Kingdom on Earth (Re: Barack Obama comments)

Hey, brenna, as far as your OP goes I saw a relatively large segment of Obama's ummmm... thing... where he mentions building a kingdom.Like you, I cringe at theological language, and he seems to keep using it. Then again as NJ states, it may be for political reasons and he has stated other dems need to discuss their faith more (presumably for that reason).While I winced when he said it, from what I understood he was actually suggesting that people worry less about huge theological concerns and more about their everyday lives. Don't worry about end times and after death, but focus on making a good life on earth.My only problem with Obama, who right now I definitely would vote for if he was a candidate, is his excess religious verbiage and his seemingly fanatical support for Israel. Every time I've seen him questioned on that subject he shuts it down hard. And I don't mean by giving a reasonable answer. At one campaign stop he gave a brief "they're the only democracy in the region and our friends" then pretty well turned his back on the woman and walked away. Mmmmmm, didn't like that.I've been waiting to see him in a spot where he has to answer the question in a thoughtful way. If anyone knows of such a case I'd be interested in knowing what he said.Anyway, that sort of defies Buz's theory. I doubt an Islamic radical is going to be that pro-Israel. Then again maybe that's his cover, and he keeps dodging the question to avoid accidentally screeching death to Israel.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Yeah, I saw you decided not to vote... but I am wondering what you had against Obama up till now.Besides those two negatives I mentioned, I think he's refreshing and intelligent.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Yep. Like I said if anyone else knows where I can find him explaining his position on Israel beyond such banter, I would seriously like to see it.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Unless Biden (is he still in?) or Clinton end up in the Dem spot, this will be the first time in years that I'll actually like who I'm voting for. And it will be quite exciting.If Ron Paul ends up in the Rep spot... it'll end up being the first election ever that I'll feel proud to be an American.Two people that aren't recent party line would be very cool.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Unfortunately I think the American public has voted for much worse, many many times in the past... including this last Prez election.I agree with feeling uneasy with his religious talking points, but I can look past that if he can run a non faith-based administration. He seems pretty level-headed most of the time.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

You understand that doesn't actually answer his question, right? Yes, you can make up a concept, draw boundaries to define it, then apply it. But that doesn't make it a justification for the arbitrary rule at all.As it stands animals and children can consent. This has been discussed before. The definition then shifts to "informed consent". The two should not be confused. And that latter term has still not been made an objective definition, nor consistently applied.The difference between your arbitrary position, and a Xian's arbitrary position (which would lump them all in with homosexuality) is merely the criteria used.The question... and this may very well have been the actual question posed... is what reason do we have to choose one over the other? I don't see an answer to that.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I was definitely able to vote in US elections while overseas. In fact I'd have to say it was even easier than voting in the states. They mail everything to you and its all very clear... they even gave me a magnifying glass to help see everything.However I was not able to vote in dutch elections. I believe that if I received a residence permit I'd have been able to vote in local elections, but still not in federal ones. But I never got that or citizenship.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

When overseas (though this may be different for military) you are still considered a "resident" of the last place in the US you lived. So you contact whatever election board that handles your community elections, and they'll do (hopefully) what needs to be done.Now that I think about it, maybe I shouldn't have been so positive about my voting experience. While my area's board was fantastic in providing materials to me, that might not be the case everywhere.I am in the States right now, though if I'm lucky I'll be back overseas by next election. Wellll... I suppose if I get really lucky in the US then I'll stay here, but I do feel more at home overseas and so would prefer that kind of luck.You didn't pester me at all. Unfortunately my email service dropped me without my knowledge (I went for well over a month before discovering it), and during that same period I lost all my old contact info for others. I've updated my EvC profile with my current email address, and so am email-able again. Sorry about that screwup.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

There is no perfect way to objectively apply "X". Big effing deal. In many cases it's too clear to bother arguing.You could put lots of things in that equation. Sick, degenerate, unnatural, perverse, harmful to society, etc... The fact that it is not objective and admittedly cannot be applied objectively, except through "clarity" you assert, does not create much of an argument for its legitimacy. Bad prediction skills. The answer is yes. We have been over this before. Almost everything except the unconscious and the dead can give consent. But my guess is you meant Informed Consent, in which case you are equivocating on terms.Assuming you mean informed consent, then I'd say from my interpretation of what that means (not sure what yours is yet), the very straight answer is no. A one year old infant has no understanding beyond its own immediate desires.But here is where your inconsistency comes out. If you believe they cannot consent (simple or informed), and that is the basis of the rule, then what can you do with an infant at all? Hence, consent is either not the issue, not fully the issue, or not consistently the issue. So the question is what does informed consent have to do with anything, and why have you chosen to apply it to the case you have mentioned (beyond convenience)? Well I can't speak for what NJ's exact moral rule is, just as I cannot speak for yours (until you explain it). But clearly his rule ends up lumping them all in together. Let me take a crack at it (though remember I am Devil's Advocating).Aberrant mental behavior is harmful, to individuals and society, and so wrong (or should be legally restrained). Indeed people engaging in such display an inability to accurately/maturely judge their environment and so cannot (if we want to match it to your own stated criteria) give "informed consent" (like an undeveloped child or someone with a more overt mental incapacity). Hence homosexuality gets lumped in with the rest, as they are all clearly aberrant behaviors (which could be called "wrong"), or even cases that lack informed consent (if I want to use your own criteria).So why do I choose yours over the above? I don't see an answer. Well that sure makes it hard to discuss. Do they all mean the same thing by consent as you do? Applied to the same situations as you have? Apparently not, when bestiality is allowed across sections of Europe. They also have different takes on age issues and homosexuality. So it would seem your 100% claim breaks down at your front door.And then I could point out that a vast majority of the world views homosexuality as bad, and heterosexuality as good. The point is so obvious it needn't be argued. The same goes for religious, versus atheist.Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy... and that's if I bought your manufactured figure for sake of argument.I'm offering the above as an explanation, and have not advanced a further attack on your position. This is so clearly outside the bounds of this thread, I hope we can leave it at this. If you want to discuss it further, please start another thread. I'd even be willing to do a great debate on it.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Being told many times by many people does not mean they are right, and the single person wrong. He (and indeed anyone) has a right to keep repeating a question if it is not sufficiently answered.This is just as true in science as it is in moral questions. Shouting a person down is NOT an answer.On this subject NJ had an excellent point... in a past thread... that consent is simply a semantic tool used to disguise an absolute morality. I have never seen that objection answered at all.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I have never claimed questions you asked in that thread have been answered. Nor have I claimed that you don't have a right to keep asking them. I will begin answering them once you show a capacity not to attack me personally, during the asking of a question as well as in your answers.I am only asking for civility, and I AM the sole arbiter of WHO I will answer.As far as Nator and NJ goes, she is claiming his question has been answered, which it hasn't been. That many tell him something, does not make it true. Yes.Frankly I'd love to see a mature, well-reasoned debate on this topic. But it would really have to be free of animus... and not in this thread.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Crash, I already explained in an earlier post to you that I stopped discussion with you because of behavior in another thread. That was before I even saw your post in the one I created. I personally had no problems with your first post in that thread, or in I think one or two others.However, in the other thread I asked if you could be civil, and you said no. You continue to prove that is the case.We will begin discussing actual issues, when you can agree to be civil and roundly stop attacking me personally.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Yeah, but they are just saying a word, which is not an answer. It's not that I NOW want to argue the definition, I ALWAYS HAVE argued about the definition. Its just that people have "forgotten" that and repeat the same thing they did earlier.If NJ is guilty of repeating an already answered point, then so are most here who keep bringing up consent. You say normal, but I just said that across sections of europe bestiality is legal. To them homosexuality is the same as bestiality. Are they not normal? There are others who would say homosexuals have as little ability to give consent as children or the insane. Are they not normal? Who is normal?I could likewise find a large audience that would agree that homosexuality is aberrant behavior. So if they answer "aberrant" to a question of why all those issues are the same, would that make it a reasonable answer? Could they claim normalcy if they were in the majority?I think NJ gets what everyone is saying, that they are using a term called consent, and likely to US version, but the devil is in the details. There is no reason why consent (and again I must ask people be accurate as to simple or informed consent) should be accepted as a criteria any more than another. Or at least no argument has been made as such.If people really want to discuss this, please open a thread. I'm not going to open that can of worms again, but I'll wriggle into it if someone else does.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

My answer to your questions here, are in the other thread. There will be no more answers given on this subject in this thread. Thank you.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Now about that Obama guy...Does anyone have a problem that he's too thin and good looking?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard