Silly Ben Carson

[gigi]

No. I believe most opinions follow a gradient and aren't binary.

That's fine. But Obama held that point of view when he was elected by the same people who call other candidates bigots and "religicons" for holding that exact point of view. And the folks that engage in that claptrap would like us to forget that not only did they not kick a candidate to the curb over his views on same gender partner marriages but they supported him earnestly and passionately.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

In Gibbon's view, Christianity was the main culprit. As Christianity became more dominant, Rome became less able to incorporate other people into its empire successfully (the insistence on just one God means conquered people are expected to give up their faiths), and the nation became sapped of the will for greatness in this world, as it focused increasingly on mumbo jumbo about the next world.

If Christianity = decline of civilization.. then America must be an outlier.

How do you explain America's rise?

 

[Hmmmm]

That's fine. But Obama held that point of view when he was elected by the same people who call other candidates bigots and "religicons" for holding that exact point of view. And the folks that engage in that claptrap would like us to forget that not only did they not kick a candidate to the curb over his views on same gender partner marriages but they supported him earnestly and passionately.

Voting based upon issues and candidates views isn't binary either. You don't have to agree with everything a candidate says or does when you vote for them.

 

[Craig]

If Christianity = decline of civilization.. then America must be an outlier.

How do you explain America's rise?

Do you mean the United States?

Secular...not Christian.

Other parts of America are Christian. They did not rise to the level the United States did.

 

[Barbella]

Bayerisch is the only dialect, besides standard German, I can follow at all, just because I had so many Bavarian friends. To this day, my instinct is to greet a German with Gruss Gott.

Mine too... LOL

 

[Fast Eddy]

In the late Empire, the people in power didn't vote. They were Emperors who just gave orders. Read.

As usual, you didn't read. I said the people in power voted to give everyone stuff so they could stay in power. That's just like the politicians of today. We are approaching an epic collapse.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Do you mean the United States?

Secular...not Christian.

Other parts of America are Christian. They did not rise to the level the United States did.

The claim is that Christianity brings down civilizations, as it was responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire.

If that's the case, then America's rise, with a heavily Christian populace such as it has been and is, would be impossible, yet here it is...

 

[Craig]

The claim is that Christianity brings down civilizations, as it was responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire.

If that's the case, then America's rise, with a heavily Christian populace such as it has been and is, would be impossible, yet here it is...

Again...America?

There are many nations in America and some are actually Christian as in that is the State Religion. The USA isn't Christian, it is secular. We do not have a State Religion. For the most part, the nations that are Christian have not risen as has the USA, a secular nation.

The American nations that are Christian, i.e. have Christianity as a State Religion, are Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, and El Salvador. In every instance, this is The Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Again...America?

There are many nations in America and some are actually Christian as in that is the State Religion. The USA isn't Christian, it is secular. We do not have a State Religion. For the most part, the nations that are Christian have not risen as has the USA, a secular nation.

The American nations that are Christian, i.e. have Christianity as a State Religion, are Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, and El Salvador. In every instance, this is The Roman Catholic Church.

So if something isn't a state religion, it can't exist?

My goodness, are you REALLY are trying to say that with a straight face?

Wow...

 

[Craig]

So if something isn't a state religion, it can't exist?

My goodness, are you REALLY are trying to say that with a straight face?

Wow...

Well, as I am not saying any such thing, there really is no need for a difficult to keep straight face.

I'm saying...The United States is not a Christian nation.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Well, as I am not saying any such thing, there really is no need for a difficult to keep straight face.

I'm saying...The United States is not a Christian nation.

I never said it was "A Christian nation", I said it was heavily filled with Christians.

The claim is that people who believe in an afterlife "only worried about the afterlife" and let Rome fall.

Just to be clear, you're stating that even though 70+% of Americans are technically Christian (and in the past have practiced it far more aggressively), we must ignore that. Only what is official is what exists...

Meanwhile, The point made by Arkady would mean that 70% of the people would be "busy about worrying about the afterlife", and the United States would be doomed.

 

[Craig]

I never said it was "A Christian nation", I said it was heavily filled with Christians.

The claim is that people who believe in an afterlife "only worried about the afterlife" and let Rome fall.

Just to be clear, you're stating that even though 70+% of Americans are technically Christian (and in the past have practiced it far more aggressively), we must ignore that. Only what is official is what exists...

Meanwhile, The point made by Arkady would mean that 70% of the people would be "busy about worrying about the afterlife", and the United States would be doomed.

I'm saying there is a difference between a "nation of Christians"...and a "Christian Nation".

The Bible is not our legal code.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I'm saying there is a difference between a "nation of Christians"...and a "Christian Nation".

The Bible is not our legal code.

I never said it was

 

[Arkady]

If Christianity = decline of civilization.. then America must be an outlier.

How do you explain America's rise?

I'm not suggesting that Christianity is incompatible with civilization. No religion is. Religion is flexible and, over time, can evolve to be compatible with civilization. In the case of Christianity, the earlier versions of the faith were quite problematic for civilization -- what with their insistence that the world was going to end soon and that nothing in this world really matters, the extreme authoritarianism, the obsession with purity of dogma, and so on. So, you could see as Christianity weakened one people after another. For example, look to Britain. First the pagan Romano-Britons were strong and the area thrived. Then Christianity took over and the Romano-British culture became weak and the area slumped, eventually being overtaken by Pagan Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Then Christianity took them over and they slumped, giving way to the pagan Vikings. Then they were Christianized, too. For about a thousand years, civilization skidded, such that the western world in 1300 was less civilized in most ways than it had been in 300. But, gradually, the version of Christianity that had been so horrible for civilization began to evolve. There was schism in the Catholic faith, weakening the hold of the authoritarian church and providing some breathing room. The Plague and the Reformation further weakened the hold of church power. Then there was Renaissance, with its renewed excitement about the pagan past, and the Enlightenment, when the western world started to embrace a compartmentalized version of Christianity (where it's basically kept in its little cultural box and isn't allowed to interfere with things that actually matter). America arose from that Enlightenment tradition. It formally embraced a separation of church and state. It stopped diverting public funds to the support of churches. It forbade religious tests for office. And it thrived -- soon surpassing the countries that hadn't made as much progress compartmentalizing religion.

 

[Arkady]

As usual, you didn't read. I said the people in power voted to give everyone stuff so they could stay in power. That's just like the politicians of today. We are approaching an epic collapse.

The people in power didn't vote. Which part of this are you having trouble understanding?

 

[Spamature]

So what's the ulterior motive? Can you show us where, when, and how they're lying?

I am not saying he's lying. I am not even saying that he is wrong (what do I know) . I am saying he has an agenda and that it could color his conclusions.

Suppose this was an article on climate change and the degradation to the environment caused by the use of carbon based fuels.

At the end of the article it says this:


The Solare foundation is a non-profit corporation whose mission is to make solar panels the primary method on energy production in Western culture through media, education, and literature. In seeking to accomplish this mission, Solare provides perspective on the integration of the academic disciplines and promotion of solar panel use.

Also I might add that it is also done to the exclusion of other alternative energy sources. Just as the mission of the author excludes other religions in his mission as being a basis for solutions

If this were the case you might question that he an ulterior motive that could play a role in his results in regards to or about the cause and effect of climate change and the environment.

 

[middleview]

I know that Arkady must be bright in some areas. You don't graduate law school and have a successful career without some native intelligence. But the weird crap that pops out of that guy's mouth is awfully hard to square with the idea of an educated person.



http://www.leaderu.com/common/nationsdie.html

Welcome to "Progressive" America, 2014.

Really? So when Chris Cox transferred 150 people out of enforcement and investigations at the SEC, allowing banks and brokerages to sell crap and call it AAA grade investments....allowed Bernie Madoff to run a virtual brokerage...let an insurance company like AIG write insurance policies without a penny to pay claims...that wasn't an encouragement to ignore the laws....

And when Ronald Reagan & George HW Bush quadrupled the national debt and George W. Bush doubled it....that was not an example of a lack of economic discipline?

 

[BitterPill]

I know that Ben Carson must be bright in some areas. You don't graduate med school and have a successful medical career without some native intelligence. But the weird crap that pops out of that guy's mouth is awfully hard to square with the idea of an educated person. For example, he is attributing the fall of the Roman Empire to political correctness and gay marriage.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ntial-bid-suddenly-looks-a-lot-more-realistic
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/29/ben-carson-marriage-equality-could-destroy-amer/193345

Roman history is a hobby of mine and I can't say I recall any historian ever linking the fall of Rome to political correctness or gay marriage. There are all sorts of theories, stemming from lead poisoning and epidemics to systematic economic breakdowns and economic inequality. The most famous historian of the Fall, though, was Gibbon, and his take on the decline of Rome was almost 180-degrees removed from Carson's. In Gibbon's view, Christianity was the main culprit. As Christianity became more dominant, Rome became less able to incorporate other people into its empire successfully (the insistence on just one God means conquered people are expected to give up their faiths), and the nation became sapped of the will for greatness in this world, as it focused increasingly on mumbo jumbo about the next world.

The late Roman empire is about as far from "politically correct" as it's possible to be. And it actually grew MORE hostile to homosexuality later in the era. Early on, they were more influenced by Hellenistic culture, which was fairly tolerant of homosexuality. Later, under Christian emperors, Rome became extremely intolerant -- treating homosexuality as a crime and doling out "exquisite punishment" for it (see the edicts of Constantius II and Constans, and the Theodosian Code). As Rome became less politically correct and more hostile to homosexuality, it became weaker and weaker. So, Carson's idea isn't just out of left field -- it's contrary to the most basic understanding anyone who'd studied Roman history would have.

I guess it's possible to be a smart surgeon and yet a great idiot in other areas. Perhaps Carson should keep that in mind and at least try to do some remedial reading on other topics before publicly making claims about them. It would be like me making public pronouncements on the efficacy of a certain surgical procedure without even bothering to crack a book on the topic.

The good doctor also thinks learning US history, warts and all, will make people want to join ISIS:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...urse-will-make-kids-want-to-sign-up-for-isis/

good thing he didn't learn much about it.

 

[BitterPill]

If Christianity = decline of civilization.. then America must be an outlier.

How do you explain America's rise?

While I believe lead poisoning of the Roman aristocratic elite led to its increasingly bizarre behavior and the eventual fall of Rome, not Christianity, perhaps comparing the US to Rome is the problem. Rome was an empire based on a single city state after all; Americans have no analogue, and we Americans were able to learn a great deal from the collapse of the Roman republic.

 

[MaryAnne]

I recommend actually reading some history, then re-engaging with this topic. Any sentence that starts with "The Roman Empire failed because they kept voting..." is going to be wrong. It'll be more than just wrong. It'll act as a sign that says, "Hey, look here, a dimwit wants to chime in on the subject of Rome without ever having cracked a book on the subject."

By the time the Western Roman Empire fell, the voting had been largely ceremonial for centuries. From about the time of Diocletian, the Senate was basically irrelevant, and certainly played no meaningful role in "voting themselves money." The Western Roman Empire didn't fall for almost 200 years after Diocletian. The late Empire was an autocracy. If you want to find what led to the fall of the Roman Empire, it isn't going to have a damned thing to do with voting.

I hate to say this,Arkady, but what you just posted about the Senate in the Roman Empire describes what we have as a Senate today,along with the House of Representatives. Both totally irrelevant

What a sad state of affairs we have come to. Sinking in the weight of stupidity by those who keep electing the fools and charleton's.