Interesting piece in the LA Review of Books: The Supermanagerial Reich

It's a tad long, so I suggest the last two paragraphs to get a taste, see if it's to your liking.

Small bit:

If there is going to be a politics that overcomes the new fascist threat, it must address the fact that the crisis is not now, the crisis has already been for some time. By focusing only on the threat of our homegrown Hitler caricature we have failed to notice the facts right in front of our faces: the uniquely parallel structures, the same winners, the similar losers, the crimes, the human degradation. We are already living in our very own, cruel 21st-century Supermanagerial Reich.

@enoch, I agree that "attacking people you disagree with ideologically" is wrong, but history has shown us that with these assholes "ideological difference" eventually becomes "existential threat". You might remember there was a bit of a scuffle last century where a group of these guys did some bad shit and these of the world had to step in a punch a lot of people in a lot of faces. I think we'd all rather avoid a recurrence of that.

So the question becomes, would a bit of judicious face punching now save a lot of face punching later? I don't know the answer to that, but i do know that if there's one cause I'd happily stand up and say "this far and no further (or I punch you in the face)", it's making sure these assholes never get into power.

Incoherent to you maybe. Rambling no (my comments should roughly match up line for line as replies to your text - I didn't use quotes). Struck a nerve? No. But it looks like you've got a lot to say for someone who doesn't care for religion.

Almost nobody can remember all they read. This is not a unique claim. I'm guessing you aren't familiar with more than one major denomination - so don't speak on behalf of the others. You're pretty hung up on me needing to have remembered this thing in particular? Sorry but I didn't know this - that's why I asked (ffs). In this regard you're weak at being compassionate. I'm sorry, what is it you think I'm defending? My words? They don't need defence mate. They stand on their own.

I'd have to have some bullshit to quit it. I didn't try to shut down @newtboy (pointing out a truth of his own admission is not shutting him down - got that Mr. Reason?) and I certainly haven't been shut down myself (surprise motherfucker - I'm right here). That you can't understand the fairly straight forward last post shows a lot about you.

"To answer in all seriousness your subsequent questions:"

You missed several questions. Four in fact. I expected as much.

"The back bone of my religion" You're at it again. The retard is strong in you.

I'm not explaining away God's omnipotence. I'm making a fairly straight argument that he's not omnipotent (as in all powerful). I've used the straight forward translation of the word (the simplest argument is that omnipotent also means greatly (not all)) powerful and the refutation of your defence that he is in fact all powerful. This isn't some apologist thing, or defence of some fucked up part of the bible. I'm taking what you believe is a fundamental part of Christianity and attempting to take it down a notch. Hey, why do you think that is? (come on, say the opposite of the obvious, do it, show me how retarded you can be)

It's only a house of cards if you're not willing to give it even the slightest credence (which with your rabid atheism is unfortunately self-admittedly true). That's a great pity. Thousands of years of human culture dismissed in an instant because you're too headstrong (or butt-hurt) to give it a second thought. So much for reason.

Maybe you're not familiar with the 20th century and the clusterfuck of death that surrounded governmental experimentation (of which rejection of religion was a fundamental tenet). Look, I'm happy for you to attempt a no government society where your reason and compassion will lead everyone into quiet nirvana. But you'll be one of the first to be taken advantage of by some cold ruthless cunt who doesn't possess those abilities.

No, I seriously doubt you wish me the best. Your tirade against me demonstrates that. Hopefully you'll realise soon that you're not an Übermensch. And almost everything you now know is wrong (I sincerely hope you know that - it's a fundamental scientific tenet that we are always getting closer to the truth - wiping away the untruths we know - and yes there is research on this).

I do thank you for at least attempting to overcome your own obvious cognitive dissonance in sincerely wishing me peace at the end. It reminds me so much of people who claim to have a religion of peace after their brothers blow some people up. Lol.

Next up. SDGundamX with what he's sure will this time be the final blow as all bow before him with his unassailable reason and compassion that nobody else can possibly challenge.

Bye for a while. I've literally got work now and won't be back for about 28 days. I will be back though. Talk then.

