DKTanker Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Hell, the only people who use guns in Western Europe now are Muslim dads killing their daughters...Which is generally not conducive to perpetuating one's bloodline. If one really believes that there is a cultural war that must be won, in which one culture offs their daughters should they stray the least, the other culture should be encouraging the straying behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomas Hoting Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Hell, the only people who use guns in Western Europe now are Muslim dads killing their daughters... Oh really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargrunt6 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Which is generally not conducive to perpetuating one's bloodline. If one really believes that there is a cultural war that must be won, in which one culture offs their daughters should they stray the least, the other culture should be encouraging the straying behavior. This is why I believe in a natural selection of moral laws. Flawed beliefs and customs are proven so when they cease to exist. "Wisdom is vindicated by her fruits" as it says in the good book. Or, in the words of Anton Chigurh, "if your rule led you to this, then what use was it?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swerve Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) From what I understand, in Europe the Islamic birthrates of the several nations of the EU is outstripping native birthrates by a good deal. Coupled with emigration, you're going to see serious demographic and cultural shifts, the first warning signs of which are already apparent.Islamic birthrates are relatively high, but they're mostly dropping fast in Europe, as they are outside it. Total fertility rate is below replacement in Iran (lower than in the USA), Albania, Tunisia, Lebanon. At or barely above replacement in Turkey, Morocco, Indonesia, Kuwait, Brunei, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Algeria. Saudi Arabia has a TFR less than that in the USA 40 years ago, & it's dropping fast. It'll be below replacement soon. Turks in the Netherlands are reproducing below replacement rate - and still dropping. Muslims in Austria had dropped to barely above replacement rate by 2001. Muslim birthrates have become closer to non-Muslim rates, & are continuing to fall, while in most of Europe, non-Muslim birthrates seem to have bottomed out several years ago. There's also the secularisation of Muslims in Europe, & especially France. In a poll reported in 2004, 60% of French-born people of Algerian parentage said they had no religion. That's exceptional, but generally, there's a decline in religiosity among European-born Muslims. The proportion who describe themselves as practicing Islam is less than among immigrants, & they're far less likely to attend mosque. In France, a (slight) majority of self-described Muslims supported the headscarf ban. Edited January 1, 2012 by swerve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swerve Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Actually, over the long view, Islam has been very successful vs. Christianity. Sure, they lost Andalusia. But they have all North Africa, all the former Eastern Empire, much of what was once Hindu lands to the East. They suffered some setbacks in the Balkans, Ref. Darfur, I find it infinitely ironic that all the celebs who whine about Darfur and the humanitarian crisis don't talk about the giant fucking elephant in the room. Muslims slaughtering Christians. Just as they're doing now in Egypt, and Iraq. Song remains the same.They lost a lot more than Andalusia. Almost all of Spain, all of Portugal, a large part of southern France, big parts of southern Italy*, Sicily*, Malta*, Greece*, Makedonia*, Serbia*, Hungary, Bulgaria*, Romania*, Crimea, Georgia, southern Ukraine, most of Cyprus* & a big chunk of eastern Russia . . . and in Africa, Christianity is growing much faster than Islam, both demographically & politically. *Formerly parts of the Eastern Empire. Both sides in Darfur are Muslim, & black African. Don't confuse it with South Sudan, which is now independent, & where most people are either Christians or followers of traditional religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-Files Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Both sides in Darfur are Muslim, & black African. Don't confuse it with South Sudan, which is now independent, & where most people are either Christians or followers of traditional religions. Nope. The Janjaweed (Primarily Arabic Khartoum's agents in the Darfur) are also Arab, slaughtering black muslims.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janjaweedhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/07/who_are_the_janjaweed.html Furthermore, the level of noise about the Darfur far outstrips anything the same lot 'cared' for the decades long slaghter of southern Sudanese (who you correctly identified, ethnically and religiously). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War So Jim Martin is correct, in that as far as the glitteratti are concerned, black & Christian/animist = fuck you, Charley. Guess it helps to have the right advocates at the right parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swerve Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Nope. The Janjaweed (Primarily Arabic Khartoum's agents in the Darfur) are also Arab, slaughtering black muslims.