gnam

we crave an ending, there is more glory in an end then the pride of a life, even once a life fails. years back i had a mental break down, i was hopeless, where as with faith you receive hope. my reason for wanting death was diffrent... but the feeling is the same. Sounds like a lot of nietzschean eternal return... a lot of willing and choosing. While there is no debating Nietzsche's mastery of modernity, nor his stylistic genius... consider taking into account some of the heideggarian thought concerning the ancients and moderns. Where does the concept of finitude fit into your 'will'?

This is interesting. If this post is supposed to say something essential about the Jewish people then you are right, I do not understand the Jewish people. It seems you owe an explanation here, since you are drawing on an unexplained distinction in order to demarcate 'jewishness' and its link with what you call the anglosphere. IOW what is the rule of law as you understand it? How do you support the claim that the jewish people, and by extension the anglosphere (or similar groups and cultures to use your words), strongly adhere to it? Additionally, you should explain what you mean by 'rule of man.' How is this type of rule qualitatively different from your conception of rule of law? Aren't laws created and interpreted by men and women in the countries you are talking about? (if not... as democracies aren't they supposed to be? Why or why not?) How does the 'rule of man' play out in the nations you see as antithetical to the so called 'anglosphere' in such a way as to make them wholly incompatible and necessarily opposed to your aligned groups and cultures? Great Questions. In Other Words, one gets the notion that nobody knows what the other is talking about. I dunno... the questions weren't meant to advertise any particular notions... since they were "questions" they were supposed to encourage notions to be put forth

And your point is??? I think his point is "Canadian Identity" is contrived. Wow, "contrived" ... you must be like one of those social-critic-mimestripetshirtwearing-poet-cool guys - form the soda parlour huh??? Sorry to come off like a jerk but that whole "... identity is so ~like~ contrived dude!" is so much hipster crap!! the question is what do you mean when you say Canadian identity (including its weaknesses) And what do ya mean when you say 'contrived' with respect to any 'new world' nation?? exactly?

Sorry, I'll try and restrain myself... though I thought she had picked up the hang of doing so reasonably well. g-

This is interesting. If this post is supposed to say something essential about the Jewish people then you are right, I do not understand the Jewish people. It seems you owe an explanation here, since you are drawing on an unexplained distinction in order to demarcate 'jewishness' and its link with what you call the anglosphere. IOW what is the rule of law as you understand it? How do you support the claim that the jewish people, and by extension the anglosphere (or similar groups and cultures to use your words), strongly adhere to it? Additionally, you should explain what you mean by 'rule of man.' How is this type of rule qualitatively different from your conception of rule of law? Aren't laws created and interpreted by men and women in the countries you are talking about? (if not... as democracies aren't they supposed to be? Why or why not?) How does the 'rule of man' play out in the nations you see as antithetical to the so called 'anglosphere' in such a way as to make them wholly incompatible and necessarily opposed to your aligned groups and cultures?

And your point is???

Whoa who said anything about tolerance. Tolerance is the territory of you 'turn the other cheek' types. I tried talking to you about reason and about how your faith depends on reason. However, reason is not necessarily about tolerance, sometimes it is a tyrant. Yeah, you and everybody else. No one here has really suggested that they would like to see Rachel hurt either... just that what she represents (and like it or not, she or her parents signed off on her appearance in the movie thereby permitting her to appear as a symbol, not just rachel) incites a certain disgust in people, a disgust that incites violent thoughts, though not necessarily violent actions. Well Betsy, I think it was your rhetoric that inflamed Kimmy's sense of advocacy. She seemed to have been arguing that you were unreasonably insinuating that some of the comments from other posters were on a level with the views of the KKK or some nonsense like that. People don't have a problem with Rachel's christianity or with rachel. The revulsion that people feel lies in her role in the film as a whole, the film in which it is proposed that young children be encouraged to radicalism, "a radical faith on par with that of the radical Islam." or something like that. Easy there betsy old girl... No one is anyone's sidekick. I have read a number of Kimmy's posts, I often enjoy doing so and often agree with some of the things that she writes. Secondly, I'm not really defending anyone, rather, I've been attacking your position which I won't re-hash here (your position or mine). Well I don't use the ignore button because that would indicate a profound lack of respect for you and others who have a right to and should be heard, regardless of the fact that I think you are full of BS some of the time. Also, since you post things on a "discussion" forum it seems reasonable that others read and comment on what's said... otherwise this would be a sermon forum. Not anger, intolerance for unmitigated stupidity. You wanna talk bible?? Cool, start the thread... I'm there I guess if you wanna call those crazy red-faced guys on TV screaming about the devil in our midst "calming" that would be your perogative. Personally I find a nice bowl of Crack just knocks me out for the night... diff strokes I guess huh? Let me know about the bible thread...