LOL. Dumbest assumption of the month. No seriously.

I'm not "telling @newtboy that he doesn't know anything about it except for hearsay" - I'm pointing out what he has already admitted (hopefully you can see the difference). If I've read the bible and don't remember 100% of it (fucking please - I was clear that my knowledge wasn't eidetic) and you compare it to someone who hasn't read it at all - then that is a false equivalence. If you're going to try and call out some form of hypocrisy, you should probably get your argument right.

Pick any book you've read and I'll find something you don't know in it. I won't suddenly argue that "you don't know what it actually says", because that is not true. You would have limited knowledge, like every human, on every topic that has ever been.

Has your self-confessed atheism brought you peace? Are you an angry atheist? Are you vegan? Lol. I'm guessing that you googled every verse you quoted. So how much of the knowledge is yours?

As above - the bible read by itself without the context of Tradition becomes untenable. And literal interpretations are often incorrect.

No, I didn't argue that those verses you quoted don't say something along the lines of him being all powerful - they clearly do. I don't have issue with that. They say what they say.

I'm making my own analysis and argument of your examples (not referring to the verses), and the verses (separate from your examples). Do you have a problem with that? Are you calling the Bible fact? Or are you saying that the definitive interpretation of those passages is what you say it is and that is the "fact"? Or that those passages say what they say (and this is the fact) regardless of whether they are true or not? Not that you're unclear or anything.

I see you agree with my statements. Yet you go and make all these assumptions. Go figure.

Hey I'm sure whatever system you come up with will be heaps better than anything that's gone before. I hear all the 20th century attempts worked out really well.

This is extremely important, and (as far as I know) is extremely prevalent in Judaism, where the notes and interpretations are literally just as important as the scripture itself. These notes have been debated and clarified over the centuries by people who specialise in studying it; beyond that there is still debate, and the notes are still evolving. This means they have something of a self-righting mechanism whereby the mistakes of the past can be corrected.

This is in a way similar to the scientific approach, but using debate instead of empiricism.

The problem is that most christian churches ignore this fact and go by the interpretations of the church leader(s). The most extreme are the bible literalists who can justify pretty much anything by cherry-picking passages. The larger established churches like the catholics have some of this, but are largely missing the key feature of self-correction (except over far longer periods of time, and almost fully at the discretion of the pope).

Thanks dag & transmopher.

Oh yeah, this 3rd Testament you advocate would be most useful. There are external references throughout the centuries that helps people understand it in better context. Matthew Henry for example - not perfect, but useful. But I'm afraid human nature would just twist and corrupt anything. Pretty soon a 4th Testament will be needed.

The big problem with religion is the defensiveness of its practitioners. When people outside of their religion points out the weird crap in their holy text (weird in the present, not so much during the time it was written), they go all up in arms and goes on the attack. Yet so many withing their rank uses bits and pieces of the text out of context to justify horrendous behavior. Where is the self-criticism? Where's the self-reflection? Where's the self-correction?

It's no wonder atheist wants religion out. But realistically, religion is not going out the door anytime soon. I can understand that want too, really, I want the bad crap out of religion just as much.

But I do see the goodness within and just trying my best to achieve the same goal from an opposite (?) vantage point. If we're all here fighting evil, I don't care in what name you do it for, I'm going to support you.

Today's terrorism problems have no better authority than Muslim leaders coming out and condemn and explain their religion to the world. Christians needs to preach compassion towards their neighbors rather than fear & loathing, it's what Jesus commands. That's peaceful, cross-faith discussions the religious leaders of all faiths lack so much of. But I just don't see much of that up top...

But it's not really solving a problem, is it? If you have a 3rd Testament then people a century later need a 4th Testament to understand the 3rd. It's just endless guessing.

