the limits of fascism

[tillingborn]

Why is death a problem?

Heh. Another odd question. Wait until you're in late middle age, and then ask it again, if you need to.

I'm 58 now. How much longer should I wait?

Death isn't just A problem. It's THE problem. And I speak not only of the ultimate death, but of all the decline, entropy, corruption and decay you see in the world around you every day, from the plants that die in your garden to the civilians massacred this week in Myanmar....all of it.

Your solution to your problem only works for you. Does Jesus save my primroses? Rather more pressingly, have any of the civilians massacred been saved by Jesus? You don't show any evidence that you care about any of that. If "the ultimate death" isn't all the decline, entropy, corruption in the world, should we not conclude that the ultimate death is yours?

Thus the necessity of limitations of power, plural-party systems, strict terms and powers, and so on. These are the best means we have of preventing the worst implications of our political "technologies" from coming to the fore and thereafter being uncheckable.

Democracy, in other words. You don't have to sell it to me, you just have to accept the popular mandate.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=505822 time=1617458491 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=505821 time=1617458228 user_id=15238]
...the pillars of legitimacy being met and maintained...
[/quote]
What are these "pillars"?
[/quote]

transparency and oversight to begin with, truth as the highest priority, working for the good of every individual, not the majority,

[Immanuel Can]

Why is death a problem?

Heh. Another odd question. Wait until you're in late middle age, and then ask it again, if you need to.

I'm 58 now. How much longer should I wait?

Until you're in touch with where you really are, I guess.

At 58, your strongest and healthiest years are behind you. You're almost 60. Look forward, and you'll see 70 and 80 coming. Look at the people who are there, and you see your future written on their faces. Even if you imagine that at least your mind will be stronger then, if your body is decaying, then what do you know about your future? Will impairment or dementia be part of it? Or will you even live that long?

Go to an old folks home. Spend a few hours with the patients there. Consider their state, and ask yourself if it's a future you hope for yourself.

And you think death isn't a problem?

Death isn't just A problem. It's THE problem. And I speak not only of the ultimate death, but of all the decline, entropy, corruption and decay you see in the world around you every day, from the plants that die in your garden to the civilians massacred this week in Myanmar....all of it.

Your solution to your problem only works for you.

We'll see. The proof of the efficacy is in the Resurrection of Christ. You may not believe that, but it will not change the real answer to the question.

But as it happens, we are also promised a renewal for this world, so there is yet hope for your primroses.

Democracy, in other words. You don't have to sell it to me, you just have to accept the popular mandate

.
No, you don't even have to go that far. You just have to recognize that keeping the politicians accountable to the people is better than letting the politicians have unchecked power. You don't have to believe it's the perfect arrangement. Nor do you have to forego your right to question or criticize others' judgments. In fact, if you do, you've abandoned democracy anyway.

You can doubt or criticize the "popular mandate." It's not God, either.

[tillingborn]

At 58, your strongest and healthiest years are behind you. You're almost 60....
Go to an old folks home. Spend a few hours with the patients there. Consider their state, and ask yourself if it's a future you hope for yourself.

Do you think telling a 58 year old that they are almost 60 is informative? Did you have to go to an old folks home, spend a few hours considering their state to decide that's not what you want?

And you think death isn't a problem?

The problem, as I see it, is how to live well. That is what a "Supreme Being" would ask of us at any moment. One that demands we live in fear and loathing is a much lesser God.

Death isn't just A problem. It's THE problem.

Your solution to your problem only works for you.

We'll see. The proof of the efficacy is in the Resurrection of Christ. You may not believe that, but it will not change the real answer to the question.

You are here now. Whatever eternity is, you are part of it. You are part of the truth. You are also part of the structure of eternity; your body and mind are part of physical reality and the waves and ripples they cause always will be.

But as it happens, we are also promised a renewal for this world, so there is yet hope for your primroses.

And every primrose that ever was?

You can doubt or criticize the "popular mandate." It's not God, either.

Of course you can doubt and criticise, but when you refuse, you are no longer democratic.

[henry quirk]

when you refuse, you are no longer *democratic

No.

When you can, and do, refuse to abide rule by the *mob: you're a free man.

[gaffo]

no limits to facism - though its limited in mind to trbalism - adly.

I'm a globalist - all men are my brothers - but facsim has no part in that, ad since i have a global mindset instead of a tribal one - i'm fuckued if facists rule ere in america. ;-.

-- ya i'm white and male an dgood looking and tall..........but i affirm all man as brothrs not just good looking nordic tallmen - so i'm fucked.

so be it.

[gaffo]

when you refuse, you are no longer *democratic

No.

When you can, and do, refuse to abide rule by the *mob: you're a free man.

oour Constitution - esp the Bill of Rights is a doc that affimr minoriy rights over the rule of the majority (mob).


I affirm this concept and my Constitution - as i suspect you do as well.

peace.

(BTW one can be a liberal and still affirm this - as i do - but a- but as your claimed last year i'm just a nutter and so offer nothing nor do i understand anything......................


so be it.

[gaffo]

What do you mean by "absolute loyalty"?

Do you know any human being who has that? Did Peter, when he denied Christ three times before the Roman authorities?

Someone who isn't convinced might reasonably ask, if a disciple of Jesus could deny Him, just how powerful were His claims of Divinity?

Was it his job to subvert Peter's free will, when Peter had decided to choose to do the wrong thing? Is it God's job to control you, and prevent you from doing anything that He doesn't like?

Is that what you see Him doing now?

So the bad news is that once condemned, there is no forgiveness and no mercy.

The opposite: once you realize where you actually stand, morally speaking, there's something to do. There is the recognition that forgiveness and mercy are exactly what you need, and of how futile human pride and self-admiration are in the face of the reality of what you are, and where you stand.

