Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Hanafuridake]

How much ancient Greeks and Romans interpreted myths literally is debatable. Lots of classical philosophers criticized Homer and Hesiod for attributing immoral actions to the gods, probably mostly famously Plato who thought that Homer ought to be banished from his ideal republic. There's not much in common between the Iliad's Zeus and the Stoic's.


The bloodshed in the Old Testament dwarfs just about every other violent episode in mythology, with the exception of the Aztecs and Quran.

I thought all agnostics and the ones who don't see God conforming to their feeble morals as somebody who should fix the world and eradicate evil? Then He goes and orders evil to be eradicated and still you complain? There is no satisfying the treacherous human heart.

I'm not an agnostic, I'm a very religious Buddhist. Or at least try to be.

The slaughters of the Old Testament didn't eradicate evil. They just killed crying women and children.

[Diopolis]

Show me an example of doing that.

Chaos gods? Do you think we're living in 40k?

Sorry that my phrasing has swag. Now go play with your hyper-realistic toy soldiers re-enacting the battle of Vienna, or something...

The fact that all of earth except for eight people deserved it(if we're taking the bible literally, it's best to just accept that fact) can be expressed without seeming to imply the existence of other gods.

[Temple State]

Poor Nephilim and Cain's descendants that could not rape the Earth with their chaos gods...

Oh, so there are other gods now?

False gods are mentioned innumerable times in the Bible. And that God is the God of gods. Meaning: There is One True Living God, one God that brings Salvation and One God that is the True Creator of Earth and Humanity.
The prime example of the most "powerful" of false gods: Money (Mammon).

[Bear Stearns]

Investment bankers do not set interest rates! Investment banks don't even maintain depository accounts (well some technically do but they legally have to be separate from the investment bank).

Investment bankers advise on mergers & acquisitions and solicit investors (hedge funds, private equity shops, rich people) to invest their money in a company.

If you own a business and want to sell it, you hire an investment banker to run that process for you.

I know the difference. But smaller banks can sometimes act on a license from a private central bank and lend on their behalf, even when the credits are just created out of thin air.

Still, no matter such licenses or not, you cannot evade the truth: They all operate on the basis of interest. That is usury. Usury is immoral and does not add any value to the real economy, but detracts from it.

If you're defining usury as punitively high interest rate, then I agree with you that usury should be outlawed. I personally think small lending (credit cards, auto loans, payday loans, etc.) should be much might tightly regulated because most of the people who take out those loans are financially illiterate and are basically being taken advantage of and are in fact victims of usury.

If you define usury as all interest rates, then I think you are wrong and that is a stupid way to view it.

[Duvniask]

I don't think you understand what the real issue here is.

Let me spell it out for you: maybe you shouldn't adhere to a holy book that condones genocide and literally, unquestionably describes it as being done under God's command. And this reasoning suggests you'd be more than willing to carry it out were you to receive such a "mandate" once more.

And yet somehow most Christians aren't out there committing genocide or mass-murder. That tends to be the other Abrahamic religion doing that.

Neither are most Muslims, it would seem, but of course, this had to turn into a "Muslims are evil"-bit, because people like you can't help themselves.

In any case, this doesn't address the issue of adhering to a book that definitely supports genocide.

[Temple State]

I thought all agnostics and the ones who don't see God conforming to their feeble morals as somebody who should fix the world and eradicate evil? Then He goes and orders evil to be eradicated and still you complain? There is no satisfying the treacherous human heart.

I'm not an agnostic, I'm a very religious Buddhist. Or at least try to be.

The slaughters of the Old Testament didn't eradicate evil. They just killed crying women and children.

So you read Genesis 6 then? Tell us who these people were according to it. If you believe in the Flood you must surely also believe in the reason for it.

[Diopolis]

And yet somehow most Christians aren't out there committing genocide or mass-murder. That tends to be the other Abrahamic religion doing that.

Neither are most Muslims, it would seem, but of course, this had to turn into a "Muslims are evil"-bit, because people like you can't help themselves.

I thought he was talking about Jews.

[Nova Cyberia]

And yet somehow most Christians aren't out there committing genocide or mass-murder. That tends to be the other Abrahamic religion doing that.

Neither are most Muslims, it would seem, but of course, this had to turn into a "Muslims are evil"-bit, because people like you can't help themselves.

I'm not saying Muslims are evil, but I am saying the Christian world has less violence and religious extremism in it than the Muslim world.

[Kowani]

Oh, so there are other gods now?

False gods are mentioned innumerable times in the Bible. And that God is the God of gods. Meaning: There is One True Living God, one God that brings Salvation and One God that is the True Creator of Earth and Humanity.
The prime example of the most "powerful" of false gods: Money (Mammon).

So why are you invoking them now if they’re false as if they were real?

[Diopolis]

False gods are mentioned innumerable times in the Bible. And that God is the God of gods. Meaning: There is One True Living God, one God that brings Salvation and One God that is the True Creator of Earth and Humanity.
The prime example of the most "powerful" of false gods: Money (Mammon).

So why are you invoking them now if they’re false as if they were real?

The standard conservative Christian rebuttal is that false gods are demons masquerading as gods, and thus actually exist, but are not God. It's mentioned in the bible somewhere.

[Hanafuridake]

I'm not an agnostic, I'm a very religious Buddhist. Or at least try to be.

The slaughters of the Old Testament didn't eradicate evil. They just killed crying women and children.

So you read Genesis 6 then? Tell us who these people were according to it. If you believe in the Flood you must surely also believe in the reason for it.

All that Genesis 6 says is that God grieves about how wicked human beings are, and something about angel-human kinkiness, but that's besides the point. The Flood is a separate topic from what I'm talking about. I specifically mentioned Numbers 31 earlier.

[Temple State]

I know the difference. But smaller banks can sometimes act on a license from a private central bank and lend on their behalf, even when the credits are just created out of thin air.

Still, no matter such licenses or not, you cannot evade the truth: They all operate on the basis of interest. That is usury. Usury is immoral and does not add any value to the real economy, but detracts from it.

If you're defining usury as punitively high interest rate, then I agree with you that usury should be outlawed. I personally think small lending (credit cards, auto loans, payday loans, etc.) should be much might tightly regulated because most of the people who take out those loans are financially illiterate and are basically being taken advantage of and are in fact victims of usury.

If you define usury as all interest rates, then I think you are wrong and that is a stupid way to view it.

The RCC changed its view of this in the 1500s or so. Before that all interest on loans was considered usury, as it is. Now it is only interest rates considered "too high". This was pure expediency. Before they had employed the Jews for it, as had the Muslims done. Because Jews cannot offer loan with interest to other Jews, because it is usury, but they can offer loans at any rate to non-Jews.
Of course, for this reason, Jews got the reputation that we know from Ancient and Medieval times, because Kings and Caliphs used them as their bankers.

Still, the original teaching is that all interest on loans is usury.

[Kowani]

Neither are most Muslims, it would seem, but of course, this had to turn into a "Muslims are evil"-bit, because people like you can't help themselves.

I'm not saying Muslims are evil, but I am saying the Christian world has less violence and religious extremism in it than the Muslim world.

Now. Ask about that a couple hundred years ago.

So why are you invoking them now if they’re false as if they were real?

The standard conservative Christian rebuttal is that false gods are demons masquerading as gods, and thus actually exist, but are not God. It's mentioned in the bible somewhere.

Sure, and that’s fine. That’s a fair rebuttal. But he’s invoking them as if they were gods.

[Temple State]

False gods are mentioned innumerable times in the Bible. And that God is the God of gods. Meaning: There is One True Living God, one God that brings Salvation and One God that is the True Creator of Earth and Humanity.
The prime example of the most "powerful" of false gods: Money (Mammon).

So why are you invoking them now if they’re false as if they were real?

In society, in people's minds, full of illusions, there they are "real" as if they have to be obeyed and every principle that follows from them, and every vice, like greed coming from Mammon e.g.
How could I belie the fact that humans are deluded?

Any demon can be made into "a god" by a human that worships it and praises the vices as virtuous, that come from its domain.

[Diopolis]

If you're defining usury as punitively high interest rate, then I agree with you that usury should be outlawed. I personally think small lending (credit cards, auto loans, payday loans, etc.) should be much might tightly regulated because most of the people who take out those loans are financially illiterate and are basically being taken advantage of and are in fact victims of usury.

If you define usury as all interest rates, then I think you are wrong and that is a stupid way to view it.

The RCC changed its view of this in the 1500s or so.

The RCC does not and cannot change.

Before that all interest on loans was considered usury, as it is. Now it is only interest rates considered "too high". This was pure expediency. Before they had employed the Jews for it, as had the Muslims done. Because Jews cannot offer loan with interest to other Jews, because it is usury, but they can offer loans at any rate to non-Jews.
Of course, for this reason, Jews got the reputation that we know from Ancient and Medieval times, because Kings and Caliphs used them as their bankers.

Still, the original teaching is that all interest on loans is usury.

The teaching is a lot more complicated than that, IIRC, and the idea is that loaning of consumable goods should only be repaid in full in the amount lent. There's a complicated subteaching about fair recompense for not having use of said goods that I don't fully understand, but it is generally understood that one is not to make a profit lending consumable goods.

[Duvniask]

Neither are most Muslims, it would seem, but of course, this had to turn into a "Muslims are evil"-bit, because people like you can't help themselves.

I'm not saying Muslims are evil, but I am saying the Christian world has less violence and religious extremism in it than the Muslim world.

Some of which comes from secularization and religion playing less and less of a role in daily life, not because Christianity is somehow better, really. A while back, these things were more or less just as common in the Christian World.

And it doesn't address the issue at hand, which is that Christians adhere to a book that condones genocide. The question I was responding to was asking why Christians should abandon the Old Testament; my response being that it is explicitly genocidal.

[Bear Stearns]

A growing concern of mine is the decline of publicly-traded companies in the United States (home of the only public equity market that actually matters). The stock market is essentially what allows common people to get in on the game and makes owning capital a much more democratic and transparent process. Anyone with at least $10 or so can buy a public stock.

But in private companies, equity investments are basically closed to everyone but the owners and special investment firms (called private equity firms), which is a much smaller pool of people, who are overwhelmingly wealthy and interconnected. Common people are shut out from being able invest (unless they do so indirectly, such as through a pension fund or retirement account that can invest in private equity).

[Kowani]

So why are you invoking them now if they’re false as if they were real?

In society, in people's minds, full of illusions, there they are "real" as if they have to be obeyed and every principle that follows from them, and every vice, like greed coming from Mammon e.g.
How could I belie the fact that humans are deluded?

Yeah, now you’re just talking out of your ass. Or your way of expressing yourself just sucks, one of the two.

[Bear Stearns]

If you're defining usury as punitively high interest rate, then I agree with you that usury should be outlawed. I personally think small lending (credit cards, auto loans, payday loans, etc.) should be much might tightly regulated because most of the people who take out those loans are financially illiterate and are basically being taken advantage of and are in fact victims of usury.

If you define usury as all interest rates, then I think you are wrong and that is a stupid way to view it.

The RCC changed its view of this in the 1500s or so. Before that all interest on loans was considered usury, as it is. Now it is only interest rates considered "too high". This was pure expediency. Before they had employed the Jews for it, as had the Muslims done. Because Jews cannot offer loan with interest to other Jews, because it is usury, but they can offer loans at any rate to non-Jews.
Of course, for this reason, Jews got the reputation that we know from Ancient and Medieval times, because Kings and Caliphs used them as their bankers.

Still, the original teaching is that all interest on loans is usury.

Interest-free loans are impractical and incredibly risky in most situations. The point of interest is that it serves to incentive people to pay back their loans more quickly.

If you do away with interest, then the only people who can borrow money will be very creditworthy people with readily available collateral, which is an incredibly small number of people. The majority of people and businesses would be locked out of this and it would be difficult for businesses to grow beyond their immediate communities.

[Nova Cyberia]

I'm not saying Muslims are evil, but I am saying the Christian world has less violence and religious extremism in it than the Muslim world.

Some of which comes from secularization and religion playing less and less of a role in daily life, not because Christianity is somehow better, really. A while back, these things were more or less just as common in the Christian World.

It's almost as if Christianity modernized and Islam didn't.

And it doesn't address the issue at hand, which is that Christians adhere to a book that condones genocide. The question I was responding to was asking why Christians should abandon the Old Testament; my response being that it is explicitly genocidal.

If they're not committing genocide then I don't see what the issue is. The OT is an important part of Christianity, so unless you expect them to erase half the Bible they're not going to abandon it completely.

[Nakena]

A growing concern of mine is the decline of publicly-traded companies in the United States (home of the only public equity market that actually matters). The stock market is essentially what allows common people to get in on the game and makes owning capital a much more democratic and transparent process. Anyone with at least $10 or so can buy a public stock.

But in private companies, equity investments are basically closed to everyone but the owners and special investment firms (called private equity firms), which is a much smaller pool of people, who are overwhelmingly wealthy and interconnected. Common people are shut out from being able invest (unless they do so indirectly, such as through a pension fund or retirement account that can invest in private equity).

What do you think is the cause of this? I'd think theres probably a number of investment funds around (pension or retirement aside) who would allow at least for indirect investment. But I am insufficiently familiar with the market. Yet.

[Nova Cyberia]

I'm not saying Muslims are evil, but I am saying the Christian world has less violence and religious extremism in it than the Muslim world.

Now. Ask about that a couple hundred years ago.

The standard conservative Christian rebuttal is that false gods are demons masquerading as gods, and thus actually exist, but are not God. It's mentioned in the bible somewhere.

Sure, and that’s fine. That’s a fair rebuttal. But he’s invoking them as if they were gods.

It's almost as if Christianity modernized or something.

[Kowani]

Now. Ask about that a couple hundred years ago.


Sure, and that’s fine. That’s a fair rebuttal. But he’s invoking them as if they were gods.

It's almost as if Christianity modernized or something.

Less like it modernized and more like the State as concept did.

[Diopolis]

The RCC changed its view of this in the 1500s or so. Before that all interest on loans was considered usury, as it is. Now it is only interest rates considered "too high". This was pure expediency. Before they had employed the Jews for it, as had the Muslims done. Because Jews cannot offer loan with interest to other Jews, because it is usury, but they can offer loans at any rate to non-Jews.
Of course, for this reason, Jews got the reputation that we know from Ancient and Medieval times, because Kings and Caliphs used them as their bankers.

Still, the original teaching is that all interest on loans is usury.

Interest-free loans are impractical and incredibly risky in most situations. The point of interest is that it serves to incentive people to pay back their loans more quickly.

If you do away with interest, then the only people who can borrow money will be very creditworthy people with readily available collateral, which is an incredibly small number of people. The majority of people and businesses would be locked out of this and it would be difficult for businesses to grow beyond their immediate communities.

Take this with the caveat that I do not fully understand the RCC doctrine on usury, but there are allowances for things like the opportunity costs of not having the money and the risks involved in lending it, though there is still a ban on using interest to make a profit. Temple does not understand Catholic doctrine very well.

[Salus Maior]

Now go play with your hyper-realistic toy soldiers re-enacting the battle of Vienna, or something...

You say that as if that wouldn't be awesome to have those.