Hmmm... well, I dunno about this 'make her choke on it' business being all that literal, but every time I here some idiot rambling on 'ad tedium' about that Jesus guy I sorta feel like curb stomping the next long-hair, bearded hippie i see cruising down the boulevard in his sandals, white robes, and blue sash... know what I mean? While I may not really want to overfeed a young child her jesus pamphlets, you have to admit it's a little creepy when the very picture of cute starts spewing some disgusting nonsense about a wierd daddy in the sky who 'just wants to love on you'... brings to mind some wierd celestial southern-style-family-key-party or somethin'... and yooouuu'rrreee invited. Don't forget to bring that beauty of a husband ya got there. The hmm... "virgin" mary's lookin for a piece of him. Anyway, face it betsy, 30 year old bible salesmen are annoying... 9 year-olds giving sermons in bowling alleys is a cross between a a monty python skit and a Kafka novel. That kid doesn't need to be fed her pamphlets, she needs therapy.

This thread is like Old Faithful if it spewed crap instead of steam. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha thanks man... that's funny!

Well, I'm not exactly sure that the Canadian system is not a joke in the international community (argus has nearly convinced me that it is)... however, evrything else seems rather well said. All of these issues seem to pose significant problems for Leafless's position. What do you think Leafless?

On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being no difficulty from the church, I would have to say 0 for me personally, exactly the same amount of difficulty that women who have abortions and gay people force christians to deal with. No one forces christians to have abortions or to copulate 'greek-style.' Last time I checked, the gay community and pro-choice groups had yet to undertake to have christians publicly fed to lions. Interestingly, christian groups often try to criminalize women who have abortions and certain gay activities. But that's not really what this is about... at least I don't think so, not directly. In the end, my concern isn't really about little girls talking to me about jesus, or god, or santa clause, or the easter bunny. In a certain sense their naive innocence is cute. What's not cute, what's a little scary, is that we are watching the process by which the fascist pedagogical 'get'em while they're young' theory is being put to work. Of course this is nothing new in christian countries (or for that matter in ideologically totalitarian ones) throughout history (france, germany, england, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, etc) and that little girl might turn out just fine. But it is a little frightening when we don't catch this girl asking why the sky is blue, why god lets bad things happen to good people, or how santa really knows if children are really bad or good. At any rate, what I've been arguing with Betsy is that ethics are a public concern and, as such, require a public language by which to discuss them. If the language of christianity is, as betsy seems to imply, merely a matter of personal taste, then there is nothing really public or compelling in christianity that deserves to be part of public discourse. In other words, christian arguments can safely, and reasonably be ignored by non-christians if those arguments have nothing to do with reason, as betsy suggests. If, on the other hand, reason (to date the only discursive language to attempt at universality) is employed by christians, muslims, hindu's etc, then there is a basis on which these groups can talk to one another about morality, ethics, justice, etc The question, then, is about whether christians should simply be ignored when they try to tell us why Abortion is wrong, the way I ignore TV commercials and go to the fridge for another beer when they tell me that macdonald's sells wonderful healthy food; or, whether we should take them seriously as members of society who want more than simply to tell us what their religion says, but to tell us the "truth" contained within their religion. To do so would require christians to stop talking about their 'unreasoned faith', and start talking reasons with the rest of us who don't buy their religious beliefs. There are at least two ways to do this: 1. reason with us about why we should become christians. 2. reason with us about how christian teachings are not incompatible with a broader cross-section of belief systems that make up a society. In both cases they should expect to have their belief systems questioned, cross-examined, and possibly rejected... with reasons. This, i think, is at least part of what it means to be a christian in a democracy.

