Left wingers in USA seem to be more imperialist fascists than right wingers nowadays

[ElishaElijah]

Buddha is also active in people's lives. So is Muhammed. So is Seth, Ra, Odin, Mithra, etc

No they aren’t they don’t even claim that, they all know these people are dead, no so with Jesus Christ, He is alive and speaking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really

Yes, really. It is one of the reasons that we know that the story is a myth.

 

[Valjean]

Ignoring a guess not a fact, scientists have
A habit of mixing a little truth with error and that’s
called a deception.

You think scientists are being deliberately deceptive? -- to what end? It would have to be the most massive deception in history, with every scientist on the planet in on it.
Science is all about eliminating guesswork, that's why the process involves trying to disprove your own theorem and inviting criticism of new ideas from peers.
Scientific facts are not guesses, they're overwhelmingly evidenced, tested and often predictive. Even theorems are well evidenced.

A theory isn’t a fact and you cannot prove millions of years ago, it’s a guess. No human being was here to say or observe anything.

A theory often is a fact, A fact is something: "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent" -- Steven Jay Gould.
Earth being spherical, germs causing disease, and the Earth orbiting the Sun are all facts -- and theories. The two are not mutually exclusive.
A theory, in science, is never a guess.

We can know things without having actually witnessed the thing. Often, we can know a great deal more about something, and much more reliably, with evidence other than eyewitness.
There are no known eyewitnesses to Jesus and his deeds, for example.

I have very good reasons because He promised and has provided for our family for the last 25 years, faithfully. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by God’s Word.
Your definition of faith is just presumption.

What evidence do you have for any of your theology? You criticize science for speculation and lack of evidence, but you clearly know nothing about the scientific method, what evidence is, how to assess it, or why science says things you disagree with.
And how do you know it's not Krishna answering your prayers and providing for you? The Gita says it's always Krishna who answers, regardless of the name you attach to your prayers.

What is your definition of "faith?"

So, again, what actual evidence do you have for this God, this Christ, or any of the things described in the Bible about his life?
The Bible is an anthology of folk tales; highly edited by people with agendas and passed down for two thousand years in a massive game of telephone. It's full of errors, contradictions, and edits. Do you really not know this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No they aren’t they don’t even claim that, they all know these people are dead, no so with Jesus Christ, He is alive and speaking.

Too bad that you have no more evidence that Jesus is alive than he has that Buddha et al. are alive.

 

[Valjean]

Matthew and Luke. The Jews kept great records of genealogy and we have these records. There are no records past Adam and Eve. Scientists say this or that but the names stop at Adam and Eve. All kind of human activity from Adam and Eve onward for writing and civilization.

Noöne knows who wrote any of the Gospels. The names of disciples were added lated in an effort to lend them credence. Bible scholars agree on this.

Can you link to anything about this "great record and genealogy keeping?" It seems to me there is a great deal of contradiction, speculation and ad hoc record keeping in the Bible.

There is a lot of evidence for human societies dating back hundreds of thousands of years. There's no evidence of two humans magically poofed into existence a few thousand years ago.

 

[Valjean]

NPR is running repeated interviews with the tearful
father of a soldier who is one of the 13 killed in the
bombing during the war's end. They've had many
other pieces criticizing exiting the Afghan war.
They never had such weepy eyed criticism when
Obama oversaw far more deaths. Why?
I see a strong possibility that the left (NPR) favor
war to fix ****hole countries, & make them over
in our image.
The left loves to paint only the right as imperialist.
Don't they own mirrors?

When does "The Left" ever favor war?
Wars are usually pursued to secure markets for corporate interests, or to prevent the development of functional, democracies or 'socialist' states -- which might set a bad example.

What are some examples of leftist imperialism? (leftist, not Democratic).

 

[Revoltingest]

When does "The Left" ever favor war?

When they vote for hawks.
I gave examples.

Wars are usually pursued to secure markets for corporate interests, or to prevent the development of functional, democracies or 'socialist' states -- which might set a bad example.

I don't buy that conspiracy theory.
Voter elect hawks repeatedly.
Then they gripe about repeated wars,
& blame some unnamed conspirators.

What are some examples of leftist imperialism? (leftist, not Democratic).

The wars in Iraq & Afghanistan had bi-partisan support.
Thus the left supports imperialism....albeit not the good
old fashioned kind where we get booty....just the new
kind that's about vengeance & re-making ****hole countries
over in our image...all at great cost instead of profit.

 

[Valjean]

This is a false statement and the Bible isn’t a claim it’s the story of Creation, God’s relationship to people He chose to have a relationship with, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob which is Israel now as well as the nations surrounding them even to this day. Their captivity, their return to the land God gave them, the coming of Jesus and the promise of eternal life through Him for the whole world. The end of this age and the New.
God has made known what is to come ahead of time and people are still blind to this, Daniel and Revelation speak of the events preceding the end. We are racing there.
But we are talking about fossil fuels and how I believe God created the earth to manufacture oil and gas for our needs, I don’t believe anyone knows how much we have or all the ways the earth manufactures fossil fuels.

You're citing an unreliable source. What actual evidence do you have for any of this?

 

[ElishaElijah]

You think scientists are being deliberately deceptive? -- to what end? It would have to be the most massive deception in history, with every scientist on the planet in agreement.

Not even close that every scientist is in agreement

 

[ElishaElijah]

Bible scholars agree on this.

Some Bible scholars but not all.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You're citing an unreliable source. What actual evidence do you have for any of this?

