Tuesday, February 16, 2010

VOTE

There is a poll being taken by MSNBC to see if the American people believe the words, In God We Trust should be removed off our currency. Go here and vote:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/ This probably won't be on their site for long, but as of now 11% thought it should be removed and 89% thought it should stay. Check it out.
If you are against the words remaining on our currency then go to this website http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fool

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm still against it, but I will call you a racist as well so we're even.

NorwegianHeat said...

Okay, so those who feel it should be removed are fools. Awesome. Would you care to support your claims? What exactly makes those 11% "foolish"? It doesn't seem like there's any basis to that.

What would stop me from calling the 89% of those that voted to keep it "fools"?

You often seem to resort to baseless name-calling when you have no legitimate support for your claims--in other words, these are your unfounded, subjective opinions. I read a lot about the dangers of "liberal propaganda" around here, but if your ideas can be deemed just as unsubstantiated as the liberal messages you're rallying against, then isn't the spread of your cause rooted in the same vein of propaganda as that of your enemy's? Couldn't others view that as "foolish"?

I personally don't care much whether the phrase is included in our currency or not--while the phrase means little to me, I recognize it's importance in the lives of others.

For the record, I voted "yes" as I feel that its inclusion does cross the line dividing religion and state to some extent. It seems a little strange that it is included, as it doesn't really represent the religious/intellectual sentiment of all Americans, nor does it add anything to the material value of our currency. However, it's inclusion doesn't really offend me, either--there are plenty of other issues of greater importance then what the money in my pocket looks like. I imagine other non-religious types might feel a greater degree of alienation than I, though.

In any case, if the country arrives at the majority conclusion that the phrase no longer applies--at whatever point in the future--then it'll be removed. If not, it'll stay. Money isn't all that important either way (in my opinion).

Anonymous said...

Ok Norwegian, I see you are back. So again, What is the standard YOU USE to determine right from wrong.

Mekibos said...

Who are the people against it, athiest?

Actually why would you want to change it... Would it make that big of a difference?...No

NorwegianHeat said...

Sorry Anonymous--I know I said I'd have a response for you, but I've been out of town. I WILL have that explanation for you. Sorry it's been so delayed.

Anonymous said...

Norwegian:
I am still waiting. What is your standard to determine right from wrong?

NorwegianHeat said...

"I WILL have that explanation for you."

When I rush my responses, people say I'm obsessed. When I take too long, you get awfully impatient. I'm taking my time in composing a response. If that isn't good enough for you, too bad.

I don't OWE you anything--when and if I respond is my choice. I said I would have an answer for you--I'm taking time out of my day(s) to address your request, so show a little respect. Keep in mind that I'm still doing you this favor knowing that you're likely to disregard my response anyway--there's not a lot incentive in that. If you're not going to allow me the time necessary to formulate a worthy response for such a complicated question, then I lose a lot of interest.

But, I said I will have an answer, and eventually, I will--when it's convenient. Perhaps while you're waiting, you could throw up your own ideas of how to determine right and wrong. I'd be interested to compare our views.

I'd thank you again for your patience, but you aren't displaying much...

Anonymous said...

Dear Norwegian:
No need to get testy about this. I think I have displayed a lot of patience. I have asked this question for several weeks. You have had time to make lengthy comments on this blog, but have been unable to answer my simple question. What is your standard to determine right from wrong? Why is a standard of right and wrong so complicated? How would you teach your children (if you have any) such a complicated structure?

My answer: The Ten Commandments.
Ok! Back to you!

NorwegianHeat said...

“No need to get testy about this.”

It is frustrating when I have reiterated my promise to answer your question over and over, and you continue to hassle me about it. It struck me as impatient and disrespectful.

“I think I have displayed a lot of patience.”

I just felt you only needed to ask once. You could have waited for me to respond, or taunt me by posting repeat inquisitions across multiple threads. In a scenario where you had only two options—either saying nothing more and awaiting my response, or repeating yourself, you chose the latter. I don’t see that as the more patient choice.
If I never responded, then you’d have been wasting your time in asking over and over. There would have been less effort required by both of us, as I wouldn’t have felt the need to continually reassure you that a response was coming when I found the time for it. If I never responded, then you could have taken that as a victory had you wanted to, I suppose—I wouldn’t think you had bested me by any means, but you could have taken my lack of response any way you wanted. It seemed more like your aim was to hound me over it than actually await and receive my response.
“Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?”
Of course that’s just my personal interpretation—your motives could be very different than that for all I know, so I won’t claim to know how you were thinking or approaching the situation. Hopefully this doesn’t seem too offensive—I’m just expressing my view, and it could be wrong.

“I have asked this question for several weeks.”

I started piecing together a response when you initially posed the question, however I was unable to finish my response before going on a trip. I did not have access to the computer my drafts were stored on, and could not work on them during that time. Since my return, I have gotten back to work on them.

“You have had time to make lengthy comments on this blog, but have been unable to answer my simple question.”

If you will notice, there was a week or so where I made no comments on any topics—I was out of town. I started responding again when I returned a couple days ago, while continuing to work on my response to you. The majority of my comments since returning were other responses I started drafting before I left. They were easy to finish and post upon my return—they were mainly quote-based responses to the ideas others had posted.
Responding to your question was different. It asked me to rely solely on my own beliefs and ideas—it was not to be a simple critique of others’ claims, but a portrayal of my own. Since this was to be an honest expression of my beliefs, I wanted to ensure that it was well-though-out—I didn’t want to rush it. It was out of respect for the question you posed that I have taken as much time as I have on it—not an effort to avoid it. It is also not so simple for me to answer, as it is for you, I guess, so I didn’t interpret it as a simple question.

NorwegianHeat said...

“Why is a standard of right and wrong so complicated?”

It is complicated because right and wrong is relative—therefore requiring thorough justification in its application within our society if it is to be taken seriously. I didn’t think it would be acceptable to provide a half answer—for my own satisfaction, my response would have to be an in-depth look at my understanding of society if it were to hold any value. If someone asks me “why?” I can’t just answer “because”—I need to provide reason.

“How would you teach your children (if you have any) such a complicated structure?”

Another good question. I should first clarify that the structure is not in itself complicated—but rather the justification. My beliefs are largely the same as yours, I just wanted to make sure that I expressed WHY I felt they are justified.
I’m not ready for kids yet—hopefully I’ll have that figured out when I am. I certainly wouldn’t force a set of ideals upon them without any explanation as to WHY they are the appropriate way of looking at things. When I have kids, I want them to think for themselves. I will provide them the means to do so the best that I can—the conclusions they arrive at will be up to them.

“My answer: The Ten Commandments.”

Excellent, they are certainly a solid set of guiding principles. They provide structure to the lives of people the world over. My only concern is that, without justifying why they apply, they really don’t mean anything. There needs to be a context for why these are a preferable means of orienting one’s social behavior. This is what I wished to lay out in my response, and that is why it has taken so long (and because of my trip).

“Ok! Back to you!”

Alright then, here we go—I’ll admit I’ve rushed it a little to satisfy you, but hopefully it will be good enough as it is.

NorwegianHeat said...

To what standard do I determine right or wrong?

Thanks for asking. It’s a complex, sensitive subject—I feel that simply citing a religious text as a justification for my standards wouldn’t accurately address the question. Without justification for, say, the principles found in The Ten Commandments, saying I followed them really wouldn’t mean anything—without a basis for those guidelines, they have no value.

Hopefully I can formulate a satisfactory response. I’ll acknowledge ahead of time that someone else has undoubtedly put these same principles to print, and have most likely done so better than I—I’m just not that great of writer, and my ability to compose and convey my ideas is probably lacking.

According to my beliefs, I am far too small to fully comprehend the higher scales of existence—the unperceivable “spiritual” dimensions woven into the structure of my surroundings, the exact configuration and nature of the multiverse, the cause and purpose of dark matter, etc. Since I can’t really know the full extent of the universe around me, I can never claim for sure whether there is a god or not. While my experiences thus far would suggest the later, it would be very ignorant of me to make a conclusion either way. However, from experience, I have comfortably concluded that the literal descriptions of the Christian God found in the bible are probably fictional, and that I will not be judged by the divine for the life I live.

Since I do not live my life in fear of a wrathful god, one might wonder how I orient myself—what standards I live by. Some might conclude prematurely that there could be no structure to my life—no merit in my concepts of right and wrong—in the absence of God. I can see where this assumption could be derived from—I will admit, in the infinite universe that I believe in, there really is no right or wrong. From a cosmic perspective, the extermination of the Jews or Haitians or white Americans has no more relevance than the extermination of a spider crawling on your ceiling or the dropping of an acorn from a tree or the bending of a blade of grass in the breeze. Nothing really matters.

From a cosmic/universal/infinite standpoint, there truly is no right or wrong. This scale of appraisal is a product of the human perspective—its range and value is relative to the subjective views of the individual. Theft and murder aren’t really wrong, compassion and charity aren’t really right—in reality, it’s just survival of the fittest by whatever means. In nature, there is no “legitimate” strategy, nor a concept of cheating. Outside of human society, there’s no penalty for racism or violence or inequality, no reward for “good deeds”. Everything just happens as it does.

NorwegianHeat said...

This neutrality of everything applies to individuals—concerning only their intimate relationship with the universe around them. While there may be no right or wrong in an infinite universe, within human society, there certainly are. As cooperative individuals, we as a society recognize that—by sacrificing some of our personal freedoms—we can work to ensure a more balanced, fair way of life for all people. By agreeing on a set of principles of which to live by, we are setting aside the natural temptation to cheat or harm others for our own gain, and accepting the pursuit of mutual goals over selfish ones. Much like colonizing insects, our communities recognize that working together within communities eases the burden of the individual.

The principles around which human societies structure their standards of right and wrong stem from the desire to circumvent the chaos of existence found outside human civilization. Without laws and codes of conduct, our societies would quickly descend into anarchy—the world of men would be wrought with utter chaos. “Normal” life would be impossible. We have complex brains and complex lives—and everyone has their own idea about how to go about using and living them. While I can almost always live and work alongside those I find myself in contact with, none of us can ever see eye-to-eye with everyone we encounter.

The constant adaptation of human civilization—at least as I have come to understand it—has been in an effort to improve the quality and ease of the lives we live. We recognize our unique ability to communicate and reason with one another, and choose to—or at least voice a desire to—employ these over less civilized means of social interaction and conflict-resolution. We favor trade over theft, diplomacy over warfare, justice over corruption. We do so because these methods of conduct maintain a balance and stability that their negative counterparts cannot. They maximize the potential for mutual gain, while minimizing the occurrence of suffering. While an individual might have less to gain personally by playing fair, less is lost by the parties involved overall. By conducting ourselves in this way, we also increase our chances of being treated in a similar civil manner by others when we encounter them. Derived from the Ten Commandments, this concept can be simply phrased “treat others as you would want them to treat you.” This is the basis of equality.

For a mutual acceptance of such principles of right and wrong by the general populace—for the everyday citizen to agree that the good of the community outweighs their personal gain—they must be assured that they hold an equal position in that community, and an equal stake in those communal achievements they are expected to contribute to. If individuals—or certain minority groups—feel that their interests are not receiving equal consideration, they are less likely to cooperate, leading to tension, instability, and a weakening of the overall social unit. Thus, it would be in the best interest of all individuals and demographics to respect and support the interests of their peers as well as their own.

NorwegianHeat said...

Basically, although I am not religious, I appreciate the merits of ancient principles of social conduct found in religious texts, such as The Ten Commandments. I do not adhere to them out of fear of a wrathful god or gods, but out of the belief that these are necessary in maintaining a productive, progressive, balanced society. I do not believe, however, that we have the right to tell others how to live their personal lives, so I do not agree with any social standard that would try to do so. If one’s personal character or conduct does not harm others, then it is acceptable. I don’t judge people based on race or sexual orientation—these traits don’t alter my ability to live my own life—nor do I condemn choices of hobbies or habits, so long as they aren’t detrimental to anyone else’s livelihood. I may not agree with the personal choices of others, but their lives are theirs to live—I would be overstepping my bounds in dictating the manner in which they should conduct themselves. I justify my treatment of those I encounter in that I would expect others to treat me in a similar manner.

