think a lot of people view God as a "Him" by default, though some religions do view female gods or whatever is their preference of worship. (I remember some female goddess named Shiva, for Hindu or some other religion...I forgot.) I think for heaven, it's probably viewed (Christian wise I believe, unless this theory of Heaven is a religious stereotype, I wouldn't know) as this eternal bliss of paradise with God as you pretty much are free of illness and burden. Some picture a world with angels above clouds or something like that. Heaven can also be defined as your "dream utopia". [ Tuesday, August 09, 2005 09:51: Message edited by: Jeros ] -------------------- "Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies in the heart of mankind." -Edward D. Morrison Posts: 220 | Registered: Monday, July 11 2005 07:00 |