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janjaweedhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/07/who_are_the_janjaweed.htmlEver seen film of the Janjaweed? They're black. Physically indistinguishable from the people they killed. Didn't you look at the pictures in the Wiki article you linked to? "Arab" in this context means linguistic, cultural and historical association. It's to do with self-identification. It has nothing to do with race, in the sense recognised in the USA. Sudanese Arabs include descendants of Arabs from Arabia who conquered the northern part of the country 1000 years ago, people they intermarried with, people who became assimilated into those tribes without intermarriage, as whole clans or communities, & indigenous peoples who became Arabised, usually by acquisition of the Arabic language (but sometimes, people speak Arabic but don't identify themselves as Arabs, or occasionally identify themselves as Arabs, but have a non-Arabic mother tongue). Look up the Baggaras, who seem to have furnished a large proportion of recruits to the Janjaweed, perhaps a majority. DNA testing shows them to be related to the Fulani & Chadians, rather than Arabians. They're black Africans. They speak dialects of Chadian Arabic, which is, as far as I can discover, not Arabic as a Saudi would recognise it. Their ancestors overlaid Arabic on their previous languages, & modified it in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Martin Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Oh really? Oh really. Tell me, Sparky, what is the rate of gun ownership in Germany? What are the laws for carrying firearms in Germany, whether concealed or open carry? What are the laws pertaining to use of deadly force to defend oneself and one's home in Germany? Is there a Castle Doctrine in Germany? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargrunt6 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Interesting look at conspiracy theories by Rob Ager: http://www.collativelearning.com/conspiracy%20theories%20-%20contents.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOE BRENNAN Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) After learning about "Operation Northwoods", I find it difficult to reject out of hand the capacity of US government to stage attacks against it's own citizens in pursuit of some larger goal.I wouldn't reject it out of hand in the first place if stated so broadly as 'stage attacks against its own citizens'. At one end of that spectrum is the drone attack on Al Awlaki, which most people find reasonable and justified. Where along the spectrum? And the problem with Northwoods discussion is that 'Truthers' tend to twist it to their own agenda. So, they ignore the explicit references in the proposal to *fake* killings, as by shooting down drones, blowing up *unmanned* ships, pretending there were casualties, and blaming them on Cuba. They focus on a few ambiguous references which could be read to mean actually killing innocent Americans. But moreover it didn't actually happen. Again IMO a key dividing line for 'outlandish' conspiracy theories is where they feature actions which could not plausibly be kept secret over the timespan suggested. It's one thing for a plan like Northwoods to be drawn up secretly and shelved secretly. There are plenty of plans drawn up to illustrate options which have little real chance of being executed. It's quite another thing to actually stage it, even with the baseline of fake deaths, and expect to keep it a secret for anywhere near as long. It's not IOW a matter of conspiracy-friendly people being 'skeptics of the govt' and conspiracy-skeptics being naive or trusting of the govt, but a common sense assessment of what can really be kept secret. A never executed plan with clear references to fake deaths, and only ambiguous references to possible actual innocent deaths: no surprise it could be kept secret for a long time. An actual govt operation really killing 1000's of Americans: couldn't possibly be kept secret even for 10 years. So I think the latter can indeed reasonably be rejected out of hand. Joe Edited January 1, 2012 by JOE BRENNAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekirk Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 I wouldn't reject it out of hand in the first place if stated so broadly as 'stage attacks against its own citizens'. At one end of that spectrum is the drone attack on Al Awlaki, which most people find reasonable and justified. Where along the spectrum? And the problem with Northwoods discussion is that 'Truthers' tend to twist it to their own agenda. So, they ignore the explicit references in the proposal to *fake* killings, as by shooting down drones, blowing up *unmanned* ships, pretending there were casualties, and blaming them on Cuba. Or they focus on a few ambiguous references which could be readh to mean actually killing innocent Americans. But moreover it didn't actually happen. Again IMO a key dividing line for 'outlandish' conspiracy theories is where they feature actions which could not plausibly be kept secret over the timespan suggested. It's one thing for a plan like Northwoods to be drawn up secretly and shelved secretly, quite another to stage it, even with the baseline of fake deaths, and expect to keep it a secret for anywhere near as long. It's not IOW a matter of conspiracy-friendly people being 'skeptics of the govt' and conspiracy-skeptics being naive or trusting of the govt, but a common sense assessment of what can really be kept secret. A never executed plan with clear references to fake deaths, and only ambiguous references to possible actual innocent deaths: no surprise it could be kept secret for a long time. An actual govt operation really killing 1000's of Americans: couldn't possibly be kept secret even for 10 years. So I think the latter can indeed reasonably be rejected out of hand. Joe I think you're right, with regards to the really large-scale conspiracies that would require a large enough numbers of participants to work. However, I have more than a slight suspicion that there are cases where the numbers of participants are low enough, and the participants are "bought in" enough that something could go on a very, very long time before things came out--If they ever did. Things I want answers to, but am not likely to ever hear the truth on: Watergate--What was the actual motive for the break-in? Was it Erlichman's fear of that supposed call-girl list? Was Watergate actually the product of an inept attempt at self-preservation that Nixon didn't know about until the cover-up?Kennedy assassinations--Conspiracies? Remotely possible, especially considering the surrounding facts with both Kennedies.Waco--What the hell was BATF thinking? Was it grandstanding for the Congressional hearings?OKC Bombing--Loose threads, here, but there are way, way too many for me to be comfortable we've got the entire story.9/11--What was behind all the Clinton-era blinding of the intelligence and counter-espionage agencies? Was it ideology, or something else?Sandy Berger--What the hell was he taking out of the archives, and how much did he manage to destroy or modify? Why the hell did he ruin his career over it?What was behind the financial crisis in the fall of 2008? Was it a deliberate crash of the markets? If so, who was responsible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 And the problem with Northwoods discussion is that 'Truthers' tend to twist it to their own agenda. So, they ignore the explicit references in the proposal to *fake* killings, as by shooting down drones, blowing up *unmanned* ships, pretending there were casualties, and blaming them on Cuba. They focus on a few ambiguous references which could be read to mean actually killing innocent Americans. To me, the test is if a foreign government or group were to perform those actions - would we consider it an act of terror? And I have no doubt if such a group decided to "foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publisized", 95% of Americans would call it "terror" (reserving the other 5% for the batshit crazy mooks). But moreover it didn't actually happen. Again IMO a key dividing line for 'outlandish' conspiracy theories is where they feature actions which could not plausibly be kept secret over the timespan suggested. It's one thing for a plan like Northwoods to be drawn up secretly and shelved secretly. There are plenty of plans drawn up to illustrate options which have little real chance of being executed. It's quite another thing to actually stage it, even with the baseline of fake deaths, and expect to keep it a secret for anywhere near as long. It didn't, because JFK vetoed it. If he had not, the JCoS appeared to be quite willing to carry it out, to the extent of lobbying for overall control over the mission. It's not IOW a matter of conspiracy-friendly people being 'skeptics of the govt' and conspiracy-skeptics being naive or trusting of the govt, but a common sense assessment of what can really be kept secret. A never executed plan with clear references to fake deaths, and only ambiguous references to possible actual innocent deaths: no surprise it could be kept secret for a long time. An actual govt operation really killing 1000's of Americans: couldn't possibly be kept secret even for 10 years. So I think the latter can indeed reasonably be rejected out of hand. Joe A government operation involving death of over a hundred of Americans via refusing to treat their syphilis infection was kept quiet for 40 years. Maybe a 1000 casualty operation could be kept under wraps for 20 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BansheeOne Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Oh really. Tell me, Sparky, what is the rate of gun ownership in Germany? About ten million legal firearms owned by about three million shooters, hunters and collectors and a small number of carry-licensed persons. Another estimated 20 million illegal guns. What are the laws for carrying firearms in Germany, whether concealed or open carry? Getting a carry license for a live firearm is damn nigh impossible for mere mortals these days; you have to prove a particular personal endangerment, and standards are handled very restrictively. Hunters are also permitted handguns and allowed to carry on the way to and from their hunting grounds, basically to defend their long guns. What are the laws pertaining to use of deadly force to defend oneself and one's home in Germany? Is there a Castle Doctrine in Germany? The Castle Doctrin is specific to Anglo-American Common Law based upon precedent, where you have to be specifically allowed to defend yourself in your house if you don't want to decide each case in court individually. No such need in German Civil Law where the pertinent doctrine is "right does not need to yield to wrong". IOW, you are allowed to defend yourself from a present threat to life and limb by any means at hand - even an illegally owned gun - and "duty to retreat" in your own house is a totally alien concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekirk Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 About ten million legal firearms owned by about three million shooters, hunters and collectors and a small number of carry-licensed persons. Another estimated 20 million illegal guns. Getting a carry license for a live firearm is damn nigh impossible for mere mortals these days; you have to prove a particular personal endangerment, and standards are handled very restrictively. Hunters are also permitted handguns and allowed to carry on the way to and from their hunting grounds, basically to defend their long guns. The Castle Doctrin is specific to Anglo-American Common Law based upon precedent, where you have to be specifically allowed to defend yourself in your house if you don't want to decide each case in court individually. No such need in German Civil Law where the pertinent doctrine is "right does not need to yield to wrong". IOW, you are allowed to defend yourself from a present threat to life and limb by any means at hand - even an