The Bible is a reliable source and always has been. For example the law of sowing and reaping.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not even close that every scientist is in agreement

It depends upon the subject. If it is gravity or evolution they are. It is only a very very small handful of loons that deny either. By the way, there is more evidence for the theory of evolution than their is for gravity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible is a reliable source and always has been. For example the law of sowing and reaping.

I don't think that you understand what a "law" is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some Bible scholars but not all.

Again a very strong majority of biblical scholars believe this. You are probably confused because apologists are not scholars, but they pretend to be.

 

[Valjean]

I think if we're talking about the establishment left, that may be true. However, I've also seen plenty (who might regarded as "fringe") strongly oppose the war all along.

I'd call this "establishment left" moderates. The real left has opposed almost all war.

With Afghanistan, it was different, especially after the death of Bin Laden. It seemed to be played up more as a "wolf by the ears" situation. We didn't really want to be there, but letting go seemed an irresponsible option.

The political motivations were suspect from the beginning.
We could have handled the 2nd WTC attack the same way we handled the first -- investigate and arrest the perps. We chose, rather, to pursue a war that had already been planned, and was just waiting on the shelf for a suitable Klein shock to rile people up and affect a knee-jerk reaction.

Bin Ladin was just a figurehead. We could have had him early in the game. The Taliban even offered to turn him over several times -- even while we were claiming we would cease hostilities if only he'd surrender, or someone would turn him in.

There were no communists to fight in Afghanistan. Our enemies were ostensibly fighting for a different ideology and a different cause, thus making the battle for hearts and minds a completely different kettle of fish.

Ever since WW2, both parties favored an internationalistic foreign policy; the isolationists had been thoroughly ostracized and discredited in the eyes of the American people. The general policy of containment and the philosophy which justified has become a cornerstone in our foreign and military policies - embraced by professionals and experts in those fields, and propagated by both major political parties. Both touted themselves as patriotic and pro-American, different only by degrees. Both believed in American exceptionalism.

Well said.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Again a very strong majority of biblical scholars believe this. You are probably confused because apologists are not scholars, but they pretend to be.

There are Bible scholars who are believers and those who are unbelievers and they are not in agreement with each other. Believers have the Spirit of God and unbelievers don’t and that’s
why they don’t see things the same.

 

[Valjean]

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year | American Enterprise Institute - AEI

1. One man's opinion.
2. True.
3. Not science; an editorial -- and true.
4. Likely true, but premature.
5. One man's opinion, as above; also failed to anticipate other major threats.
6. One man's opinion. Premature.
7. One man's opinion. Premature.
8. Premature. Failed to anticipate other, more serious threats.
9. Not science; an article in a popular magazine.
10. Again, one man's opinion. Not a scientific consensus.
11. One man's opinion -- and it's been happening more and more frequently.
12. One man's opinion -- premature.
13. One man's opinion.
14. Not science; one man's opinion.
15. One man's opinion.
16. One man's opinion; prescient, but slightly premature.
17. True -- but premature.
18. Finally! Something based on erroneous "facts." One man's wrong opinion.

This doesn't represent any scientific consensus. It's a collection of alarmist, or
'true but premature', predictions by a few individuals. This is not "Science."

 

[Valjean]

There are Bible scholars who are believers and those who are unbelievers and they are not in agreement with each other. Believers have the Spirit of God and unbelievers don’t and that’s
why they don’t see things the same.

What the heck is "the spirit of God;" a feeling? Is it testable? predictive? universal? Don't True Believers in all religions make similar claims?
The facts are the facts. Disinterested scholars accept them, believers rationalize them.

 

[Stevicus]

I'd call this "establishment left" moderates. The real left has opposed almost all war.

True. Part of the problem is the varying definitions of "left" used in the media. And of course, within the Democratic Party itself, there has usually been a rift between the moderates and progressives, which was probably the main factor in leading up to the riots of the '68 Democratic convention.

But a lot of it is rooted in the origins of the Cold War, the policy of containment implemented by the Truman Administration, and our overall (albeit cynical and ignorant) perceptions and attitudes about the outside world. Both liberals and conservatives also share much the same view about America itself - the land of the free, shining city on the hill, and suggestions that our whole reason for being is to make the world safe for democracy. It's from that ideological belief that most of our foreign and military policies are justified in the eyes of the people.

The political motivations were suspect from the beginning.
We could have handled the 2nd WTC attack the same way we handled the first -- investigate and arrest the perps. We chose, rather, to pursue a war that had already been planned, and was just waiting on the shelf for a suitable Klein shock to rile people up and affect a knee-jerk reaction.

Bin Ladin was just a figurehead. We could have had him early in the game. The Taliban even offered to turn him over several times -- even while we were claiming we would cease hostilities if only he'd surrender, or someone would turn him in.
Well said.

I've heard that Taliban offered to turn him over, but I don't recall if that was ever announced on the news back in 2001 or 2002. Why didn't our government take them up on the offer? Or do they deny that an offer was ever made?

If they wanted to start a war and invade a country just for the sake of invading a country, invading Afghanistan was stupid and pointless, not to mention the logistical difficulties of occupying a landlocked country surrounded by hostile nations.

If they wanted to invade a country, they could have picked Canada or Mexico. Much more convenient, closer to home, and easier to keep and annex. Not only that, but it would have immediately solved the issue of illegal immigration, illegal border crossings, and labor shortages in the U.S.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah and you can fill in the blanks however you want. Hence millions of years. You say false yet Adam and Eve are the first named human beings and civilization just shows up at that time.

NO! Where are you getting this information?