I’ve spent some time on this one—hopefully my answer was worth the effort and satisfies your question.

Anonymous said...

Actually I didn't ask you to explain your standard to determine right from wrong. I was asking what the standard is. My standard is the Ten Commandmens. Explaination of that standard is another matter.

NorwegianHeat said...

"Actually I didn't ask you to explain your standard to determine right from wrong."

I realize this. For my own justification, I felt I needed to include a basis for those standards, so I did--as stated in my explanation.

"I was asking what the standard is."

And I think I've included this. My response may have included more than you were asking for, but it did meet the requirements.

"My standard is the Ten Commandmens."

So we're really not all that different, after all. What is your justification for following these codes of conduct?

"Explaination of that standard is another matter."

Yes, technically—I just felt that including the explanation would better aid you in understanding how I operate than would simply stating that I follow the big 10. I find the standard and its basis somewhat intertwined, in that the standard without justification is useless—without that explanation, I felt I would be doing each of us a disservice in not expressing my interpretation of the big picture—the standard in context. Since I was only expanding on the question you asked—and DID provide the answer you were looking for in my overall statement, I think it's kind of silly to assess me simply for going beyond what you asked me to do.

Anonymous said...

Dear NorwegianHeat:
Ok! I understand. But based upon your answer here is how you could have shortened your response.
1) There is no universal law giver.
2) My life is as worthless as dog shit*.
3) I make my own laws.

Yes, I get the picture! I guess I’m just slow.
I think I will move on now. . . . Good bye

PS: God loves you!

* Pastor Robb, please allow my comment to remain even though I used this four letter word. I think it was needed to emphasis the point.

Anonymous said...

It is not white society's fault that the Negro is an underachiever.
Other races have faced as great discrimination and have succeded, and certain individual Negroes have succeded as well.

It is time to stop blaming "Whitie."

Let James Allen, a pioneer in the self-help literature, explain:


"A strong man cannot help a weaker unless the weaker is willing to be helped, and even then the weak man must become strong of himself. He must, by his own efforts, develop the strength which he admires in another. None but himself can alter his condition.

It has been usual for men to think and to say, "Many men are slaves because one is an oppressor; let us hate the oppressor." Now, however, there is among an increasing few a tendency to reverse this judgment, and to say, "One man is an oppressor because many are slaves; let us despise the slaves." The truth is that oppressor and slave are cooperators in ignorance, and, while seeming to afflict each other, are in reality afflicting themselves. A perfect Knowledge perceives the action of law in the weakness of the oppressed and the misapplied power of the oppressor. A perfect Love, seeing the suffering which both states entail, condemns neither. A perfect Compassion embraces both oppressor and oppressed.

He who has conquered weakness, and has put away all selfish thoughts, belongs neither to oppressor nor oppressed. He is free.

A man can only rise, conquer, and achieve by lifting up his thoughts. He can only remain weak, and abject, and miserable by refusing to lift up his thoughts."

Anonymous said...

"The black man needs the white
man to save him from his fear; the white man needs the black man
to save him from his guilt."
-- Martin Luther King

Is this really a Christian teaching? Where in the Bible does it say that the races save each other, rather than God, Who saves Man both from fear and from guilt?

Thus we see that racial integration is a religious creed -- but not a Biblical one -- certainly not if the justification is as King stated.

What James Allen says of a single man is also true of a race of men:

"He who has conquered weakness, and has put away all selfish thoughts, belongs neither to oppressor nor oppressed. He is free.

A man can only rise, conquer, and achieve by lifting up his thoughts. He can only remain weak, and abject, and miserable by refusing to lift up his thoughts."

The Black Race has, as one of its pastors, James Manning, put it -- it is a "God problem." Blacks must purify their own thoughts and seek God, rather than accuse the White Race of racism. That argument is old and has proven false. If Blacks are to overcome the "legacy of racism," they must practice right thinking for themselves and clean up their own act. They must accept responsibility for their own condition now. If they must be forever dependent on Whites, then they are indeed an inferior race -- even if only because they choose to be inferior.

NorwegianHeat said...

“Ok! I understand.”

Do you? We shall see.

“But based upon your answer here is how you could have shortened your response.”

I felt that my response was an acceptable length—and in its original form, it contradicts portions of your preferred summary.

“There is no universal law giver.”

Good so far…

“My life is as worthless as dog s[***].”

…and here, it breaks down. As my introduction would suggest, from a universal standpoint (and perhaps yours), my life’s net value may be worth as much as dog feces—but this is not to say that it is worthless. From my perspective, it has plenty of worth, as it does to those in my life who value me. Similarly, the worth of a dog’s waste is relative as well. To life forms dependent on this material as a food source—bacteria, various insects, etc.—it is a very valuable commodity, while you or I might appeal to them far less, if at all.
Within the context of human society, I feel that I have far more to contribute than does dog excrement, and will continue to pursue a better society. I am capable of dictating the value of my own life, just like everyone else. If I choose to place myself on the level of turds, that is my choice. How you interpret my life is up to you—it's no more accurate from a universal standpoint than my own. It’s all relative to our individual perception.

"I make my own laws."

Again, this is not entirely accurate. Just as you would not want your child serving liberal “propaganda” unquestioningly, I would not appreciate mine serving yours. If my offspring think for themselves and arrive at your conclusions over mine, than that’s how it goes. I hold myself to these same standards.
I follow the sensible laws of society. If I feel a law is unjust, then I will question it—I'm not going to be a mindless follower.

NorwegianHeat said...

"Yes, I get the picture! I guess I’m just slow."

Slower than you think, if you feel that the paraphrased views you provided are in the image of mine. I do not recognize the points you have made as the simplified versions of my beliefs you make them out to be. This is why I did not agree that your question was “simple” in the first place. This is why I claimed that my standards were complex. Relying on reason is more complicated than blind faith. Logic is step-based—making a series of claims to arrive at a sensible conclusion. This is why my answer required the explanation I provided with it.

Should I be surprised at your response? This type of rebuttal was no more than what I expected of you. This exactly what I meant by "Keep in mind that I'm still doing you this favor knowing that you're likely to disregard my response anyway—there's not a lot incentive in that." Way to live up to a stereotype. You’re justifying the content of my explanation.

NorwegianHeat said...

You aren't helping your cause with this; you are just further alienating me. There is no reason you could not read my response and respond in a constructive manner. I'm not BASHING you for having a faith in your god, so why are you bashing me for my faith in equality? I respect the basis of the Ten Commandments, just not some of the specific laws that cannot apply to my godless interpretation of the world. But if we can agree that the latter commandments dealing with social interaction—which I feel equate to treating others fairly and as I'd like to be treated in return—are the preferable means of conduct, then why are you insulting me over the minor details of how I live my life? Why does your faith in the Christian God give you the right to abuse me? If the end result of my beliefs are the same as the last five or so of your commandments, then where is our problem? Based on our standards, we should agree as far as social conduct is concerned—our conflict seems to stem from our different beliefs on deities. I haven’t criticized you over your personal relationship with you god, so why should you of mine? If your god and I don’t see eye-to-eye, then that is our business—it shouldn’t concern you. If your god is really going to judge me in the end, then why should it concern you? In your faith, I will get what’s coming to me, right? You shouldn’t have to interfere with my life on that level.

Furthermore, you have no respect for me or my views. “It seemed more like your aim was to hound me over it than actually await and receive my response.” You’ve only furthered that assumption of mine, as well. I feel you already had an idea of what my standards were, and had already judged me for it—you were simply awaiting an opening to mock me for them. Had you any legitimate interest in my standards, then you could have proceeded to debate with me over any inconsistencies or issues you found in them, I could have clarified them for you. In this way, we could learn from each other—about ourselves and each other. I’d love to understand more about WHY you follow the commandments, but it doesn’t appear that you share this interest in my beliefs. It seemed more that your intentions were to elevate yourself by offending them than to actually read and understand them. What was the point of me providing you with a response? You certainly didn't deserve it if you're only intention was to mock and belittle it.

In my vision of society as I explained it, you are the very embodiment of the ignorance that slows our progress as a successful unit. You do not treat me or my views equally—where is the incentive for me to respect you and your views, or treat you fairly? If you are not willing to offer me any respect, then why should I bother trying to understand and respect yours? Through thoughtful, sincere exchanges of ideas, we can learn and grow—and possible find common ground to agree and form meaningful relationships on. We cannot be productive when we resort to your methods of interaction. When we have the option to be either respectful and cooperative with one another or bitter enemies, how is the latter more logical? Why do you WANT to not get along with me? What sort of condition allows you to arbitrarily discredit me as you have?

"I think I will move on now. . . ."

Good riddance—this was an epic waste of my time.

"PS: God loves you!"

Great, then I continue living by my own laws after all, I guess!

NorwegianHeat said...

“It is not white society's fault that the Negro is an underachiever.”

No, it is the fault of those individuals who continue to discriminate against the race as a whole—those who choose to ignore the potential for equality. If we continue, as oppressors, to subjugate the race as a whole through mistreatment--by telling them over and over again that they are weaker than us--how can we reasonably expect them to become anything but?

“Other races have faced as great discrimination and have succeded, and certain individual Negroes have succeded as well.”

The fact that certain individuals have succeeded should in itself disprove your idea that “the Negro is an underachiever.” Individuals are underachievers—a race is just a category of people. If we devised our classes not based on race, but on the fulfillment of one’s potential, then the lines dividing us would look very different. You would align yourself with successful blacks and whites alike—those underachievers of all races, including white, would instead be your opposition.

“It is time to stop blaming ‘Whitie.’”

I don’t blame “Whitie”—I’m challenging those who hold unyielding negative stereotypes of others to be stronger, more compassionate individuals. It is time to stop hiding behind skin color and own up to our duty in molding a more perfect society—it is not white people, but anti-black sentiment that is the root of this injustice, just as it is defunct character—not the color of skin—that results in underachievement.

I like what this James Allen fellow has to say—all very true. This is why I advocate responsibility, accountability, and respect. The oppressed minorities must make a stronger effort in uplifting themselves, while white oppressors must work—from our traditionally privileged background—in aiding a smoother transition for those that want to make something of themselves. We must all—black and white—conscientiously work toward an equalization of our inner-strengths and outer-dependency.

Anonymous said...

"No, it is the fault of those individuals who continue to discriminate against the race as a whole—those who choose to ignore the potential for equality."

Really? Got any proof? Just who is holding the Black Man down these days? And how?

"If we continue, as oppressors, to subjugate the race as a whole through mistreatment . . ."

WHAT?! Rubbish! Today's society bends over backwards to treat Blacks more than fairly. Heck, if it weren't for aesthetic considerations, I might almost wish myself a young black person, for all the advantages and privileges I might enjoy.

Whites are NOT mistreating Blacks. Get over it!

Anonymous said...

On an earlier page, NorwegianHeat wrote:

"There is no standard for what is natural."

Really?

So it is not natural for a mother to nurse her young? It's just a "natural" for a mother to throw her baby into the trash can as it is to breast-feed it?

It's funny, really -- I mean strange! Shakespeare talks about "natural" actions versus "unnatural" actions quite commonly (see Macbeth). But I guess that Shakespeare was less enlightened and less intelligent than our NorwegianHeat!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 10:34
Right on! We must understand boorish people like Norwegian are simply “full of themselves,” bathing in their own deluded “intellect.” Anonymous of yesterday (10:34 am) hit the nail on the head. Norwegian has nothing to offer. His life is worthless, and has no more value, than a blade of grass bowing in the wind.
The Bibles says of people like him, that they are ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.
Norwegian has no truth, because truth is relative. He has no rule of law (except that which he imagines). He has no value because value is relative also.
His ramblings are like the dog chasing his tail. There is no conclusion, because there is no standard to base a conclusion upon.
No wonder he spends so much time writing endless remarks on this blog - he has nothing else to do with his life - his life is a hopeless vacuum looking for meaning “in all the wrong places.”
I know Norwegian thinks that he is nothing more than highly developed pond scum - but a simple look into the mirror should stir his inner being to acknowledge, like King David, that he is, “fearfully and wonderfully made.”
Everyone writing on this blog should never consider someone like Norwegian an enemy. He is simply a white brother that is like a dried bundle of grass being tossed about by the wind and in his hopeless state he is looking for meaning.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: You ask where in the Bible it says that the races are meant to save each other. I ask: where does it say in the bible that the white race is superior to the black (or any other). Notice that I DO NOT want to hear about the Israelites...I want a specific quote from the Bible specifying that whites are superior.

And, by the way, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which happens to be in Palestine...in the Middle East, which is not a land of whites.

And...Moses (who brought down the Ten Commandments, by which Anonymous claims to discern right from wrong—on 18 Feb)was born in Egypt. In Africa. Not in "White Europe"

Last, Anonymous you claim that the Ten Commandments are your structure for right and wrong. You are aware that there are far more than 10, right? There are 613. Does that mean that you disregard the others, even though they are still the word of God? You may claim that they are meant for Jews, but remember: Christianity is simply an extension of Judaism. We believe in both the Old and the New Testaments...we are deeply rooted in Judaism. A child can rebel against his parents, but he can never change his heritage (something very important to Pastor Robb, it seems). We should honor our entire heritage, not simply the part that we like best.
Oh, and by the way, number 28: Not to wrong any one in speech. Number 30: Not to cherish hatred in one's heart. Just thought you should know.
You can continue to act as though Black Americans are responsible for all that is wrong in this country. You can act as though you are infinitely superior to all other races. Simply remember: the only superior being is GOD. When the Final Judgment arrives God will look into your soul and determine whether you are worthy of His Grace. You can believe that you are, but that doesn’t make it so. God does not want words and self-denial. He wants actions. So let’s all get up and help somebody! The only way to right misconceptions about the Christian faith is to prove that we are willing to help anyone, and willing to show love and compassion to all, even those who are different from us.

Nordic2005 said...

"Anonymous: You ask where in the Bible it says that the races are meant to save each other. I ask: where does it say in the bible that the white race is superior to the black (or any other). Notice that I DO NOT want to hear about the Israelites...I want a specific quote from the Bible specifying that whites are superior."

Too bad, in this instance, that you are not Jewish. Being that you are a Christian, I feel no need to explain the Christian faith to you. If you were Jewish and asked these questions, I might do the heavy labor of searching for answers, for I would not expect a Jew to understand Christianity.

I am not a theologian. I base my racial beliefs on the fact that God opposed "racial harmony" at Babel and race-mixing before the Great Flood and said, of reproduction, "Kind after kind."

I believe that God created the distinct races of Man by design and for a definite purpose. This is the basis of my desire to avoid miscegenation and multiculturalism -- something I think the Bible calls Babel or Babylon (in Revelation). God is opposed to confusion, and racial-cultural confusion breeds every other variety; it is the root of all confusion.

It is my personal belief that the powers of darkness and evil want to mix the races and cultures of mankind in order to set up a world-wide kingdom in rebellion against Jesus Christ and His kingdom.

Anonymous said...

Annonymous Feb 20-
Shakespeare was a playwrite and Macbeth a fictitous play that besides talking about the 'Natural' and 'Un-natural' also mentions witches. Even so it is still beside the point since Shakespear lived so long ago he had no knowledge of modern scientific advances. A high school student who understands the concept of electricity is more 'enlightened' scientifically than Shakespeare was. So yes I would say that NorwegianHeat is definately more enlightened than Shakespeare.
That said, whilst I agree with NorwegianHeat on virtually everything he has said, he is quite obviously a university student who has just read J.S Mill, Kant etc. because he is regurgitating their work onto here almost word for word. So no, i dont think he's more intelligent than Shakespeare since he's not exactly stating an original opinion that he has concocted himself,rather enlightening you of a very well established and well implemented viewpoint that forms the foundations of almost every Liberal Democracy in the Western Hemisphere.

Anonymous said...

"So yes I would say that NorwegianHeat is definately more enlightened than Shakespeare."

No, Shakespeare is considered by very many scholars to be the most brilliant psychologist who ever lived. When it comes to understanding human nature, no one was ever more enlightened than he.

Knowledge of electricity is irrelevant and trivial compared to the deep knowledge of human nature than no one has ever expressed so astutely and eloquently as William Shakespeare.

Shakespeare's plays are about human nature, not about mechanical science.

NorwegianHeat said...

Thanks for the support Anonymous at 9:59! I agree--while I'm not actually a university student (I never graduated high school),nor have I yet taken the opportunity to read Mill or Kant--the ideas I present most certainly have not originated with me. I haven't read them, however, so I wouldn't really say I'm regurgitating, I'm probably just a little more like-minded. And no, I'm certainly not as intelligent as Shakespeare!

Anonymous said...

Sorry chap... which scholars consider Shakespeare to be the 'most brilliant phycologist who ever lived'?
Also perhaps you would like to state exactly which of Shakespeares plays explicitly deal with the subject of human nature and a brief explanation.

Anonymous said...

Also. What is 'mechanical science'? How is electricity mechanical exactly? Do you mean physics? Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

Anonymous said...

Yes, "mechanical" science was not the very best word. Physical science is better. I meant any science other than psychology -- don't know the perfect word for it.

What I'm saying is that Shakespeare was the greatest "natural psychologist" the world has ever known. His characters speak the very thoughts and reasoning that define human nature. They may not use every-day speech, but that is the brilliance of the thing: Shakespeare puts into words the real thoughts and purpose of the human heart and mind ("heart" used symbolically here).

Here is an example from Macbeth where Shakespeare puts into words what no other author has been able to express, namely, the nature of the thouhts of Macbeth as he begins to fall away from righteous thinking into murderous ambition:

If good, why do I yield to that suggestion 13
Whose horrid image doth unfix my hair
And make my seated heart knock at my ribs, 144
Against the use 14 of nature? Present fears
Are less than horrible imaginings.
My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical, 15
Shakes so my single state of man 16 that function 17 148
Is smother’d in surmise, 18 and nothing is
But what is not.
Ban. Look, how our partner’s rapt.
Macb. [Aside.] If chance will have me King, why, chance may crown me, 152
Without my stir.

Haven't yet read this, but just Googled to find one example of someone referring to Shakespeare as a Psychologist:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8748535/Shakespeare-A-Modern-Psychologist

Anonymous said...

And another academic, the late Dr. William Pierce, said much the same thing about Shakespeare:

"And then there's Shakespeare! There was never a man who observed the human condition with truer eye than he. He stripped away every pretense and showed us as we are, the good and the bad -- but hardly equal! The great danger in literature -- in real literature, in great literature -- for the democrats and the egalitarians is that it helps us to understand ourselves and to place ourselves in the context of our people. It helps us to complete ourselves and to become whole. It expands our horizons, helps us to see the big picture. It gives us ideals, models -- and those ideals, in our literature, are not egalitarian ideals. Nor are the models Politically Correct: in fact, they are much more likely to be heroes than democrats."

Anonymous said...

Just Google "Shakespeare - A Modern Psychologist"

I've read over the years others saying similar things about Shakespeare's profound insights into the whole subject of human nature in all its aspects.

If you cannot tell for yourself that almost every word of every play contributes to an enlarged understanding of the human condition and of human nature, I most certainly have no inner need to convince you.

If you believe that liberals are wiser than the Bard, so be it.

Even the Jew, Sigmund Freud, originally turned to Conan Doyle (the creator of Sherlock Holmes) and William Shakespeare for much of the his initial inspiration in developing his ideas and theories about human nature -- though Freud's ultimate product certainly has many other influences and resulted in a theory that has no direct borrowing or concrete support from either Doyle or Shakespeare.