illegally owned gun - and "duty to retreat" in your own house is a totally alien concept. Does that ever get used that often? I can't recall hearing of too many self-defense situations in Germany in the first place, now that I think about it. I do know that the popular conception of Germans not being armed is a false one, having spent a lot of time out at one of the shooting ranges, but I'll be damned if I can honestly remember ever hearing about a self-defense shooting anywhere during my time in Germany--Or, after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOE BRENNAN Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) 1. To me, the test is if a foreign government or group were to perform those actions - would we consider it an act of terror? And I have no doubt if such a group decided to "foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publisized", 95% of Americans would call it "terror" (reserving the other 5% for the batshit crazy mooks). 2. It didn't, because JFK vetoed it. If he had not, the JCoS appeared to be quite willing to carry it out, to the extent of lobbying for overall control over the mission. 3. A government operation involving death of over a hundred of Americans via refusing to treat their syphilis infection was kept quiet for 40 years. Maybe a 1000 casualty operation could be kept under wraps for 20 years?1. Not Americans, nor killing. It's cold hearted realpolitik to sacrifice (ostensible) foreign allies, but it happened all the time. It would be a further step in the wrong direction for it to happen on US soil, but then again it *didn't* happen. And what's an act of terror or not is completely subjective and doesn't particularly correlate with the more objective question of what could plausibly be *done* and kept secret, which is my point. 2. That's the Truther spin, will all due respect. The other way of looking at it is that plans are 'approved' to enumerate all options in many cases, and the buck always stops with the person at the top for any decision with that kind of import. And again it's irrelevant to the point of plausibly keeping something a secret, where a shelved plan and a large scale action are simply not comparable. Indeed, the implausibility of keeping the secret if such a plan was actually carried out seems an obvious reason weighing against its approval. 3. That's really grasping at straws as a comparison to alleged 9/11 inside job. That was mainly a question of different medical ethics and public morality than today's. Also different racial views (black patients, a few generations before the study started, they'd been viewed as property), but what's often forgotten in emphasizing even the racial aspect is the prevailing view at the time that people with syphilis brought it on themselves and that was an important factor in society's or the govt's obligation to them. Indeed there's nostaglia for that type of view among some when it comes to HIV now. That's hardly comparable to attacking people out of the blue to make a point, or infecting them. So no, killing 1000's of people by the govt in something like 9/11 could not be kept under wraps, at all. There's not only no evidence of it, but no actually remotely comparable case. Joe Edited January 2, 2012 by JOE BRENNAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 1. Not Americans, nor killing. It's cold hearted realpolitik to sacrifice (ostensible) foreign allies, but it happened all the time. It would be a further step in the wrong direction for it to happen on US soil, but then again it *didn't* happen. And what's an act of terror or not is completely subjective and doesn't particularly correlate with the more objective question of what could plausibly be *done* and kept secret, which is my point. 2. That's the Truther spin, will all due respect. The other way of looking at it is that plans are 'approved' to enumerate all options in many cases, and the buck always stops with the person at the top for any decision with that kind of import. And again it's irrelevant to the point of plausibly keeping something a secret, where a shelved plan and a large scale action are simply not comparable. Indeed, the implausibility of keeping the secret if such a plan was actually carried out seems an obvious reason weighing against its approval. 3. That's really grasping at straws as a comparison to alleged 9/11 inside job. That was mainly a question of different medical ethics and public morality than today's. Also different racial views (black patients, a few generations before the study started, they'd been viewed as property), but what's often forgotten in emphasizing even the racial aspect is the prevailing view at the time that people with syphilis brought it on themselves and that was an important factor in society's or the govt's obligation to them. Indeed there's nostaglia for that type of view among some when it comes to HIV now. That's hardly comparable to attacking people out of the blue to make a point, or infecting them. So no, killing 1000's of people by the govt in something like 9/11 could not be kept under wraps, at all. There's not only no evidence of it, but no actually remotely comparable case. Joe Joe - your thesis collapses to "9/11 has not been shown to be a government inside job, therefore it is impossible for it to be a government inside job". That is a tautology masquerading as argument, with all due respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargrunt6 Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) What about women who don't eat pussy? They are barred from being ordained in most mainstream denominations. Although I have no trouble with female pastors, I do believe that private organizations can choose who they do or do not want to be their clergy. As for Homosexuality, God also created gay men and women. Are you suggesting that God made a mistake? You're putting words in his mouth. I have learned about how the brains of gay people are different, but so are people with mental illnesses. Even the descriptions of "gay" brains suggest such, ie, swollen amygdalas. That begs the question: are we talking about people being born different or born with a pathology? At the same time, when people assume the brain is hard wired and fixed, when in reality it is dynamic and subject to change. So with that said, with the right circumstances, that would imply that people can switch orientations. I always understood that admonishment was in The Old Testament, not the new and Christianity was about the message of Christ, as delivered in The New Testament. Perhaps you're reading the wrong half of your Bible? Paul was pretty explicit in his admonishment to the Romans about their "men laying with men as with women." Edited January 2, 2012 by MCab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekirk Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Paul was pretty explicit in his admonishment to the Romans about their "men laying with men as with women." Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Paul considered a source for a final pronouncement on such things? As I recall, he was an apostle, and while that's automatically going to give him some credibility, it's not as though we have the literal word of God on the matter. Paul may merely have been expressing the widespread abhorrence of his culture at the time towards what were then-mainstream Greek and Roman practices. Had we a quotation from Jesus, on the other hand, I'd think we'd be a lot clearer on the issue. Paul, despite being an apostle, is still human and fallible under almost all interpretations of the situation I'm aware of. I honestly can't think of anywhere Jesus himself is said to have even addressed the issue of gays. Judging from his "cast the first stone" way of thought when it came to whores, I'm sorta unwilling to take Paul's word on gays being abhorrent to God. Of course, that's one of the delights of the Bible: So many contradictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargrunt6 Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Had we a quotation from Jesus, on the other hand, I'd think we'd be a lot clearer on the issue. Paul, despite being an apostle, is still human and fallible under almost all interpretations of the situation I'm aware of. I honestly can't think of anywhere Jesus himself is said to have even addressed the issue of gays. Judging from his "cast the first stone" way of thought when it came to whores, I'm sorta unwilling to take Paul's word on gays being abhorrent to God. Of course, that's one of the delights of the Bible: So many contradictions. Jesus did speak about adultery, but it is true that homosexuality was never addressed. Perhaps it was a non-issue? If adultery will get you a stoning, then perhaps anyone with even a smidge of gay tendencies kept it in an iron-clad closet? I'm merely speculating and not offering an explanation, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargrunt6 Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Well, to put it bluntly, Paul had a whole load of issues about sexuality. He has always struck me from reading his bits of The Bible to, put it rather bluntly, rather strange. I've often wondered if his various letters didn't leave the recipients scratching their collective heads and wondering what he was on when he wrote them. If any section of The Bible is not particularly reflective of Christ's message, its Paul's in my opinion. Revelations is the other. Both seem to reflect the Church's need to control it's adherents more than anything else. Even my religious studies professor had a hard time understanding him. I think it's a combination of his style and not knowing the context of the letters is what makes things hard to understand. I think Paul's epistles and Revelation were about keeping things in order so that the populace of believers will remember whose team they are on and act accordingly. I also don't think Paul was as authoritarian as people believed. He only stayed in an area for a year or two just to help the local believers with their home meetings and answering any issues. Once they showed they were doing fine on their own, he went somewhere else. I also (big surprise) don't believe Paul's message was anathema to Christ's. The "Love Chapter" of 1 Corinthians 13 bears this out, especially in its marginalizing the deepest religious experience in comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pikachu Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Even my religious studies professor had a hard time understanding him. I think it's a combination of his style and not knowing the context of the letters is what makes things hard to understand. I think Paul's epistles and Revelation were about keeping things in order so that the populace of believers will remember whose team they are on and act accordingly. I also don't think Paul was as authoritarian as people believed. He only stayed in an area for a year or two just to help the local believers with their home meetings and answering any issues. Once they showed they were doing fine on their own, he went somewhere else. I also (big surprise) don't believe Paul's message was anathema to Christ's. The "Love Chapter" of 1 Corinthians 13 bears this out, especially in its marginalizing the deepest religious experience in comparison. The way it was explained to me back when I was still a cute lil Catholic schoolboy was that Christ was primarily recorded while trying to reform the Jews whereas Paul was trying mostly to recruit Gentiles into the early Church. As such, Christ and his immediate disciples had to be more liberal and inclusive with their message because they were facing off against a generally intolerant and restrictive form of Judaism, whereas Paul