Riots in the city of love

[Immanuel Can]

there has never been a time when europeans were united as you imply.

I didn't "imply" any such thing.

Here:

This is a very serious problem. Having abandoned the metaphysical grounding of the Jewish and Christian worldview, what is one's incentive for unifying in defense of something? There are no longer any values they believe in in common.

Oh, that's very, very minimal. It's not saying they even have to become Christians or Jews. It's just saying they have to recognizes the basic ethics that undergird Judeo-Christian political practices. It's quite possible for secularists and Atheists to exist in such a polity, because it doesn't require of them any creedal commitment at all...just a willingness to recognize the ethics to organize the polity, exactly as has been done for several centuries in the West.

I would suggest is commensurate with the number of europeans who have
Very well; since there are no criteria by which to distinguish

Real Christians

all wars are started by and fought between real Christians.

What do you mean, "There are no criteria?" Of course there are. And those criteria are so easy to find that I can't believe you don't know they exist. They're outlined in specific detail in the Bible itself, of course. There's no way that "Love thy neighbour as thyself" can be read as, "Kill thy neighbour." And it's not even sensible to say that somebody who does the opposite of what Christians are commanded to do is acting as a Christian. The most you could hope for there is to say that he's an errant and confused person who thinks he's a Christian but is not acting at all according to what Christians are obliged to do.

But don't you realize that you're making my case even stronger? If, within that miniscule subset of 4% the secular statistics reveal, the majority were not Christian at all (because you've forgotten the Hindu wars, the Buddhist wars...

Which I think we can safely ignore in the context of Europe.

We're not just talking about Europe. We're talking about the wars and purges worldwide, as caused by various ideologies.

You appear to be arguing on the assumption that I accept your criteria for "Real Christians", which I do not.

Do you accept the Biblical criteria? Because if you don't, then it explains why you imagine there are no criteria at all. It also explains why that's obviously not true, as well.

[Gary Childress]

That depends. Do you like totalitarianism?

No. A democratic form of the Chinese system would probably be more tolerable.

Well, there is no "Chinese system" but totalitarianism, right now. For them to become democratic would entail them not being Communist. So if you're prepared to see them abandon their Socialist commitments, then maybe that can happen. And it would be great if it did.

If you say so, Mr. expert.

[Immanuel Can]

No. A democratic form of the Chinese system would probably be more tolerable.

Well, there is no "Chinese system" but totalitarianism, right now. For them to become democratic would entail them not being Communist. So if you're prepared to see them abandon their Socialist commitments, then maybe that can happen. And it would be great if it did.

If you say so, Mr. expert.

Not because I say so. Because it's verifiably true.

[Immanuel Can]

France, Spain, Belgium, England, Scotland, and now Italy...

There's no more way to tell the story that this is about underfunding in French education any more. So what's really going on? Who's funding these riots, and spreading them?

Still lots of evidence of Hamas and Communist flags...not much sign of anything else.

[MikeNovack]

Not because I say so. Because it's verifiably true.

Don't you mean "true by definition"? If presented with a socialist/communist entity that IS democratic you are by definition excluding it from the category socialist/communist and/or declaring it irrelevant. That's not the same as "verifiably true". That's "true by definition" --- saying "a socialist/communist entity that is democratic isn't a socialist/communist entity" ( but refusing to provide a different name -- and no, it is not OUR job to provide a different name as we are not excluding from the category )

[Immanuel Can]

Not because I say so. Because it's verifiably true.

Don't you mean "true by definition"? If presented with a socialist/communist entity that IS democratic you are by definition excluding it from the category socialist/communist and/or declaring it irrelevant.

It's both true by definition and true by empirical observation. Take your pick.

[MikeNovack]

It's both true by definition and true by empirical observation. Take your pick.

There is no BOTH here. Once you have made true by definition there is no longer an observation to be made.

YOU cannot observe a democratic socialist entity because as soon as you observe "the entity is democratic" you conclude "then not socialist" (you aren't looking/observing to see if socialist). In the past I have provided example entities but you simply say "not relevant on the world stage" and refuse to observe/consider.

Let me try it this way, IC

1) Of the several communes at which you lived, spent some time, etc. which of them were failures in terms of either their socialism/communism or their democracy?
2) If you have never spent any time at one of these communes, why do you claim to have observed? Why do you claim "do not exist"?

3) Can you not understand that anybody who has spent time at any of these communes, as I have, would find your "they do not exist" a peculiar claim.

[Immanuel Can]

It's both true by definition and true by empirical observation. Take your pick.

There is no BOTH here. Once you have made true by definition there is no longer an observation to be made.

Not at all. Something can be proved theoretically, and be true, or can be proved empirically, and be shown true, or both.

Socialism, as defined by "the State controls all the means of production," which is Socialism's own definition, courtesy of Marx and Engels, has a 100% failure rate. That's all the empirical evidence you're ever going to need. And Socialism, which is always a one-party system, cannot be democratic, because it cannot allow itself to be democratically rejected or even limited.

