Perfectly legal, but why would you?

Quote:

---

go ahead and ask a preist if not me, or if u have one read the bible.

---

Errrrr...cossack it is you that needs to ask a priest , and it is you that needs to read more scripture (and understand it)

Quote:

---

if fact an argument u wouldve used if i gave several EX's would be that God and christianity is irrelevant to this, so u can keep denying my arguments no matter what statement people CAN agree on.

---

Errrrrr...it appears that (as has been the case throughout the topic ) your post makes no sense at all .
But as an attempt to try and decipher what you are trying to say.....errrr ....No , if you gave several examples I would not say that god or Christianity are irrelevant on this subject , I would say something along the lines of...."consult your preacher and your scripture because you are just so completely and utterly wrong ".:yes:

In short Cossack it appears that what we have here once again on this forum is another prime example of someone proclaiming their faith yet being completely clueless about it .

Quote:

---

Samuel 18:25-27 genteleman

---

Which one strike ? messengers or foreskins ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

"It's overgrown, old and ugly. Torch the place." from this thread

oh and what about

"I say she should shoot those(ie. the officer)" from police brutality or not thread.


yeah...I guess those thing are pretty immoral.

---

1. I don't see the place as anything special, and so it's just empty space that can be put to use instead. Morals don't enter the equation.
2. In war, the soldiers get killed. Are you saying that's immoral? Is it immoral to punish criminals?

But then, if childmolesting priests are considered moral, I guess I'm happy being immoral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

And yes watchman that is my view.

---

Makes me wonder how many of these supposedly ethically underdeveloped and morally putrid unbeliever types you have then actually met...

There's an anecdotal tale about Sir James Frazer, author of The Golden Bough and one of the first dabblers in anthropology, being once asked if he'd actually ever met any of these savages he'd written so extensively about. Sir Frazer, aghast at the thought, exclaimed, "Heavens no!"

May I ask a question? Why are people discussing scripture in relation to policy? What the hell has the latter to do with the former?

Quote:

---

May I ask a question? Why are people discussing scripture in relation to policy? What the hell has the latter to do with the former?

---

Because someone attempted to use religeon and scripture to express views in relation to the policy .......not very well though due to an apparant lack of knowledge about religeon , scripture and policy .:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Now then Seamus , you wrote that Cossacks "point" was more or less moot , where I would say that it was irrelevant nonsense displaying a lack of knowledge of scripture that is generally the norm from those who like to shout "I am a Christian" on this forum .
But what can you say about his last wonderful contribution ?:inquisitive:

---

I would not and did not label it nonsense. You can make an argument for irrelevant -- in context -- and hence moot, but I have heard the very theme invoked by Cossack in at least half a dozen homilies by 3 or 4 different priests. It is an important means of conceptualizing the divine in all of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Hmmmmmm....one wife is enough for me ????????

---

My one is quite sufficient for me -- and far too much for me to handle as well as she does me. Thanks for correcting your chaptering Husar! :devilish:

Quote:

---

My one is quite sufficient for me -- and far too much for me to handle as well as she does me. Thanks for correcting your chaptering Husar!

---

Well the thing there Seamus is that two of the forefathers of the bloke with two wives must have both married their own sisters which means the two wives must both have been his cousins...I suppose there was a big demand for bakeries east of eden as the locals were very into bread .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well the thing there Seamus is that two of the forefathers of the bloke with two wives must have both married their own sisters which means the two wives must both have been his cousins...I suppose there was a big demand for bakeries east of eden as the locals were very into bread .

---

Well, we started with Adam and Eve in book one, no other characters mentioned at first, so I guess it's all.....relative....:wiseguy:

you know what im talking about tribes...but i guess i cant convince your stubborness...

that argument was a counter to husars... HE went into religion... then I COUNTERED it....get it???? plz tell me u do??/1?!!?!1?1/1


oh and my argument hasnt really been countered yet. so... I win?