Religion is not a matter of taste for me...or for others like me. Although for some it is....who want to pick and choose what morality should be in it...or what morality should be changed...or excluded. Some go to the extent of challenging the church and its belief. Some end up creating their own religion...creating their own version of what they think it ought to be! You wanted solid reason gleaned from compelling arguments. And I tell you, faith and reason do not go together! I think you should re-read the exchanges... Betsy, I've read them. I have a number of religious friends of varying denominations who would take issue with your (seemingly categorical) claim that faith and reason do not go together. For my part, I recognize that for anyone alive, a certain number of beliefs must be taken as a matter of faith (in the loosest sense of the word). The point is, Betsy, that most people have faith in those things for which they find they have good reasons. For example, I don't know beyond all possible doubts that the sun will rise tomorrow. Any number of extraordinary situations might attain by which the sun may not shine on my part of the world. I, therefore, have no conclusive proof (recall here that you said that "faith is believing in something that has no proof") that the sun will rise tomorrow. I only have reasons (good reasosns at that) that convince me that my faith is well placed in the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. So in this case, my faith is based in reason(s): ie. the sun has always risen in the past (experience or empirical/inductive reason), astrophysics (rational theory), etc. Likewise, it seems, that anyone who thinks that biblical teachings are true/good must do so based on reasons by which they are convinced. Presumably people don't simply stumble upon christian faith. The christian apostles claim that the nazarene was the son of god because he performed miracles and because the nazarene told them so, not because they spontaneously/randomly decided to believe such a bunch of drivel all on their own. I could go on here but I suspect you get the point: your earlier statement that faith is the belief in something that has no [conclusive] proof is true. That is, it is a true definition of the concept of faith. However, your claim that faith and reason do not go together is hogwash and basically constitutes a dishonest attempt to shield your religion and 'faith'-based beliefs from critique. Anyone short of solipsists and vegetables must have faith, in some measure, in order to go about their daily lives. But people place their faith in things for which there are reasons. What's more, faith and reason do go hand in hand and must go together since reason is basically a category in which evidence is contained. Any evidence you give to one particular conclusion/belief is a reason to accept that conclusion/belief, or not. Therefore, when you say that you believe in Christ because doing so has worked for you, you are giving personal testimony as to the effectiveness of sharing in the tenets of your faith, in other words you are giving reasons. The bible itself is one piece of evidential reason for believing that the world is a certain way. When you say that religion is no mere matter of taste for you or others like you, one is left to infer from your lack of commentary on what religion is about, that religion is a matter of some other compulsion... like faith/belief brought about through reason. However, if your faith is something based on a mere decision to believe the truth of christianity independantly of all reasons then it must be something to do with taste. If that is so, then it might also be said that whether or not we should practice charity is not an ethical concern, but instead a matter of our inclinations as far as christianity is concerned. One possible result of this (grounding religious belief in inclination) might also be that Christianity could have nothing legitimate to say about homosexuality insofar as the homosexuals in question are not christians. Furthermore, christians would be justified in advertising their religion but could make no claim to a right to have their beliefs publicly acknowledged (ie. taught in schools) since we similarly don't believe that corporate donors should be allowed to advertise in classrooms. At any rate, this is only a small matter. But it seems to me that there are significant consequences both for bringing reason into the religious arena as well as excluding it. What's important is that it can't be both ways and that you have been a bit slippery in your commitment to one position or the other. Either you think that religion is a matter of inclination (faith according to appeal or taste) that all are free to buy into or not... or you think that religion has something significant and compelling to say about social ethical standards, thus we all have 'reasons' (reason, in this case, as a common language by which to uncover ethical truths) to pay attention when christians start talking about those standards with reference to their religion. In the first case, people have a right to tell christians to keep their faith to themselves; and on the other, if the reasoning is good, people should be willing to hear what is said by christians.