"All the means of production." And by that, Marx didn't just mean the factories. They weren't even the most important "means of production," to Marx. In his thinking, it's the "means of production" of man himself that is the chief goal: the creation of "Socialist Man." Marx was, above all, aiming at a social engineering project that would produce what he thought could be an authentically new kind of human being. And production of that would require the State to have total control of all the conditions which produce human beings.

In Marxism, the "production of man" refers to the core idea that human beings are not born with a fixed, static human nature, but are self-created through active, material labor and history. (Marxist Internet Archive)

"...the whole of what is called world history is nothing more than the creation of man through human labor..." (Karl Marx)

If you don't realize that, you've never really understood Marx.

P.S. -- What "lovely" work the Communists are doing in France, Spain, Italy, Belgium. Once again, they're proving they're not capable of building...only of destroying.

[Will Bouwman]

What do you mean, "There are no criteria?" Of course there are.

I'm just playing with you, Mr Can:

...'Christian' according to the criteria you demand.

I haven't "demanded" any such thing.

And those criteria are so easy to find that I can't believe you don't know they exist. They're outlined in specific detail in the Bible itself, of course. There's no way that "Love thy neighbour as thyself" can be read as, "Kill thy neighbour." And it's not even sensible to say that somebody who does the opposite of what Christians are commanded to do is acting as a Christian. The most you could hope for there is to say that he's an errant and confused person who thinks he's a Christian but is not acting at all according to what Christians are obliged to do.

Another criterion that distinguishes Christians is their insistence that they are fallen, sinful even. So a Christian who starts a war is not "an errant and confused person", they're just a person. Three Hail Marys, or whatever propitiations you believe efficacious, will fix that.
Lots of not loving thy neighbour in the old testament, and how much will Jesus be loving his enemy during Armageddon?

[Gary Childress]

What do you mean, "There are no criteria?" Of course there are.

I'm just playing with you, Mr Can:

...'Christian' according to the criteria you demand.

I haven't "demanded" any such thing.

And those criteria are so easy to find that I can't believe you don't know they exist. They're outlined in specific detail in the Bible itself, of course. There's no way that "Love thy neighbour as thyself" can be read as, "Kill thy neighbour." And it's not even sensible to say that somebody who does the opposite of what Christians are commanded to do is acting as a Christian. The most you could hope for there is to say that he's an errant and confused person who thinks he's a Christian but is not acting at all according to what Christians are obliged to do.

Another criterion that distinguishes Christians is their insistence that they are fallen, sinful even. So a Christian who starts a war is not "an errant and confused person", they're just a person. Three Hail Marys, or whatever propitiations you believe efficacious, will fix that.
Lots of not loving thy neighbour in the old testament, and how much will Jesus be loving his enemy during Armageddon?

My mother goes to a Lutheran Church, and since she can't drive anymore, I attend with her as her chauffeur. From beginning to end, we are told that "all sins are forgiven" because "Jesus died on the cross". The final words of the pastor to the congregation are always, "By the authority invested in me, your sins are forgiven. Go in peace." Besides, I thought just believing Jesus is your savior will get you into Heaven. Are we sure that Hitler isn't in Heaven? If he ever "accepted" Jesus as his savior, then that should cover everything.

[Will Bouwman]

My mother goes to a Lutheran Church, and since she can't drive anymore, I attend with her as her chauffeur. From beginning to end, we are told that "all sins are forgiven" because "Jesus died on the cross". The final words of the pastor to the congregation are always, "By the authority invested in me, your sins are forgiven. Go in peace." Besides, I thought just believing Jesus is your savior will get you into Heaven. Are we sure that Hitler isn't in Heaven? If he ever "accepted" Jesus as his savior, then that should cover everything.

Tricky.
"As a little boy, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle; then I realised the Lord in his wisdom doesn't work that way. So, I just stole one and asked him to forgive me."
Emo Philips
That pretty much nails it and although Hitler did a bit more than steal a bicycle, it is conceivable that in his bunker, he genuinely realised the error of his ways and sincerely prayed for forgiveness, in which case St Peter would have welcomed him at the Pearly Gates. On the other hand, according to reports, he committed suicide, which some still believe to be a mortal sin.

[Impenitent]

Emo is great... "The highway cop said, “Walk a straight line.” I said, “Well, Officer Pythagoras, the closest you could ever come to achieving a straight line would be making an electroencephalogram of your own brain waves.” He said, “You’re under arrest. You have the right to remain silent. Do you wish to retain that right?” I thought, “Oooh, a paradox!” - Emo Philips

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

My mother goes to a Lutheran Church, and since she can't drive anymore, I attend with her as her chauffeur. From beginning to end, we are told that "all sins are forgiven" because "Jesus died on the cross". The final words of the pastor to the congregation are always, "By the authority invested in me, your sins are forgiven. Go in peace." Besides, I thought just believing Jesus is your savior will get you into Heaven. Are we sure that Hitler isn't in Heaven? If he ever "accepted" Jesus as his savior, then that should cover everything.