Goodness me, I swear my use of English and comprehension of the nuances of debate were far more developed when I was 10, let alone 16. Cossack, you should start a thread on how schools in Florida have failed to provide their students with a basic education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

oh and my argument hasnt really been countered yet.

---

You mean you had one to begin with ?

Quote:

---

so... I win?

---

:rtwno: No.

Quote:

---

oh and my argument hasnt really been countered yet. so... I win?

---

errrrr...for your arguement to counter something it would be a good sign if it hadn't been described as moot , wrong or irrelevant nonsense .

Quote:

---

Goodness me,........

---

Pann that is funny , cruel but funny :2thumbsup:

Let's try and elevate the discussion back above personal comments about an opponent's education, shall we?

:beadyeyes2:

Quote:

---

Let's try and elevate the discussion back above personal comments about an opponent's education, shall we?

---

OK then Banquo , on topic , what do you do up your way when you dig graves , or do you have municipal grave diggers ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

i win

---

I must admit, it's rather rare when anyone in the Backroom declares himself a winner. Usually an argument in a thread does not contain a definite conclusion but rather stopped, and occasionally someone with a sense of earnestness would admit defeat and that he learns something from the argument. But self-declared victory? That's something new.

I don't like this that much, really. One of the reasons I got out of "formal" debating was its narrow view on the activity: victory and defeat, tactics, even a subtle admittance of using fallacies (or the annoying habit of pointing every one of them out)...and little about actual worthwhile dialogue and the topic itself beyond what's useful for an argument. While I love debating I love my pacifism more.

I also have to admit that I don't really know what people do with corpses that are too old or graveyards that are too cramped. I guess it never occurs to me that the dead cares much about that stuff.

nah this thread is gonna be locked anyway...might as well declare myself winner.

i'm still waiting for an argument.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

I also have to admit that I don't really know what people do with corpses that are too old or graveyards that are too cramped.

---

In a long Christian tradition dating all the way back to the first centuries AD, in large, cramped cities like Paris or Rome, they were moved elsewhere, to large ossuaries:


Warning, pictures of the deceased follow. May be gruesome or disturbing to some.

Behold the great catacombes of Paris and Rome:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Stop!
This is the Empire of the Dead.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://img88.imageshack.us/img88/46...elamortrb8.jpg


https://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5373/catacombsxx5.jpg


https://img85.imageshack.us/img85/93...acombeszb6.jpg


https://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8497/romeoe7.jpg

Quote:

---

In a long Christian tradition dating all the way back to the first centuries AD, in large, cramped cities like Paris or Rome, they were moved elsewhere, to large ossuaries:

---

Ah tradition , its kind of like the question to Banquo , changes in practice , I wondered if in his part of the country when you dig a grave do you put the old bones on top of or under the coffin nowadays .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

In a long Christian tradition dating all the way back to the first centuries AD, in large, cramped cities like Paris or Rome, they were moved elsewhere, to large ossuaries...

---

FWIW, in Rome it's apparently been against tradition to bury bodies inside where the city walls were, because of ancient tradition and hygiene. That's why the church of San Paolo was just outside of Rome, since even Paul couldn't have his sarcophagus inside the walls. Maybe this is bull, but that's what my tour guide there said a few weeks ago.

:tumbleweed:

thats orginized

too bad bodies are dug up (if they were)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

i'm still waiting for an argument.....

---

What was your argument again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Behold the great catacombes of Paris and Rome:

---

Hey, and I always heard about the Catacombs of Paris. Curious indeed that I never made the connection that Catacombs + Paris can only translate into "Christian tradition in burying the dead." I suppose my IQ (ability to connect the dots) isn't all that high after all. :sweatdrop:

And of the pictures, they look kinda awesome in a way only necropolises can be. My first thought is about the Skeleton Warrior of RPG games. :inquisitive:

I presume they need to be buried first in actual graveyard ground unless you have a sarcophagus or something like that, is that right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

FWIW, in Rome it's apparently been against tradition to bury bodies inside where the city walls were, because of ancient tradition and hygiene. That's why the church of San Paolo was just outside of Rome, since even Paul couldn't have his sarcophagus inside the walls. Maybe this is bull, but that's what my tour guide there said a few weeks ago.

---

Rome! I'm jealous! Hope you had a good time.

I would assume that your tour guide knew what he was talking about.

In Paris, the catacombs are under the city centre. They are also much younger than Rome's. Graveyards and cemeteries were to be found within the city walls, until they were banned in uh, some distant past I don't remember. 18th or maybe even 19th century I guess. It took Europe a while to catch up with the hygienic standards of the Romans...

I'm glad my ghey little fun fact was appreciated. :laugh4: And thanks, Rome and all of Italy I saw was really amazing.

(Sorry to derail the thread, but it was really just cossack being belligerent and a bunch of people taking the bait until we got on the catacombs thing anyway)

actually... read the first two arguments pg 1 and 2. more like opinions but challanged nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah tradition , its kind of like the question to Banquo , changes in practice , I wondered if in his part of the country when you dig a grave do you put the old bones on top of or under the coffin nowadays .

---

I believe we have municipal gravediggers. I'm not entirely sure, as most of my relatives end up in our own mausoleum - where we pack up the bones of peripheral members and pop them in an ossuary after about a hundred years or so. A priest officiates at such events, of course - but then I guess we are godless Catholics disposed to such wickedness.

As far as I can tell about where the bones in graves go, I suspect in my part of the country the badgers dig most of them up, so it becomes moot. :beam:

Quote:

---

I believe we have municipal gravediggers.

---

Well we have them in town , but out of town its usually the neighbours that dig the grave .

It was just that I have noticed changes over the years , it always used to be that you piled the bones on the spill then put them back when you filled , but now more often people put them back before the coffin goes in .

Quote:

---

A priest officiates at such events, of course

---

Oh the priest will turn up , the family always supplies good stuff for whoever is digging and the priest ain't gonna miss out on a drink is he .:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It works both ways, but you are pretty eager in dismissing one of them. Can't change human nature. Homo sapiens non vrinat im vintum, you can find that on a house from 1560 in Amsterdam, 'a wise man doesn't piss against the wind'. Isn't diversity the one and only scource of every genocide in human history?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Not really; it's intolerance of diversity, which is a bit different thing and something civilized people these days are expected to learn out of because we're not a bunch of bloody illiterate savages who think the cow is infertile because a jealous neighbour looked at it funny.

Seeing as how it's nowadays regarded as a distinctly bad form to want to gut your neighbour and burn down his house just because he reads the Bible a bit differently (or more banally, competes with you in business), which was not the case in, say, the 1500s...

---

As far as I can see, most genocides in history arose from all of the following conditions being fulfilled:
1. in a heterogenous population there are clearly identified groups with an intuitive feeling of difference between them - they have different needs, and different ideas of how a country/piece of land should be ruled. These may be very loose correlations, but sometimes also stronger and more accurate correlations
2. these needs/political ideas, which are usually based on their cultural heritage, must seem incompatible
3. there must be a perceived or real threat from the other group, which may be one or more of:
i. the group which currently holds power fears they may lose power soon and thus be assimilated by another, large population group.
ii. the group which previously didn't hold power, is growing stronger and now sees a chance to overthrow the previous group, and claim power, thus introducing their own political ideas as the ruling ones, but they fear the previous holders of power, and their revenge in case of failure in the revolt, and decide to strike preemptively and genocide the previous group that held power
iii. the previously ruling group was considered, by the other group, to not be tolerant enough to that group, and therefore the new group, which is believed to be able to increase its power soon, may wish to do some form of "revenge" (whether the perceived unjustice they suffered was real, or imaginary). The ruling group fears either revenge against intolerance, or actions in response to imaginary cases of unjust treatment. Then, the other group may be genocided. Or - the previously ruling group may lose power, and the new group commits a genocide of the previous group.
iv. a minority group is more successful on average than the other groups. There is a fear among the majority group that these may gain power inofficially, even if they don't do so officially. The fears of what they may do once in power, may be real or imagined. There may also be envy and/or poverty driving the poor to target the rich.
v. a group containing a few very nasty characters who are given much attention give the entire group a bad name. When the fear of innocents within this group grows, the fear from them to the other groups grows too, and this becomes a vicious spiral towards increased mistrust. The group will in some cases start protecting even its criminals and feel more in common with them, than with the non-criminals of other groups. When this happens, things will soon explode
vi. a group is given privileges and very different treatment by the law, even if its crimes are no less disgusting than the crimes of others. This is another case of the last part of v, i.e. the group which has been identified as a group, protects criminals of its own group, over non-criminals of another group.
4. when the fear that individual-based actions against the persons that the fear is really directed against, will receive opposition from the group, in that the group will protect its criminals either for fear of the whole group going to be next anyway (this may be a perception, or a correct analysis), or because of scenarios such as under 3v.
5. the potential victim group must be large and/or strong enough that the perception of the threat makes it at least somewhat realistic to believe they do stand a chance to gain a large amount of influence. Alternatively, the hatred from the potential victim group must be strong enough, that their fighting spirit is worth fearing.

A few well-known examples of the points under no. 3:
3ii - French revolution, Russian revolution
3iv - The massacre of the Huguenots
3v - almost all cases of massive heterogenity coupled with mistrust
3vi - Huguenots, French revolution, Russian revolution

I may have forgotten a few points under no. 3. I have also not always added the necessary detail that most of the time the threat is perceived and not real, but the problem is when one side mistrusts the other, the other side must mistrust the first, and so the fear may eventually no longer be perceived, but real. Indeed, with large enough mistrust, both parts will feel they are in a situation where the only options are to commit a genocide, or suffer one.

As for the situation in Europe today, we have no. 1, no. 2, 3ii, 3iii (the multiculturalists try to make the immigrants feel oppressed by the entire local population, based on their race and/or religion, even though in Europe minorities are tolerated more than anywhere else in the world, or in history), 3v, some people try hard to create 3vi, and some people are trying hard to create no. 4 which we've only seen partly so far. Only no. 5 is missing to create a situation that historically, within around 20 years, usually results in a genocide.

Edit: naturally, the whole thing about preaching multiculturalism and trying with contacts between individuals bridge gaps and create trust by social interactions, is slowing down and pushing conflicts between groups forward in time. However, can they really prevent genocide completely? I have seen nothing yet, which convinces me it can. But since any public statement against multiculturalism is called racism and all who protest are thrown in jail or fired from their jobs in a lot of European countries, is there then any way of avoiding and solving the underlying conflicts that risk causing such events? Or will we rush towards another disaster, and those who suspect its coming can do nothing but cry over the stupidity of mankind? Even if a lot of people have friends among the group that may become victim, will that prevent the bloodshed? I don't think so. Many of the survivors of various genocides have told stories about being betrayed by people who were once some of their dearest friends, or seeing friends within their own group killed by friends within another group. At the heated moment where there was no choices except joining the genocide or being killed, most people out of self-preservation chose to save themselves, or try to avoid contributing to it but without daring to interfere with it. At a moment where the perceived threats are strong, or the probability of these threats being true increases high enough, human beings tend to switch from rationality to irrationality. The whole idea that preaching will prevent the disaster, forgets this fact: that when the pressure goes high enough, the rationality that is being preached (for example, that racism is madness), is forgotten.

At the moment, one may question what group will be identified as a threat, and genocided. Will it be "all immigrants", "all non-immigrants", "all muslims", or "all who at any time at all spoke about dangers of multiculturalism"?