My question stands... on what grounds should any of your moral views, grounded as they are in a religious belief that you yourself say people are free to adopt or not as they see fit, carry any weight with anyone? In other words, why do you think your moral opinions should matter to anyone who does not shre your taste? Lol. Has the military wing of Jesus camp busted down your door, gnam, and forced you to join them? Hmm.. heheh... no I don't recall any encounters involving jesus camp commandos, secret parishioners, or the re-education units of the righteous having breached the doorway to my apartment. My concern here has been to question the legitimacy of citing religious beliefs, beliefs apparently (according to some of the other posters) chosen according to taste, as reason(s) for others to accept moral conclusions. In other words I am interested in compelling arguments and reasoning, not people's religious taste.

Faith and reason do not go hand in hand. Faith is believing in something that has no proof. My question stands... on what grounds should any of your moral views, grounded as they are in a religious belief that you yourself say people are free to adopt or not as they see fit, carry any weight with anyone? In other words, why do you think your moral opinions should matter to anyone who does not shre your taste?

But they (gov't or society or whomever you are talking about) more or less do or try to treat everyone as equal with respect to the stated aims and values of the government... I think. The fact that certain groups in society are treated differently than some others has to do, if I am not mistaken, with the fact that in order ensure a basic level of equality some groups require that special requirements be met in order to ensure that society is able to grant that equality. All concerns that this kind of equality promotes a rather commonplace and disgusting brand of equality (read as mediocrity) aside, this kind of thinking serves certain purposes. For example, retards and handicapped (sorry to anyone that belongs to one of these groups... I wouldn't want to give the impression that I was encouraging special rights for certain groups with regard to their right to be called whatever they want) people require that certain priveleges and aids be extended by society in order to ensure that they can excercise basic rights like taking a shit in a public washroom or filling out tax forms, etc. I am NOT saying that homosexuality is qualitatively like a mental or physical diability, however all three states of existence mark out those who live these existences as different in some way from the majority of canadians, in some more or less banal way. With regard to SSM, the government as the elected body that is supposed to be representative of canadians, all Canadians not just the majority of canadians (this is the part that is supposed to be about the equality of all canadians as you desire), is extending the same legal rights to homosexuals... the rights that are currently extended to the largest canadian special interest group--white hetero judeo-christians. It occurs to me that one way to solve your little "definition of marriage" problem would be to take legal marriage off the books entirely. Everyone would then have an equal right to nothing in the strictly legal sense. Then your various churches that claim access to divinely inspired definitions of marriage could just marry whomever they see fit since it is not the mandate of the religious to treat all canadians equally... would this satisfy you??

Awwwhhhh... that's the cutest thing I ever heard... are they selling those dolls for christmas this year??? where can i adopt?

Ok, so it sounds like you are basically arguing for a christian powered reconstitution of the canadian state that would be devoted, in some constitutionally fundamental way, to a christian cultural imperialism/homogeneity? All of this would, presumably, be undertaken with reference to the historical arrival of Christian Europeans and would, effectively, write N. American First Nations and french speaking Europeans out of the picture as far as the formal creation of the Canadian State is concerned. As a further consideration, your scheme would do away with SSM in a legal/political sense because Canadians would recognize themselves as owing the existence of their country to christianity, a religion that, according to you and others, requires the sanctity of the institution of marriage (understood in terms of heterosexual unions) in order to safeguard the moral integrity of society as a whole... Does that about cover it??

Supertramp good??? stop saying that you guys are freaking me out!

An ad can offer you an all-you-can-eat buffet, or your child eats free....or you can go for fine dining...or a great deal for the whole family! If you're watching your diet, buffet may be a very bad idea. On the other hand, if you've got 10 children, option b might be the best way to go. But of course, you get what you pay for. What comes with the package? Can you pick and choose? Depends if you can have it custom-made. That's why others open up their own kitchen...so they can choose all the ingredients! They can eliminate hot peppers from the list if they don't agree with it. At the end of the day....it's your choice. So again, we are back to this personal taste and choice business. This seems to suggest, by your own admission, that religious belief and all of the moral dictates that go with it have something to do with choice... or as dark Angel might have it, with 'will'. Is this what you mean to say? Can I really just decide that I don't like the flavor of the judeo-christian religion... goodbye repression? hello adultry, killing and ox-coveting? Yahoo I thought the day would never come! man you should see my neighbor's ox!!... boy do I ever wish i had that ox! and his wife!