was preaching to generally more debauched (from the Judeo-Christian POV) Hellenized citizens of the Roman Empire thus had to be more strict. They were pulling people in from opposite extremes towards a Christian "median" so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargrunt6 Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 The way it was explained to me back when I was still a cute lil Catholic schoolboy was that Christ was primarily recorded while trying to reform the Jews whereas Paul was trying mostly to recruit Gentiles into the early Church. As such, Christ and his immediate disciples had to be more liberal and inclusive with their message because they were facing off against a generally intolerant and restrictive form of Judaism, whereas Paul was preaching to generally more debauched (from the Judeo-Christian POV) Hellenized citizens of the Roman Empire thus had to be more strict. They were pulling people in from opposite extremes towards a Christian "median" so to speak. Well said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekirk Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 The way it was explained to me back when I was still a cute lil Catholic schoolboy was that Christ was primarily recorded while trying to reform the Jews whereas Paul was trying mostly to recruit Gentiles into the early Church. As such, Christ and his immediate disciples had to be more liberal and inclusive with their message because they were facing off against a generally intolerant and restrictive form of Judaism, whereas Paul was preaching to generally more debauched (from the Judeo-Christian POV) Hellenized citizens of the Roman Empire thus had to be more strict. They were pulling people in from opposite extremes towards a Christian "median" so to speak. Be that as it may... It doesn't really address the question of whether or not Paul was authorized to be speaking on God's behalf. I'd tend to assume that if Jesus had thought it a major issue, he'd have said something. It's not like the Jews hadn't had major issues with the Greeks, when they were a Greek colony, in this regard. Of course, I suppose one could argue that if God were really against Paul's attitude of intolerance towards gays, he'd have been smote with a lighting bolt, or something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BansheeOne Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Does that ever get used that often? I can't recall hearing of too many self-defense situations in Germany in the first place, now that I think about it. I do know that the popular conception of Germans not being armed is a false one, having spent a lot of time out at one of the shooting ranges, but I'll be damned if I can honestly remember ever hearing about a self-defense shooting anywhere during my time in Germany--Or, after. Self-defense situations involving firearms are indeed rare. There was a recent case near Hannover by an 78-year-old guy who somewhat unwisely had a hooker regularly coming to his house. She told some shady acquaintances of his riches, and a band of five youths of various ethnicity decided to pay him a visit. They entered his property, seized him (easy as he was currently walking on crutches), took his wallet and tied him to a chair. They then searched the house, but triggered an alarm and fled. Guy got lose, grabbed a pistol he was owning as a hunter, and shot after them as they ran away through the garden, hitting a 16-year-old Kosovarian in the back and killing him. There was a manslaughter investigation, but the prosecutor's offices found the deceased had the guy's wallet on him when killed, therefore the attack on a protected good was still ongoing and it was justifiable self-defense, so the case didn't go to court. Unsurprisingly the family of the deceased has filed a complaint to re-open the investigation, but unless they can show some dramatic new evidence, the result will likely be the same. Of course the law doesn't quite give you quite card blanche either. There was another recent case of a couple who led a troublesome marriage, with a marked hostility of the father towards their kids. Mom claims one day she got an acute fear dad was going to do something to the kids, walks to the gun safe in the basement, gets a pistol they were owning as shooters, walks upstairs again and kills hussy allegedly to protect the kids. She was done in for murder though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APF Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 As bansheeOne already hinted at, in germany (legal) firearms have to be kept either inside a safe (ammo kept separate in another safe or a locked compartment within the firearm safe) or may be carried personally by the owner of a firearms permit - but only on his own property or inside his house. Either case, the owner of the gun permit has to make reasonably sure he's the only one who's got access to the weapon (carry the weapon or the key), so something like the bedside locker won't do. Most people seem to rather keep the gun inside the safe than do the extra detour every time they leave their property. So in almost all cases a shovel or knife is nearer at hand than the - unloaded - gun in the safe. For those who like to share a laugh: the aforementioned only holds true for weapons designed after 1870(?). Old Muskets and cannons (yep, cannons) are obviously presumed to be safe for everyone to use and might be bought at will - together with black powder and ball. Same thing for bows and crossbows. OTOH you are discouraged to carry a knife with a blade length of more than 12 cm (a bit below 5 inch for those metrically challenged) as this constitutes a mayor offense (§42a (1) 3 WaffGes) - unless you have a good reason to do so(§42a (2) 3 WaffGes). Ah, I'd like some of the stuff they smoke in Berlin as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts