I think what I find especialy repulsive about such places is that they have no humility. Its a giant phallus of a city, where wealth and power is flaunted as if it were something sacred. There is no shame in Dubai.

I've only been to San Antonio in the States. It wasn't too bad tbh, I certainly expected much worse from Texas. The US has its problems, but its far from the worst. I felt more discomfort in Mexico driving out of gated community into basically a slum 15 minutes down the road, or spending a month in Mexico City after a couple of Months in the south close to Guatemala.

your response was long and the first half just reiterated me being a gnostic but i am what some may consider a "christian" gnostic.

So, as a Christian gnostic, what parts of the bible do you feel are authorative and what do you throw away? Do you consider the Old Testament to be valid?

so i dont see god as a failure nor evil.
i view god very much like the trinity.
father,son,holy ghost
or..
mind,body,spirit.
both work fine.
also if you changed the word "matter" to represent "ego"
then you would be closer to how i view the battle of "good" vs "evil"
i would say it is ego vs spirit.
you would say god vs devil,but we would be saying the same things.

I take it you don't believe Satan exists? If you don't believe in the fall, what is your narrative as to how things got the way they are?

the inherent differences in our philosophy are simply this:
internalization.
externalization.
i believe the teachings of christ (and others) hold the key to free ourselves from the ego (which is the ultimate liar).salvation starts when we realize we are spiritual beings with the spark of the divine.the creator if you will.spirit,soul,chi work also and that the ego seeks to dominate the spirit,pulling us ever further from our true self and our creator.(indivisible btw).

you view this dichotomy in a totally different light.jesus/god are outside.seperate and only through humility and acceptance that christ is lord and savior and died for your sins can you (or anybody) achieve salvation.(be saved)

I don't think it is that black and white. What you seem to believe is that you're one with God, and that by awakening your spiritual self (through gnosis i assume) you can conquer the ego and be free.. What I believe is that we each have a sinful nature which is corrupt and separates us from God. I believe that Christ conquered that nature as a man on the cross, and that through His substitutionary atonement, we are reconciled back to God and reborn in the spirit.

So, this isn't externalizing it. We come to Christ to be healed, but that is just the beginning. Being born again means to become a new creation and receive the Holy Spirit. It is not simply to bow to Christ and thank Him for salvation. It is to be remade in the image of Christ, and that is inside and outside.

Neither it is separateness from God, because the body of Christ is unity with God. We are in Him and He is in us and He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him. Christ is the head of the body of Christ, as the Father is the head of Christ. We are sons and daughters of God and co-heirs with Christ.

so when you ask if i believe christ was savior i would answer yes..most certainly,but i come to that conclusion by a different path and different tools.
yet we both use the bible.
pretty neat huh?
but you ONLY use the bible as your authority and that is fine but i tend to use..well...everything..but thats another conversation.

Yet, how can He be savior when you say you can save yourself?

so now we come to what do i tell these lost and broken people who have experienced a crisis of faith.
well...
i dont attack their religion.
i allow them to talk and let that spike of uncertainty bubble to the surface so i can get a better look at it.if i am going to help anyone i have to know where the pain is yes?

you have to realize that the majority of the people i deal with came from very strict,authoritarian and fundamentalist families.they were usually sheltered from the real world (not always a bad thing) and the culture shock alone is a trauma in itself and many times the parents are not exactly curious people but their children are (or the ones that came to me).

the first thing i do is hand them a scofield study bible (i have a stack of them) and tell them to read JUST the words of jesus and get back to me when they are ready.scofield has all the words of jesus highlighted in pink,cant miss em.

now you may ask "why would enoch do that"?
simple.many religions have a long LOOOONG list of doctrine and dogma by having that person read just the words of jesus we get to cut 80% of that crap out and focus on the words of jesus.

Do you believe all the words of Jesus (in the bible) are truth?

here is what "sin" actually is.this may not sound biblical but it actually is.jesus spoke of it often.
sin is when you KNOW/FEEL something is wrong and you CHOOSE to do it anyways.

On the contrary, sin is when you disobey the direct commands of God. Plenty of people don't know or feel it is wrong to commit all sorts of crimes, and wouldn't otherwise know, if God didn't set a standard for behavior. According to this standard, it wouldn't be wrong to murder if someone didn't know or feel it is wrong.

and dont get me started on "original sin" utter nonsense that piece of garbage.the church was unable to make its case centuries ago and still has failed to make the case for original sin. i suspect you disagree...thats ok but dont engage me on this one.i aint budging.

The bible doesn't contain the words "original sin". What it says is that God created the world perfectly, but because Adam and Eve sinned, they brought death into the world through sin. And that since then, man is born with a corrupt nature that is spiritually separated from God. How does your narrative differ from this? Do you believe that God doesn't care about sin?

i mean.
what do you tell a 22 yr old boy who is gay that god has not forsaken him?
that he is not some abomination?
that his father is wrong for beating him with a pipe in a rage and throwing him out of the only house he has ever known?
how can this boy who was raised in a god fearing house believe for a second that god loves him when according to the bible he would not?raised to believe god was not only all-knowing but all-loving except him.

well you point to the scofield bible and ask that boy to find a verse where jesus says he hates fags.thats what you do.
because it jesus doesnt say that.

I'm surprised that this is what you believe.. Of course it isn't right for a father to beat their child and throw them out. That definitely isn't demonstrating the love of God. But that has nothing to do with the boys spiritual situation.

What Jesus says is that marriage is between a man and a woman, and sex outside of marriage is a sin. There is no room in Gods plan for homosexual behavior. Now, people are born with all sorts of adverse conditions. Some people are born with cancer, or with deformed bodies. Has God forsaken them? Everyone has their own special challenges. So, a person who has homosexual desires, does he have to act upon them? Some people have sexual desire for children, or animals. Is that right? Weren't they just born that way?

or the girl who was raped and the family convinced her it was her fault because she had sinned against god and that was her punishment.

or one of my most precious whose family member had molested her for years and when she finally got the courage to say something about it only to be told to shut up.that she was a liar (not even possible with this girl) and again...her fault and punishment from god.

i could go on and on and on.

Your examples are people acting sinfully and disobeying the direct commands of God to say that sin isn't what the bible says it is. What this is just proves how bad sin really is.

what i do for these very special people is get them to understand they are spirit.
that they have a spark of the creator (made in "his" image) and that spark is their true selves.
and to cherish that spark.
i show them love.
true love of the spiritual kind.the altruistic love our spirits crave to give and receive.
that it is possible to love themselves and to forgive those who rejected them.judged them and forsook them.

You're forgetting the greatest commandments:

Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your spirit, and all of your strength. And love your neighbor as yourself.

They need to love God first and everything else will follow. I think what you're substituting for the love of God is the love of self, because you perceive you have a piece of God within you. Unless you are born again, you don't have the Holy Spirit. You can't get near a holy God with a sinful nature.

i teach them the power of forgiveness.
to forgive themselves..for to forgive yourself you first have to KNOW yourself and to do that...well..you have to swim through a river of your own shit to truly know yourself.
i teach them to be free.
and in the doing they become free to love others as openly and honestly as they were meant to and to understand that many people,most actually,do not understand the true gift jesus gave us:love and forgiveness=freedom.

The true gift Jesus gave us was His precious blood. What we need is Gods forgiveness for our sins. Without His forgiveness, we will face judgement. You don't seem to believe that is going to happen. If you want to believe that, this is your right. To teach other people this, you are potentially endangering them. What happens if you stand in front of God and He shows you that what you taught people about being free and forgiving themselves sent some of them to hell?

i do not use dogma nor doctrine to teach these things.
i do not seek these people out,they find me and my obligation is to honor that path they found to me as the will of the creator.
some have needed a room to stay and heal their wounds.
i give that place of security for them.( i do this for addicts also)
i do not charge money for i do not consider helping another human being out to find themselves a service but rather a kindness in recognizing another spirit.
and here is the neat part that has always tickled me:i have never wanted for anything.car dies? i get gifted a new one a week later.
short on the electric bill? i find a lottery ticket with almost the exact amount i needed.
needed a vacation to go back home?
friend offers out of the blue to buy me a plane ticket.

Before I became a Christian, I was led like this too, with signs and all sorts of little perks. I thought I was doing Gods work, but it turns out that I was being influenced by evil. There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. Don't count on those signs because they aren't necessarily from God. If they aren't, how would you tell?

a few that i have helped went back to the church.
one woman i counseled for 12 yrs (really abusive husband) who is now a devout baptist like you!
aaand she is studying at a bible college,which of course i have to mess with her cuz they dont allow women to perform mass but i do help with her homework sometimes.

That's cool..I'm not a baptist though. I enjoy sermons from baptist pastors but I am non-denominational, so I don't ascribe the everything that baptists believe.

ok..now im just rambling.
it is late and im stupid tired but i wanted to respond before i went to bed.busy day tomorrow.
hope this gives you a clearer picture.not gonna proof read so it may just be gibberish.
in any case..
always a pleasure my friend.

I always enjoy our conversations. I hope you don't take offense at anything I said..I am just representing the truth I know and trying to figure out where you're coming from. God bless.


>> ^enoch

thanks for the response my friend.
though you are still using bullet form..ewww.

understand i use the term gnostic to give people a reference point,but that is all.
i am not ritualized like a sophian or strict adherence like a rosacrucian,but i would still be considered an apostate by the church...any church.

your response was long and the first half just reiterated me being a gnostic but i am what some may consider a "christian" gnostic.
so i dont see god as a failure nor evil.
i view god very much like the trinity.
father,son,holy ghost
or..
mind,body,spirit.
both work fine.
also if you changed the word "matter" to represent "ego"
then you would be closer to how i view the battle of "good" vs "evil"
i would say it is ego vs spirit.
you would say god vs devil,but we would be saying the same things.

the inherent differences in our philosophy are simply this:
internalization.
externalization.
i believe the teachings of christ (and others) hold the key to free ourselves from the ego (which is the ultimate liar).salvation starts when we realize we are spiritual beings with the spark of the divine.the creator if you will.spirit,soul,chi work also and that the ego seeks to dominate the spirit,pulling us ever further from our true self and our creator.(indivisible btw).

you view this dichotomy in a totally different light.jesus/god are outside.seperate and only through humility and acceptance that christ is lord and savior and died for your sins can you (or anybody) achieve salvation.(be saved)

so when you ask if i believe christ was savior i would answer yes..most certainly,but i come to that conclusion by a different path and different tools.
yet we both use the bible.
pretty neat huh?
but you ONLY use the bible as your authority and that is fine but i tend to use..well...everything..but thats another conversation.

so now we come to what do i tell these lost and broken people who have experienced a crisis of faith.
well...
i dont attack their religion.
i allow them to talk and let that spike of uncertainty bubble to the surface so i can get a better look at it.if i am going to help anyone i have to know where the pain is yes?

you have to realize that the majority of the people i deal with came from very strict,authoritarian and fundamentalist families.they were usually sheltered from the real world (not always a bad thing) and the culture shock alone is a trauma in itself and many times the parents are not exactly curious people but their children are (or the ones that came to me).

the first thing i do is hand them a scofield study bible (i have a stack of them) and tell them to read JUST the words of jesus and get back to me when they are ready.scofield has all the words of jesus highlighted in pink,cant miss em.

now you may ask "why would enoch do that"?
simple.many religions have a long LOOOONG list of doctrine and dogma by having that person read just the words of jesus we get to cut 80% of that crap out and focus on the words of jesus.

there have been a few times that is all i have had to do.set them on a path that is simple and not so laden with hail mary's and guilt and 'supposed" to's.

baptists are the ones where i have to address sin.
they read the bible and they think they understand sin.
oh hell no.they dont have a clue and while there are some great passages in the bible that address sin..something gets lost in translation sometimes and the church does not help.

here is what "sin" actually is.this may not sound biblical but it actually is.jesus spoke of it often.
sin is when you KNOW/FEEL something is wrong and you CHOOSE to do it anyways.

and dont get me started on "original sin" utter nonsense that piece of garbage.the church was unable to make its case centuries ago and still has failed to make the case for original sin.
i suspect you disagree...thats ok but dont engage me on this one.i aint budging.

i mean.
what do you tell a 22 yr old boy who is gay that god has not forsaken him?
that he is not some abomination?
that his father is wrong for beating him with a pipe in a rage and throwing him out of the only house he has ever known?
how can this boy who was raised in a god fearing house believe for a second that god loves him when according to the bible he would not?raised to believe god was not only all-knowing but all-loving except him.

well you point to the scofield bible and ask that boy to find a verse where jesus says he hates fags.thats what you do.
because it jesus doesnt say that.

or the girl who was raped and the family convinced her it was her fault because she had sinned against god and that was her punishment.

or one of my most precious whose family member had molested her for years and when she finally got the courage to say something about it only to be told to shut up.that she was a liar (not even possible with this girl) and again...her fault and punishment from god.

i could go on and on and on.

what i do for these very special people is get them to understand they are spirit.
that they have a spark of the creator (made in "his" image) and that spark is their true selves.
and to cherish that spark.
i show them love.
true love of the spiritual kind.the altruistic love our spirits crave to give and receive.
that it is possible to love themselves and to forgive those who rejected them.judged them and forsook them.
i teach them the power of forgiveness.
to forgive themselves..for to forgive yourself you first have to KNOW yourself and to do that...well..you have to swim through a river of your own shit to truly know yourself.
i teach them to be free.
and in the doing they become free to love others as openly and honestly as they were meant to and to understand that many people,most actually,do not understand the true gift jesus gave us:love and forgiveness=freedom.

i do not use dogma nor doctrine to teach these things.
i do not seek these people out,they find me and my obligation is to honor that path they found to me as the will of the creator.
some have needed a room to stay and heal their wounds.
i give that place of security for them.( i do this for addicts also)
i do not charge money for i do not consider helping another human being out to find themselves a service but rather a kindness in recognizing another spirit.
and here is the neat part that has always tickled me:i have never wanted for anything.car dies? i get gifted a new one a week later.
short on the electric bill? i find a lottery ticket with almost the exact amount i needed.
needed a vacation to go back home?
friend offers out of the blue to buy me a plane ticket.

a few that i have helped went back to the church.
one woman i counseled for 12 yrs (really abusive husband) who is now a devout baptist like you!
aaand she is studying at a bible college,which of course i have to mess with her cuz they dont allow women to perform mass but i do help with her homework sometimes.

ok..now im just rambling.
it is late and im stupid tired but i wanted to respond before i went to bed.busy day tomorrow.
hope this gives you a clearer picture.not gonna proof read so it may just be gibberish.
in any case..
always a pleasure my friend.

>> ^hpqp:

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.
Care to give some examples?



This is from our dear atheist, Christopher Hitchins. (I was fairly sure Hitchins was like this, but i couldn't remember specific points like you said; well i found a much better source for the matter: a small letter by him over this exact matter).

Christopher Hitchins little note (this drew some fire too it looks like when it came out):

------
You seem to have guessed, from some remarks I have already made in passing, that I am not a religious believer. In order to be absolutely honest, I should not leave you with the impression that I am part of the generalized agnosticism of our culture. I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion I do not wish, as some sentimental agnostics affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case.

Why do I say that? Well, there may be people who wish to live their lives under a cradle-to-grave divine supervision; a permanent surveillance and [around the clock] monitoring [a celestial North Korea]. But I cannot [personally] imagine anything more horrible or grotesque. It would be worse, in a way, if the supervision was benign...

I think that this conviction does bear on the mental and moral resources that are necessary if one hopes to live [on the contrary, if one hopes to live in dissent or if one hopes to live] "as if" one were free. In a much-quoted reflection on America's original sin [of slavery], Thomas Jefferson said, "I tremble for my country when I remember that god is just." However, if there really was a god and he really was just, then there would be little enough for believers to tremble about; it would be a consolation that infinitely outweighed any imaginable earthly care.

I have met many brave men and women, morally superior to myself, whose courage in adversity derives from their faith. But whenever they have chosen to speak or write about it, I find myself appalled by the instant decline of their intellectual and moral standards. They want god on their side and they believe they are doing his work - what is this, even at it's very best, but an extreme form of solipsism? [In other words "don't mind me I'm just doing god's work, I'm very modest." A poor syllogism, or a very humble humility, is defined by them.] They proceed from conclusion to evidence; our greatest resource is the mind, and the mind is not well-trained by being taught to assume what has to be proved.

This arrogance and illogic is inseparable even from the meekest and most altruistic religious affirmations. A true believer must believe that he or she is here for a purpose and is an object of real interest to a Supreme Being; he or she must also claim to have at least an inkling of what that Supreme Being desires. I have been called arrogant myself in my time, and hope to earn the title again, but to claim that I am privy to the secrets of the universe and its creator - that's beyond my conceit. I therefore have no choice but to find something suspect even in the humblest believer, let alone in the great law-givers and edict-makers of whose "flock" (and what a revealing word that is) they form a part.
------------------------
It might sound provincial and (oh dear) Eurocentric to say this, but not even those of us who had taken the gloomiest view of the arms race and the Cold War had ever expected to see a full-dress reprise, in Europe, of internment camps, the mass murder of civilians, the reinstitution of torture and rape and deportation as acts of policy. This was the sort of thing we had read about from six decades before; some of us (including myself) had met and got to know some survivors of that period. And of course, in a recess of our minds we had played the imaginary game: what would I do about the knock on the door; how would I react if the neighbors were being marched off to the station?

That tired analogy turned out to be uncomfortably useful, because when all this ghastliness did get under way again, the political class in Europe and America behaved for the most part with the same wretched combination of complacency and complicity that it had exhibited when Fascism first came to call.
------

Here is one example. I do know that there are also a few more writers out there that are self-described, some not, ant-theists. Hopefully, this is the exact kind of thing you are looking for @hpqp . I'm just not terribly sure their ferocity over this right now is the right call. But, as I point out it certainly SHOULD be expected as many people in religion have done nothing, but callously call these once only atheists the living devil, the worst people alive, plus every demonic curse that can be called upon a person. Then they went further and threatened them with bodily harm; from individual members to actual leaders amongst these communities. Your house is vandalized and disgraced, your telephones ring non-stop to the rhythm of a religious battle hymn. These are things you wouldn't expect from good natured, Christ loving, religious people. I'm sure @shinyblurry will make sure it's known that these people are not Christians (and I would agree to an extent)--the problem with using this to literally sweep the whole problem under the carpet is that there is NO lesson learned. No one is harassed by the police as they should be or the media--it becomes a living nightmare to fight these people. Soon all you have left is to move out of town. But, in Christopher Hitchins example he is simply too famous to escape this.

i am loathe to respond in bullet form,maybe because i find it the weakest and laziest form of debate in a text format,but let me address a glaring misconception you seem to have concerning the occupy movement.you seem to be under the impression that its driving force is against rich folk.

now lets put that aside for a second and i shall not deal with just how utterly inaccurate that statement is because what REALLY intrigues me is this: how did you formulate that opinion when so much information is already out there revealing a totally different animal?how did you derive this conclusion and by what information did you base it on?
now THAT is a far more interesting conversation.

Its driving force is against the powers that be. "They". They say money runs the government, and they are right. Money is at the root of all evil. Who controls all the money? The "1 percent", although it's really more the ".001" percent. So it is essentially against the rich and powerful, the income divide they have engineered, and the entrenched power structure they orchaestrate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is an ongoing series of demonstrations initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters which began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on government. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing difference in wealth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.

you also put forth that your main premise was that the students were warned that they would be removed,by force if need be.
maybe i am misunderstanding your thinking but it appears that if there is an announcement then any use of force is justified.
yet in your previous paragraph you stated you understood the necessity to disobey then turn around and become an apologetic for police force.
these two premises are in conflict.

I was merely countering the assertion that they were sprayed without warning, which was a lie. I do believe police have the right to use force, however, I think they could have handled that situation a little better. I do believe we should disobey authority when it runs contrary to what God has commanded, but then and only then.

then in the next paragraph you continue with a verbal denigration of the people of occupy using tried and true tactics of any powerful institution.you literally have just regurgitated state propaganda and i dont think for a second you even realized that fact.do you even know what a marxist,anarchist or socialist actually is? i ask that sincerely not as a slight towards you,because it doesnt appear that you do.

I am not on the side of the state, I am on the side of God. Governments tend towards corruption and unless they adhere to biblical principles they will fall into decay and injustice will be the normative state of the land. So I do not prefer the state at all, but neither do I favor removing it, at least until Jesus returns. It is, as the founders believed, a necessary evil.

Yes, I know what they represent, and their positions are often interchangable. They were out in force waving their communist flags, talking about income redistribution and private property rights, distributing their anti-capitalist propaganda. Here is a quick portrait:

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2011/11/zuccotti-utopia-portraits-of-revolutionaries/comment-page-1/#comment-22376

They even had maoists:



again i find your premise in conflict.
on the one hand you agree and are aware of the corruption gnawing at our democracy and then turn around and dismiss those who are protesting that VERY corruption you just acknowledged as somehow being unworthy.
i even posted the playbook that powerful institutions use and you fell into lock step with that message.

then lastly you again use a perjorative to describe the occupy movement with obvious disdain and then chastise me for comparing occupy with the civil rights movement.
either you dont understand my point or didnt think it through.
i was not comparing them as being similar in intentions.i was comparing them to how the power of the people are the ONLY way to enact change.
and if you truly agree that this government is corrupt and has been purchased by corporations who use their immense wealth to further their own profit margin at the expense of the average american citizen then i do not understand why your premise is so diametrically opposed in thought and in reason.

your argument is a contradiction.

The fundemental disagreement is this. What I recognize is the corruption gnawing at all of mankind. Everyone is looking at this catastrophe called civilization and thinking "how can we rearrange this so a utopia emerges?" Some people think the inequitable distribution of resources is the source of eivl, and believe that if we just set up a system to share the resources equitably then all goodness will follow from that. Other people think that just having a system is the source of corruption and want to eliminate it altogether and live without any central authority. The issue is that these schemes are all predicated upon the assumption that human beings are generally good. The reality is, human beings are generally sinful and tend towards corruption and not goodness. It isn't the system, or lack thereof that is the problem, it is the human heart:

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

If you wiped out everything and started with a blank slate, putting the population of the world into an instant utopia, it would only be a matter of time before the whole thing was rotten to the core. The problem isn't the system, it is us. The only solution to this problem is Jesus Christ. Humans are incapable of governing themselves equitably. The founders recognized this, which is why they instituted checks and balances into the constitution, to try to offset mans sinful nature. They knew no man could be trusted with power. In the same way, to switch systems we would simply just be trading one polished turd for another. When Jesus returns and sets up His kingdom, only then will there be peace upon this Earth.

one last thing and while i hope you know .i shall state openly here.
what i am about to ask i ask in all sincerity and humility.
where do you think jesus would be sitting on this issue?
would he be on capitol hill with the plutocrats and corporate lobbyists?
think about it.

What Jesus is interested in is our salvation. Neither the plutocrats or the protesters are doing anything to reach or to further His Kingdom. They both outside of His will and are following man-centered doctrines and philosophies which glorify themselves and give God no acknowledgement what-so-ever. Jesus wouldn't be happy with any of them.

Luke 11:28

But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Luke 18:8

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

>> ^enoch:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Making a foray into politics?

so it appears and not a very impressive one.
@shinyblurry
i.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Making a foray into politics?


so it appears and not a very impressive one.
@shinyblurry
i know many see you as a troll who only wished to instigate and provoke for the sake of provoking.
i do not hold that opinion and i may be totally off the mark but i tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.

but what i find in your response is an ignorance pertaining to politics and history.this not necessarily a bad thing,we are all ignorant to some degree or other on certain topics.ignorance is curable.

i am loathe to respond in bullet form,maybe because i find it the weakest and laziest form of debate in a text format,but let me address a glaring misconception you seem to have concerning the occupy movement.
you seem to be under the impression that its driving force is against rich folk.

now lets put that aside for a second and i shall not deal with just how utterly inaccurate that statement is because what REALLY intrigues me is this: how did you formulate that opinion when so much information is already out there revealing a totally different animal?how did you derive this conclusion and by what information did you base it on?
now THAT is a far more interesting conversation.

you also put forth that your main premise was that the students were warned that they would be removed,by force if need be.
maybe i am misunderstanding your thinking but it appears that if there is an announcement then any use of force is justified.
yet in your previous paragraph you stated you understood the necessity to disobey then turn around and become an apologetic for police force.
these two premises are in conflict.

then in the next paragraph you continue with a verbal denigration of the people of occupy using tried and true tactics of any powerful institution.you literally have just regurgitated state propaganda and i dont think for a second you even realized that fact.do you even know what a marxist,anarchist or socialist actually is? i ask that sincerely not as a slight towards you,because it doesnt appear that you do.
again i find your premise in conflict.
on the one hand you agree and are aware of the corruption gnawing at our democracy and then turn around and dismiss those who are protesting that VERY corruption you just acknowledged as somehow being unworthy.
i even posted the playbook that powerful institutions use and you fell into lock step with that message.

then lastly you again use a perjorative to describe the occupy movement with obvious disdain and then chastise me for comparing occupy with the civil rights movement.
either you dont understand my point or didnt think it through.
i was not comparing them as being similar in intentions.i was comparing them to how the power of the people are the ONLY way to enact change.
and if you truly agree that this government is corrupt and has been purchased by corporations who use their immense wealth to further their own profit margin at the expense of the average american citizen then i do not understand why your premise is so diametrically opposed in thought and in reason.

your argument is a contradiction.

one last thing and while i hope you know .i shall state openly here.
what i am about to ask i ask in all sincerity and humility.
where do you think jesus would be sitting on this issue?
would he be on capitol hill with the plutocrats and corporate lobbyists?
think about it.

1. You're still using your subjective experience to prove Premise Two.

It's all subjective experience; again, if you want to claim that subjective determinations cannot lead to objective truths, then you can throw out any claim of an objective world and we can drown in relativism. Care to take another stab at it?

2. In the other threads you quoted one Wikipedia page at me without even reading the other one (Check the second paragraph of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical to see the difference). You ignore the fact that empiricism as a philosophy is an unscientific world view on its face due to its unverifiable claims of where information can and cannot come from.

What? What do you think empiricism is based on?

Definition of EMPIRICAL
1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4: of or relating to empiricism

It's clear now you have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, empiricism is a philosophy, and yes, it was one of my major points that you cannot verify empiricism without engaging in tautologies. You're just proving my point here. Yet, you show complete ignorance here as empiricism is a major foundation for the scientific method. The fact that I would have to prove this to you says it all..

http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/elang273/notes/empirical.htm

"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

I also guess you missed this:

"The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, Thomas Kuhn [2] has promoted the concept that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data."

Meaning, the interpretation of data is philosophical.

3. You quoted people who haven't even graduated university at me???

The OP said he had not yet graduated, it doesn't mean all the participants have not. Did you even read it?

4. You equate spectators at a football game who are there to support their team with scientists collecting data (Scientists at that match would have been making a record of each foul), and on and on with analogies that all demonstrate a sad lack of understanding of how science works, or, in one case, modelling it somewhat accurately, but presenting it as if bias was something scientists didn't openly acknowledge, and didn't have processes to mitigate impact. If religion ever acknowledged its bias, it would cease to exist instantly, because its bias is the entire religion. At the very least, this makes science more mature and credible in the objective world.

Nothing you said here refutes any of the data provided, but is rather just you stating your opinion that it is wrong without backing it up. You also pass off the (now admitted) bias as being mitigated without explaining how. And then you create a false dichotomy by constrasting science and religion, and then attacking religion as "biased" and saying science is superior. If anything it just shows your religious devotion to science and your faith in the secular humanist worldview. Religion and science aren't in a competition, and science has no data on the existence of God. You may believe certain "discoveries" disprove things in the bible, but that is a different conversation. On the essential question, does God exist, science is deaf dumb and blind.

5. You go on with your, "There is plenty of evidence which suggests that God created the universe" spiel which is always countered with "Religion just catalogues things we cannot explain nor ever prove and ascribe them to a deity, knowing (hoping, hoping, please!!!) it will never be possible to disprove them, and all the while ignoring former claims for God that have been shown not to be God, but a newly understood and measurable force.

There are many lines of evidence which show it is reasonable to conclude that the Universe has an intelligent causation. There is evidence from logic, from morality, from design, from biology and cosmology, personal experience, culture, etc. It is not just appealing to some gaps, because special creation, as in the example of DNA, is a superior explanation to random chance. You're also going on about mechanisms which doesn't rule out Agency. You seem very overconfident and this is unwarrented, because there isn't much positive evidence on your side.

6. You are still conflating your "God" (I'm going to start calling him "Yahweh" to prevent this in the future) with any old god. The Big Bang Theory, which you alternately endorse and claim is bunk, could point to a creator, but by no means a god with any of the properties of Yahweh, except the singular property of the ability to create the universe as we know it.

Since time, space, matter and energy began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe would be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unimaginably powerful and transcendent. You can also make a case for a personal God from these conclusions. Before you go on about how no one says the Universe was created from nothing:

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

7. You quote scientists' opinions on religious issues like I think they're infallible prophets or something. Science doesn't work that way. Only religion does.

You seem to believe everything they say when their statements agree with your preconceived notions of reality. How about these statements?

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

Well we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ..ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwins time.

By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.

David M. Raup Chicago Field Museum of Natural History
F.M.O.N.H.B v.50 p.35

8. There's nothing we are "interpreting differently". You are interpreting everything as "Yahweh did it", and I'm not interpreting anything: There observably is CMBR, and it points to a Big Bang billions of years ago. That is all. You leap from this "suggestion" to "therefore it was Yahweh a few thousand years ago".

You're interpreting the evidence as pointing to random chance, I am interpreting it as being the result of intelligent causation.

And actually, without the hypothetical inflation, the smoothness of the CMBR contradicts the predictions of the theory. The CMBR should also all be moving away from the big bang but it is actually going in different directions.

9. I would never scoff at infallibility in anything that can be tested. I scoff only at claims of infallibility where by definition there is no possibility of failure only because there lacks any measure of success, just like every piece of dogma in the Bible, except for the ones that have been proven false, like the shape of the Earth, the orbit of the planets, and so on. Every scientific hypothesis has a measure of success or failure, and when one is disproven, that hypothesis is discarded, except to keep a record of how it was proven false.

Yet billions of people have tested the claims of Jesus and found them to be true. You believe because you fooled yourself with an elaborate delusion that any claim that disagrees with your naturalistic worldview is also an elaborate delusion that people have fallen into. I'm sorry but this does not follow. You're also wrong about your interpretation of the bible; it never claimed the Earth is flat or anything else you are suggesting.

10. I like your story of the scientist who climbs to find a bunch of theologians who have been sitting on a mountain of ignorance for centuries. Apt image. And I don't get the intent anyway. It suggests both that science could one day arrive at total knowledge (doubtful), and that religion has ever produced a shred of useful knowledge (it hasn't).

This is the problem with atheists, is that they are incapable of seeing the other side of the issue. Are you honestly this close-minded that you can't see the implications that Gods existence has for our knowledge? Or are you so pathological in your beliefs that you can't even allow for it hypothetically?

If God has revealed Himself, then obviously this is the most important piece of knowledge there is, and it is only through that revelation that we could understand anything about the world. It is only through that lens that any piece of information could be interpreted, or the truth of it sussed out. So, anyone having that knowledge, would instantly be at the top of the mountain of knowledge. The scientist only reached the top when he became aware of Gods existence by observing the obvious design in the Universe.

In short, I'm through talking about anything logical with you, or attempting to prove anything. You really, really do not understand the essential (or useless) elements of a logical discussion of proof. If you knew them, I would enjoy this debate. If you acknowledged this weakness and were keen to learn them, I would enjoy showing you how they work -- you seem keen. But neither seems the case. [edit -- This may be due to the fact that you're connected to both the objective world and the God world, and you're having trouble only using input from the one stream and not the other, like using input you received from your right eye, but not your left, as our memories are not stored that way. Either way, it is a weakness.]

Your arrogance knows no bounds. You've made it clear from your confusion about empiricism that you really don't know what you're talking about, and you tried to use that as a platform to condescend to me the entire reply. This isn't a logical discussion, this is an exposition of your obvious prejudice. You have no basis for judging my intelligence or capabilities..it's clear that your trite analysis is founded upon a bloated ego and nothing else.

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. Proverbs 11:2

>> ^messenger

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by marbles:
>> ^enoch:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/marbles" title="member since May 7th, 2011" class="profilelink">marbles.
dude.
are you even aware of how contradictory your arguments have been of late?


Contradictory like: "[strawmen arguments] is all i have seen you post ... you make some salient points"?

But evidently I'm the one that's oblivious. So please do tell.

>> ^enoch:
and the irony of calling people out for using strawmen arguments when that is all i have seen you post?


Wrong thread pal. But again, please do tell.
>> ^enoch:

i write this with all sincerity and humility because i feel your heart is in the right place,but man..your arguments are conflations smashed with contradictions.
you make some salient points and then confuse your entire premise with smashing them with red herrings and gobldegook rhetoric.
stay on point brother,
and disagreeing with DFT is fine but questioning his intellect or sanity is a step i would recommend against.
he does not suffer fools lightly and your arguments have left you wide open for a smack down.
just my friendly two cents.


I don't know what a "conflation smashed with contradictions" is, but I would suspect your post is a lot closer than anything I've posted here.

Seriously I appreciate the concern and the Bible reference about suffering fools, but I hope that's not a swipe my intellect or sanity. For that would subvert your whole neutral status, now wouldn't it?

Go back to mindless cheerleading and let DFT fight his own battles. Or rather, babble ad hominem static in-between championing Wall Street agendas.


@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/marbles" title="member since May 7th, 2011" class="profilelink">marbles
did you just bullet response my comment?
/chuckles
awesome.
ok...whatever man.
and by what means did you derive my intentions?
crystal ball? voodoo?
you got me wrong scooter.
you aint got the first clue who i am.
my comment and intentions were sincere.YOU projected your own bullshit which had nothing to do with me.
any inclination i may have had to elucidate further on some of my points has evaporated due to your own feeble understandings of who i am.
so you go right ahead and believe whatever bullshit you want to believe concerning me based on nothing but your own limited perceptions.
because frankly...i dont give a shit.

Miss you? I like you and find you interesting as a person, but I find discussions with you about God's nature mostly unfulfilling. The reason is that you start with a conclusion (the Biblical God exists; the New Testament is literally true), and mishear, ignore and twist every other input you receive to match your conclusion.

By and large the people on the sift attack me and not my arguments, as you're doing here. You and the rest have your own preconceived notions about reality which you zealousy defend. And to imply I am ignorant or logically inconsistant is bull. I used to be like you and think like you; I came from the secular world and I reject it as delusional.

The evidence you have given is a psychotic break you once had. Any other evidence is meaningless to you, so there's no sense even talking to you about these issues. By God's lack of definition, he cannot be proven not to exist. But even if he were clearly defined, and it were possible to categorically prove that he doesn't exist, you wouldn't accept this information because you have suffered a mental injury that prevents you from doing so. (Do you still love me? )

Sometimes you make it hard to love you but I still do. Yes, everyone who has had a spiritual experience is crazy, which is a good slice of the world population. Have you ever thought that maybe you're the one who isn't right? I mean you have to believe that you know better than over 90 percent of the planet and most everyone who has ever lived. No wonder your ego is out of control.

But this is the internet, and what I'm doing at the moment leaves significant gaps of time with nothing to attend to, so here we go, again: As before, I think you're filtering out and twisting what you don't want to hear. Qualia isn't saying God doesn't exist (and he never does, except where someone's definition of God presents a logical impossibility). Rather, he's dismantling Craig's ontological argument by showing that the premises on which it rests are false, and therefore the conclusion is not necessarily true. He's not arguing that it's false, just that Craig's premises are. He's not trying to prove anything, only Craig is. Qualia is showing that Craig's proof in this instance is invalid. And in that, he does a good job, and only proves that Craig's argument doesn't hold because he cannot prove the premises.

Are you kidding me? Listen, read my post, and then try to imagine I am a lot more intelligent than you give me credit for, and then read it again. I know exactly what Qualia was doing, and I showed it up for what it is, a bunch of opinion and fallacy masquarading as logical argumentation. He utterly failed to refute Craig, and it amazes me that anyone could fail to see how weak his arguments are. If you think I am wrong then show me why.

I am not out to prove Gods existence, I am here to tell people they can prove it to themselves. If you prayed to Jesus in humility and asked Him for the truth, He would show it to you. You don't need to trust my experience, you can find out for yourself.

>> ^messenger:
Miss you? I like you and find you interesting as a person, but I find discussions with you about God's nature mostly unfulfilling. The reason is that you start with a conclusion (the Biblical God exists; the New Testament is literally true), and mishear, ignore and twist every other input you receive to match your conclusion.
The evidence you have given is a psychotic break you once had. Any other evidence is meaningless to you, so there's no sense even talking to you about these issues. By God's lack of definition, he cannot be proven not to exist. But even if he were clearly defined, and it were possible to categorically prove that he doesn't exist, you wouldn't accept this information because you have suffered a mental injury that prevents you from doing so. (Do you still love me? <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif"> )
But this is the internet, and what I'm doing at the moment leaves significant gaps of time with nothing to attend to, so here we go, again: As before, I think you're filtering out and twisting what you don't want to hear. Qualia isn't saying God doesn't exist (and he never does, except where someone's definition of God presents a logical impossibility). Rather, he's dismantling Craig's ontological argument by showing that the premises on which it rests are false, and therefore the conclusion is not necessarily true. He's not arguing that it's false, just that Craig's premises are. He's not trying to prove anything, only Craig is. Qualia is showing that Craig's proof in this instance is invalid. And in that, he does a good job, and only proves that Craig's argument doesn't hold because he cannot prove the premises.

In reply to this comment by marbles:
>> ^enoch:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/marbles" title="member since May 7th, 2011" class="profilelink">marbles.
dude.
are you even aware of how contradictory your arguments have been of late?


Contradictory like: "[strawmen arguments] is all i have seen you post ... you make some salient points"?

But evidently I'm the one that's oblivious. So please do tell.

>> ^enoch:
and the irony of calling people out for using strawmen arguments when that is all i have seen you post?


Wrong thread pal. But again, please do tell.
>> ^enoch:

i write this with all sincerity and humility because i feel your heart is in the right place,but man..your arguments are conflations smashed with contradictions.
you make some salient points and then confuse your entire premise with smashing them with red herrings and gobldegook rhetoric.
stay on point brother,
and disagreeing with DFT is fine but questioning his intellect or sanity is a step i would recommend against.
he does not suffer fools lightly and your arguments have left you wide open for a smack down.
just my friendly two cents.


I don't know what a "conflation smashed with contradictions" is, but I would suspect your post is a lot closer than anything I've posted here.

Seriously I appreciate the concern and the Bible reference about suffering fools, but I hope that's not a swipe my intellect or sanity. For that would subvert your whole neutral status, now wouldn't it?

Go back to mindless cheerleading and let DFT fight his own battles. Or rather, babble ad hominem static in-between championing Wall Street agendas.


@marbles
did you just bullet response my comment?
/chuckles
awesome.
ok...whatever man.
and by what means did you derive my intentions?
crystal ball? voodoo?
you got me wrong scooter.
you aint got the first clue who i am.
my comment and intentions were sincere.YOU projected your own bullshit which had nothing to do with me.
any inclination i may have had to elucidate further on some of my points has evaporated due to your own feeble understandings of who i am.
so you go right ahead and believe whatever bullshit you want to believe concerning me based on nothing but your own limited perceptions.
because frankly...i dont give a shit.

>> ^enoch:

@marbles.
dude.
are you even aware of how contradictory your arguments have been of late?


Contradictory like: "[strawmen arguments] is all i have seen you post ... you make some salient points"?

But evidently I'm the one that's oblivious. So please do tell.

>> ^enoch:
and the irony of calling people out for using strawmen arguments when that is all i have seen you post?


Wrong thread pal. But again, please do tell.
>> ^enoch:

i write this with all sincerity and humility because i feel your heart is in the right place,but man..your arguments are conflations smashed with contradictions.
you make some salient points and then confuse your entire premise with smashing them with red herrings and gobldegook rhetoric.
stay on point brother,
and disagreeing with DFT is fine but questioning his intellect or sanity is a step i would recommend against.
he does not suffer fools lightly and your arguments have left you wide open for a smack down.
just my friendly two cents.


I don't know what a "conflation smashed with contradictions" is, but I would suspect your post is a lot closer than anything I've posted here.

Seriously I appreciate the concern and the Bible reference about suffering fools, but I hope that's not a swipe my intellect or sanity. For that would subvert your whole neutral status, now wouldn't it?

Go back to mindless cheerleading and let DFT fight his own battles. Or rather, babble ad hominem static in-between championing Wall Street agendas.

@marbles.
dude.
are you even aware of how contradictory your arguments have been of late?
and the irony of calling people out for using strawmen arguments when that is all i have seen you post?
i write this with all sincerity and humility because i feel your heart is in the right place,but man..your arguments are conflations smashed with contradictions.
you make some salient points and then confuse your entire premise with smashing them with red herrings and gobldegook rhetoric.
stay on point brother,
and disagreeing with DFT is fine but questioning his intellect or sanity is a step i would recommend against.
he does not suffer fools lightly and your arguments have left you wide open for a smack down.
just my friendly two cents.

>> ^chilaxe:

If being a decent human being is based on how much we contribute to humankind, the round-the-clock Silicon Valley work schedule I advocate makes me comfortable with that equation.
I don't see any way to argue that liberalism doesn't on average reduce career outcomes for its followers.
I'm open to changing my mind, though. If Rachael Maddow or TYT started devoting an entire 1% of their on-air-time to knowledge on how to build great careers (one of the most interesting areas of intellectualism), I'd applaud them.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
Anyway, it still seems fair to say that if liberalism had successfully trained him to blame others for his problems and reject careerism, he would probably still be living in the impoverished environment of his youth.

You really should try to learn something about liberalism. Might make you into a better, almost decent, human being.



Being a decent human being, as far as I see it, is largely about empathy, sympathy, and compassion.

Saying "I work a job that I think is awesome" doesn't give you license to say "everyone who makes less than me is lazy and worthless". Decent people instinctively understand that.

Decent people have some basic sense of humility. They realize that while they have some control over whether they make the most of the opportunities they're given, they have very little control over the opportunities that get made available to them. In other words, life isn't fair.

You should know this, given how often you talk about how much genetics factors into people's successes in life. Nobody chose their genes. Nobody chose to be white or black. Nobody chose to be born a man or a woman. Nobody chose to be born in America or Afghanistan. Nobody chose to be born to rich parents or poor parents. Certainly nobody chose to be born into a society where their race, sex, or class is treated badly.

Now someone could choose the other way to look at life. They could say to themself that life is completely fair, and everyone who struggles with it is just inferior. They could resent any and all schemes designed to make helping those inferior people automatic -- they want to choose whether to help or not, emphasis on the not.

Now someone who thinks that way might also believe that the people who think the other way are ipso facto inferior. They might even proclaim, without a single shred of evidence, that having a more grounded view of reality is in fact some sort of detriment to their success.

But personally I think harboring such petty notions only serves to handicap you, in all aspects of life.

Unfortunately you're right - you have to defend yourself at all times. Unfortunately. Because i hate this, i think it's a massively immature and cowardly thing to do. It's a true detriment to the sport, and it doesn't need that right now cos there is fuck all heavyweight skill to pull in the real masses.

It would be rediculous but i'd still strip him of the title if it were up to me, it would be a fitting punishment. Cos let's face it, he'd get it back pretty quick but he'd also have to learn a bit of humility and at the same time the sport gains a bit more infamy/fame and also shows it wants to see good sportsmanship.

Daft thing to say really, but i hate him.

Honesty has nothing to do with morals at all. If he attacks the left, and believes the programs are doomed to fail, then that is his preference. If I tell a woman, "Your children are fat, stupid and selfish," she will flip out--even if done nicely. Even if done to save the child's life and give the child a chance.

Honesty is a cruel thing, but is necessary. Ron Paul is honest, even when he doesn't know he is being honest (Which annoys me.)

America will burn as a nation so long as we remain overweight (You can buy soda with food stamps...lovely huh?) We will burn as long as we promote confidence over humility. We will burn as long as we think 9/11 just magically fucking happened. As long as we prop up corporations with corporate-friendly laws. As long as we think we deserve something for nothing. Our culture is useless and will falter, regardless of stimulus, universal healthcare, welfare, WIC, Unemployment insurance, etc. I favor most of these programs for the needy, but then in this culture it does not good, does it? Because we are entitled and greedy.

Paul admits to these--even if every other politician is to busy sucking every Americans cocks and teats to admit it.

Also, Paul supports liberal causes, just in personal choice. This is not dishonest; perhaps stupidity, but not dishonesty.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Why is he then best friends with Kucinich? Why does everything have to be personal? Can't he just respect Stewart's fascinating honesty? And with that, the part of Stewart's honesty that incorporates and shows off Paul's honesty?

Working backwards:

1. Paul isn't honest.
   
2. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks "honesty" is in direct conflict with being liberal, or supporting Democrats.
   
3. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks Stewart is "honest" because he attacks the Democrats, which apparently Paul thinks is rare for the left to do.
   
4. Paul's "respect" for this "honesty" is further amplified by the fact that Stewart gives him a platform to spread his ideology unchallenged to a new audience.
   
5. Paul has the same "respect" for Kucinich -- Kucinich often attacks the Democrats from the left, and therefore Paul has "respect" for Kucinich's "honesty."