Same as why would the morality of those un-associated with religion be proposed as a matter for public implementation or as a model for public behaviour? Why should schools dabble in morality at all? Anyway, who were the pioneers who built the foundation of this country? What religion did they have? What religion did they bring with them? Therefore what type of belief is incorporated into the system? Well, actually, in talking about ethics and morality in the public sphere it has traditionally been agreed among the learned men of a number of religions (for example, see maimonedes the medieval jewish thinker, St. Thomas Aquinas the medeival christian thinker, and muslims help me out here since my memory has failed me... I think the medieval muslim thinker was called Al Fassad) who debated with one another and agreed that the language of "reason" and not "faith" is the proper way to communicate ethical and moral theorems across religious boundaries. In other words, it has been agreed upon during times far more civil than ours that religious faith was not an appropriate basis upon which to publicly discuss morality. It looks as though you have said as much in your previous posts when you likened religion to a mere matter of taste which we are free to enjoy or not. In contrast, reason aims for (though often falls short... however, it is the best we have) truth, justice, and beauty. None of these are thought to be a matter of preference. Earlier, I suggetsed that if you thought there was some important truth in your religious convictions then you ought to be willing to share it by reasoning with us about how to come to see that truth. However, you have yet to give us any reason to buy your religious doctrine, and by extension the moralities grounded in it that go beyond an appeal to preference. If you cannot compell us to share in your faith then on what grounds would we be compelled to accept, as valid, any of your moralising(s)? As for the pioneers who built the "foundation" of this country and their religions, I guess you would have to be a little more specific about what you take to be the 'foundations' you refer to. I assume you are not talking about the firts-nations people of Cananda who often subscribed to some variation of animist and mystical religious belief before white intervention, though there are many reasons why they should be thought of as foundational peoples. Maybe you are talking about the French catholicism that came to North america with the fur trade (is this the foundation you mean?), or perhaps the English protestantism that came with England's imperialist aspirations and was integral in setting up confederation. Perhaps by 'foundations' you mean those eastern Europeans (ie. Ukrainians, et al) who came and setteled much of the agricultural land of the prairies and brought with them their brand of Christian orthodoxy. Or maybe by 'foundation' you meant the railroad and were refering to the large chinese population that came here and brought their buddhist, confucian, daoist, etc, beliefs with them. Or perhaps when you say 'foundation' you mean those contemporary labourors (often though not always immigrants) who work at many of the least desirable jobs in canada and yet contribute in the most foundational ways to the continued operation of society. These people bring a number of religions with them ranging from hinduism, to muslim, to other varied forms of christianity. At any rate you might want to start a new thread if you are going to make any serious attempt to answer this question... or maybe we should move over to the Canada's history thread that I think is already running.

I don't exactly understand what you're saying here. Please explain. And what does SWF means? Sorry... that was entirely mixed up. All I meant to do hear is re-articulate and emphasize your intial point that when I talk about my tastes and/or religious preferences that I am really saying that I can't speak for anyone else... that my religious beliefs, or my preference (or lack thereof) for chocolate is merely that, a preference... and therefore has no public force as a moral system. I then followed this rather trite observation with the acronym SFW? which means "So What?" Morality and ethics are about the things that ought to be the case or that we ought to do... buffet's and chocolate are about what we like. By your own admissions in stating that religion is about preference, religion has nothing to do with political morality. Have I misinterpreted you?

I can only answer for myself...because I can say ACCURATELY how I feel. It would not be speculation...or hearsay. As for sharing the tenets and morality of our faith......you are being invited, and given the news. You are not being dragged to the church and baptized against your will. You can always decline the invitation if you wish to have no part in it at all. Think of it in terms of an advertisement. You want to buy or not? Ok great, I can only talk accurately about my disposition regarding chocolate; but only if I am talking about 'my' disposition would avoid I the charge of hearsay or speculation insofar as it is I who expresses any inclinations one way or the other in the matter. SFW? You are cordially invited to share in the moral premisses and conclusions of those of us who enjoy chocolate. Feel free to buy in, or not. But if you aren't buying, why should the morality associated with this thing that you are free to buy (or not) be proposed as a matter for public implemetation? Likewise, why should the morality associated with your religion, a religion you imply is merely a matter of taste, be proposed as a model for public behaviour? In other words, if you think your religion has something to do with truth (capital T) then say so. If you are simply talking about 'small t' truth (i.e. "I like callico cats") then why should anyone else care about that?? If your religion is simply one more commodity, and only conveys truth for you, then what possible political (public) significance could it have? If it's all about advertising and everyone is free to buy or not (believe or not), then I guess it doesn't matter (beyond preference) what your religion has to say about homosexuality, drugs, buddhism, Nietzsche, liberalism, etc??? Is this what you mean?