Had God only brought us to that point, He would be just and fair, but as you say, not merciful or forgiving. But now you know what the purpose of God's sacrifice of His Son is; that He might be, simultaneously, both righteous in Judgment and rich in mercy. And now you know why faith is required: because you must choose to accept that arrangement.

However, it's also an arrangement you can refuse. If you insist that God is not permitted to forgive you, or deny that He is just at all, then you can opt out. As C.S. Lewis so famously said,

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it."

off topic of this thread - but since god talk has taken over -/

from me to you" me an Atheist your a christian.

whyy doe God's son get to decend to hell and save all those that liveved bfoer his tim - an not decend to hel lfor me and others like me that were birn after his time? - why the bias for salvatio0n. Abraham was a good guy, but not saved until Chirst showe d up later - me ame a s Abraham - good guy - but born later -so being born later mean i'm fucked? Abraham was saved from Hell - but i shall not be?

WWTF?


asloe thre are four Gospels and in them three tehologie - any wish to talk about how they differ per the nature of yourr Christ? - no no interet?

[Belinda]

Interesting. The Apostle Paul disagrees with you entirely, of course.

"Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also is in vain. Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ only in this life, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But the fact is, Christ has been raised from the dead..."(1 Cor. 15:12-20)

Indeed He has.

This not the first time Immanuel Can has confused Jesus, a historical person, with Christ, a mythic person.

What Paul is saying, B. is that as a mere "mythic person," Jesus Christ's resurrection not only lacks meaning, but has an extremely negative implication...indeed, the worst implication possible.

So "mything" Christianity doesn't get you some magical gift of mythic meaning without bothering with the literalities: it gets you a very, very bad literal outcome. That's all.

In the case of the Resurrection, you believe it literally, or you get worse than nothing. You get to be "most pitiable of all people."

I totally agree. This is a terrible world, the human condition is pitiable, and we men need to take responsibility for our errors and failings and sort them. Shouldering responsibility is what Jesus did in his lifetime . We should try to do likewise.

[tillingborn]

when you refuse, you are no longer *democratic

No.

When you can, and do, refuse to abide rule by the *mob: you're a free man.

Can we not be men and agree a few house rules, or must we live in total isolation to be free?

[Immanuel Can]

At 58, your strongest and healthiest years are behind you. You're almost 60....
Go to an old folks home. Spend a few hours with the patients there. Consider their state, and ask yourself if it's a future you hope for yourself.

Do you think telling a 58 year old that they are almost 60 is informative? Did you have to go to an old folks home, spend a few hours considering their state to decide that's not what you want?

Well, you said you didn't know why death is a problem. Now you do.

You are here now. Whatever eternity is, you are part of it. You are part of the truth. You are also part of the structure of eternity; your body and mind are part of physical reality and the waves and ripples they cause always will be.

As Robert Browning pointed out so long ago, to console ourselves thusly is a a cheat. For it is not actually "you" that persists, given Materialism...just fragments of dust. And as that story goes, the universe itself will one day be homogeneous in energy level, spread out and silent for all of eternity...this is Heat Death, the final death, from which there is no recovery.

Death gets all and everything, unless God intervenes. Fortunately, He already has.

You can doubt or criticize the "popular mandate." It's not God, either.

Of course you can doubt and criticise, but when you refuse, you are no longer democratic.

Are you imagining that protest, or objection, or reasoned debate, or criticism in the media, or even forming a new party, are not "democratic," and that there's something "democratic" about resigning oneself to being controlled by a single, monolithic party?

It would be hard to make that case.

In democracy, public debate, public exposure of issues, and contention between multiple parties and their supporters is part of the process, and is also one of the checks-and-balances against tyranny. That's why there's a vote every four years or so.

[henry quirk]

Can we not be men and agree a few house rules(?)

Sure, but we don't need democracy for that.

[henry quirk]

I affirm this concept and my Constitution - as i suspect you do as well.

I'd like to, but I can't.

[Advocate]

You're all completely off topic now, and discussing something that is pure goddamned fiction. Jesus the Christ did not exist, god does not exist except in your imagination, and today is that day that all good christians celebrate torture, you sick fucks.

[tillingborn]

At 58, your strongest and healthiest years are behind you. You're almost 60....
Go to an old folks home. Spend a few hours with the patients there. Consider their state, and ask yourself if it's a future you hope for yourself.

Do you think telling a 58 year old that they are almost 60 is informative? Did you have to go to an old folks home, spend a few hours considering their state to decide that's not what you want?

Well, you said you didn't know why death is a problem. Now you do.

I was 5 or 6 when I realised I was going to die. It upset me a bit at the time, but I was over it fairly quickly and have lived with that knowledge for over half a century. How stupid of you to think I could live so long and not be acquainted. Death is not a problem, everybody achieves it perfectly satisfactorily, it is your fear of death that is your problem.

Death gets all and everything, unless God intervenes. Fortunately, He already has.

That in itself is harmless, and if believing it helps you to get up in the morning, then by all means believe it.

Of course you can doubt and criticise, but when you refuse, you are no longer democratic.

Are you imagining that protest, or objection, or reasoned debate, or criticism in the media, or even forming a new party, are not "democratic," and that there's something "democratic" about resigning oneself to being controlled by a single, monolithic party?

It would be hard to make that case.

Wouldn't it just? Given that I said "Of course you can doubt and criticise", why do you think that needs saying?

In democracy, public debate, public exposure of issues, and contention between multiple parties and their supporters is part of the process, and is also one of the checks-and-balances against tyranny. That's why there's a vote every four years or so.

Indeed. And if you do not accept the result, you are undemocratic.