The many confusions & consistencies deal with God's actions toward the peoples of its time. In this video's case, Paul to the Corinthian believers (people-people). My "narrow-minded" guess, is the "women" at the Corinthian church were there not as seekers of the Faith, but as wives just accompanying their husbands, so these females gathered around and started gossiping and various sundry conversations, turning bothersome to the brothers listening to the sermons... so that's why Paul ordered the women silenced. Now, that's MY interpretation, you can argue it's sexist/degrading of me calling the women gossipy (but bear with me for argument sake, because those men at those times are likely sexist!)... but that's one possible scenario. There can very well be other equally (or likely more) convincing scenarios, but only one of them is the truth. But which one is? Who has the authority to know and write down the true case in this 3rd Testament?

People have been discussing for centuries and I don't see the point of reading the Bible literally and try to interpret meanings on these small things. Humans in the Bible all make mistakes. We need to keep on progressing to make the world a better place. That's what Jesus advocated... Picking faults of the people in Bible is useful if we use them as examples of never repeating their faults. But it's no good if we're too focused on finding faults but lost sight of doing good.

Handmade by One of the Original Nablus Families from a 10th Century Recipe
Only 3 Ingredents: Olive Oil, Water, & Mineral Salts
Made on the West Bank in Nablus
Made with Olive Oil from the Holy Land

Available on Amazon

Uh......slavery didn't start in the 1700's. It likely began in Mesopotamia as an industry, but probably existed long before cuneiform existed to record it.

Even sticking to Africa, Egyptians used slaves extensively eons before this.

Most active slavers in 18 th century Africa were Arabs or Europeans. Africans traded/sold POWs from other tribes caught during tribal warfare, and later began to actively participate in the European slave trade. They absolutely were not the sole kidnappers, however, nor were they the first.

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Treaty of Trippoli-ratified unanimously and signed by then President John Adams. Clear enough for me.

The constitution is actually based on English common law, which existed there for centuries before they ever heard of that Jesus guy. If you want to worship based on the religion the constitution reinforces, burn that cross and beg Odin or a pagan tree god for forgiveness.

Funny that he doesn't offer any specific examples, huh?

What I understood him to be claiming was a large portion of 'anti Trump' people are stuck on the accusations about Russia, but there are so many other issues they are ignoring because of that focus, and I wholeheartedly disagree, with the constant non-Russia protests as my evidence. I just do not see the myopia he decries.
I also disagree the world is laughing at our claims about foreign interference in our election, they are laughing at the hypocrisy of America complaining about our M.O., but they think Russian interference is both real and serious for us and themselves.

I'm talking recent history, last 3 years. No point in rehashing the 20th century. Had NATO really been a thought, he would not have invaded Crimea nor annexed the East Ukraine. I see NATO troops as sacrificial lambs, put in harm's way to force member nations to act if they are over run by a hostile nation....and even then there's no guarantee any action will come, but it's easier to sell military action if some of 'our boys' are killed or captured.

Russia, Russia, Russia is about the implications of world, or at least super power war. If they did collude (like we often do in other countries) to subvert our election, that's an act of war that could lead to military action if not handled carefully and thoughtfully....something Trump is incapable of.

Is there evidence...apparently, according to the FBI and several prosecutors at least. Has the public seen enough of it to evaluate it for themselves...no. That means one should keep an open, engaged mind on the important subject....not act like he's already convicted, and not pretend there's nothing there but whining. Certainly not forget it and move on to the next scandal....I think we are capable of being outraged about numerous things at once....and again I point to constant protests as proof (not that they accomplish much).

There are some improvements there. At the start of the century, only 1 person had a computer, now 44% have internet.

Nice idea, never gonna happen without electoral reform.

Maybe once you move past your 19th century voting systems....

"And you are an amazing man."

-- Fucking understatement of the century!

That hardly seems the most straight forward reading though as it seems at odds with later advocating love your enemy and all, no?

One of the things that both protestants and catholics have almost always agreed upon was that the line about "will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" is that everything WAS accomplished, at the latest, with Jesus death. That's the wiki that came up first quickly summarized:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant

I'll not object to vehemently disagreeing with the interpretation, but can you at least acknowledge that centuries of 'christians' under a multitude of different sects have held pretty consistently on the notion that the old testament kill all unbelievers was CONTRARY to Jesus teachings and direction for his would be followers. That doesn't negate plenty of people right up until today(westboro) who still do want to take your more bloody interpretation instead.