If you can only answer for yourself, is that sufficient to determine for you or others whether anyone else should share in the tenets and/or morality of your faith? The fact that you feel lucky, comforted, etc, does nothing to confirm, for anyone but you, that other people should adopt the tenets of your faith. I might feel lucky and comforted by the taste of chocolate (incidentally I hate chocolate, a bit of info that ought to have little or no meaning for you or anyone who does not have a say regarding the contents of my grocery list). I might even use chocolate as a 'crutch' with which to get through the hard times in my life. I might enjoy chocolate and give thanks to the inventor of chocolate for helping me get through the downside of life. I might even take the writings of other chocolate lovers to be theraputic for me... if I take the time to grow and process cocoa I might even have access to plentiful and free chocolate. Why would it matter at all if someone else were unsure about, undecided about, or confused about the effect that chocolate has in their life? What is the point of suggesting that a person remains undecided about a thing? Is there a right answer concerning those things that concern nothing more than personal opinion or beliefe? Clearly (or perhaps I am mistaken) you have an opinion about what decision the above person 'ought' to come to. Why not just come out with with your opinion... the one that obviously follows from your personal testimony? From the context of your preceding comments we can all be clear that you are only speaking on the grounds of personal experience and opinion, and as such don't really believe that anyone else need actually believe what you believe. If this is the case, why bother? Do you desire that everyone just get to know you? Perhaps, on the other hand, you think your faith has something to do with some universal truth... if so, then you might offer some reasons or instructions by which the rest of us might gain access or insight to these gems of human wisdom??? Then again, perhaps you are just expressing your opinion.... hmmm...????

This early post by Leafless seems to sum up the essence of his/her position fairly well. So in an effort to avoid all of the confusing, headache inducing sidebars that seem to accompany this issue perhaps, Leafless, you might answer a question. To do so would help us understand what you are proposing, where you are coming from, and in the end to evaluate your position. Also, perhaps you might strive for both brevity and clarity in order to ensure that we all understand you position well. The above quote/question (along with many of your other postings, too numerous to go into here) seems to suggest that your concern with SSM is one or more of a few things: either it is somehow associated with Liberals; or, it offends your christian sensibilities; or, it offends the sensibilities of the 'mainstream' (if this is your focus you had better give some indication of who you would include in this group--please don't avoid this requirement with some sort of "if you don't kow then you must not be one of us" drivel). Here and elsewhere, you seem to express concern that by allowing SSM the Christian definition of marriage is somehow threatened. However, others have pointed out that what is at issue is not Christian marriage but civil marriage. Therefore, SSM in no way threatens Christian marriage unless you see Christianity as another word for the mainstream, or society. Indeed your concern that SSM might really be an effort to promote a "godless pagan society, all part of the liberal master plan" seems suggestive as regards your inclinations in this matter. I feel that it should be pointed out that a godless pagan society is, in fact, something of an oxymoron. Pagan societies, traditionally, have maintained beliefs in many gods and therefore remain impervious to the charge of godlessness. Furthermore, it seems worth pointing out that Canada, if it should ever be successful in its attempts at multiculturalism and tolerance for different religious beliefs would likely become the closest modern approximation to a pagan society that has existed since the ancient epoch (ie. ancient Greece--pagan but without the tolerance). As such, I must confess that you seem (from your posts) to believe that the major problem with SSM is that it is not Christian, and by extension, SSM seems to paint a picture of a contemporary Canadian society that is not essentially Christian in character and belief. Is this basically your problem?? When you level the 'liberal' charge am I to understand that you are saying liberals are anti-christian in some significant way? Is your problem then, that SSM threatens the possibility of some homogeneous Christian-Canadian Utopia that you have in mind? Please clarify... Thx:)

good call!!