Tricky.
"As a little boy, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle; then I realised the Lord in his wisdom doesn't work that way. So, I just stole one and asked him to forgive me."
Emo Philips
That pretty much nails it and although Hitler did a bit more than steal a bicycle, it is conceivable that in his bunker, he genuinely realised the error of his ways and sincerely prayed for forgiveness, in which case St Peter would have welcomed him at the Pearly Gates. On the other hand, according to reports, he committed suicide, which some still believe to be a mortal sin.

Well, being agnostic, if I'm going to Hell for not "accepting" Jesus as being God, then it's a little comforting to think that at least Hitler shouldn't be up there in the land of the pearly gates laughing at me and saying "I told you so".

[Immanuel Can]

What do you mean, "There are no criteria?" Of course there are.

I'm just playing with you, Mr Can:

...'Christian' according to the criteria you demand.

I haven't "demanded" any such thing.

And those criteria are so easy to find that I can't believe you don't know they exist. They're outlined in specific detail in the Bible itself, of course. There's no way that "Love thy neighbour as thyself" can be read as, "Kill thy neighbour." And it's not even sensible to say that somebody who does the opposite of what Christians are commanded to do is acting as a Christian. The most you could hope for there is to say that he's an errant and confused person who thinks he's a Christian but is not acting at all according to what Christians are obliged to do.

Another criterion that distinguishes Christians is their insistence that they are fallen, sinful even.

God's "insistence" is pretty much confirmed in Paris, right now...you can see what men do.

So a Christian who starts a war is not "an errant and confused person", they're just a person. Three Hail Marys, or whatever propitiations you believe efficacious, will fix that.

Catholics are the only ones who do "hail Marys," of course. And I suggest that not even they would say that what you suggest is true. Catholicism can be quite rigorous in its demands for penance...perhaps not enough, but pretty rigorous, sometimes.

Devoid of the bitter language, what you're complaining about is that God might forgive sinners. You don't want Him to do that, because it seems too easy to you, too trivial, too inadequate to deal with the situation. I get that. But let me ask you this: what is it that you are disappointed about? What would you expect that a righteous God should do, or should have done instead, that you feel this disappointment or contempt for what you perceive to be this easy forgiveness?

Lots of not loving thy neighbour in the old testament, and how much will Jesus be loving his enemy during Armageddon?

I'm sorry, but I have to smile here. Do you not notice that you just contradicted your own protest? First, you said that the idea that God would forgive those who "start a war" too easily -- that is, that his judgment is far too lenient and easy -- but now, secondly, when He judges, you're complaining He's too harsh and too unloving.

Well, that's quite a bind you suppose you have God in: if He forgives, He isn't just and fair; if He judges, then He's not loving or merciful. So what is it you really expect of the sort of God you'd find more reasonable -- mercy, or justice?

[Gary Childress]

What do you mean, "There are no criteria?" Of course there are.

I'm just playing with you, Mr Can:

I haven't "demanded" any such thing.

And those criteria are so easy to find that I can't believe you don't know they exist. They're outlined in specific detail in the Bible itself, of course. There's no way that "Love thy neighbour as thyself" can be read as, "Kill thy neighbour." And it's not even sensible to say that somebody who does the opposite of what Christians are commanded to do is acting as a Christian. The most you could hope for there is to say that he's an errant and confused person who thinks he's a Christian but is not acting at all according to what Christians are obliged to do.

Another criterion that distinguishes Christians is their insistence that they are fallen, sinful even.

God's "insistence" is pretty much confirmed in Paris, right now...you can see what men do.

So a Christian who starts a war is not "an errant and confused person", they're just a person. Three Hail Marys, or whatever propitiations you believe efficacious, will fix that.

Catholics are the only ones who do "hail Marys," of course. And I suggest that not even they would say that what you suggest is true. Catholicism can be quite rigorous in its demands for penance...perhaps not enough, but pretty rigorous, sometimes.

Devoid of the bitter language, what you're complaining about is that God might forgive sinners. You don't want Him to do that, because it seems too easy to you, too trivial, too inadequate to deal with the situation. I get that. But let me ask you this: what is it that you are disappointed about? What would you expect that a righteous God should do, or should have done instead, that you feel this disappointment or contempt for what you perceive to be this easy forgiveness?

Lots of not loving thy neighbour in the old testament, and how much will Jesus be loving his enemy during Armageddon?

I'm sorry, but I have to smile here. Do you not notice that you just contradicted your own protest? First, you said that the idea that God would forgive those who "start a war" too easily -- that is, that his judgment is far too lenient and easy -- but now, secondly, when He judges, you're complaining He's too harsh and too unloving.

Well, that's quite a bind you suppose you have God in: if He forgives, He isn't just and fair; if He judges, then He's not loving or merciful. So what is it you really expect of the sort of God you'd find more reasonable -- mercy, or justice?

Darn that Immanuel Can. He escaped Will Bouwman yet again using rigorous logic!