I do not think anyone on this forum is an Antifa sympathizer.
And yes, majority of patrons that go to bars are civilized and will leave when asked to do so, some may do more kicking and screaming but it only takes one prick who thinks his manhood was challenged. Such as this incident in San Jose http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/26/san-jose-employee-stabbed-to-death-at-tres-gringos-downtown/amp/ . Since there are less bouncers in the US compared to cops, his death skews the numbers higher for bouncers than police officers.
I also find it highly unlikely that in 10 years, you had never once used violemce to subdue or physically remove a patron from an establishment. Everytime you did that you were putting yourself at risk to injury or being killed by so.e schmo who would blindside you as you escort his buddy out. Add in US gun statistics, there would be more deaths there than in Canada even if its two of Canada's biggest cities. It also sounded like you worked in higher end clubs and not ones where gangs such as he Hell's Angels frequented regularly.
I understand that a lot of people that use this forum are ANTIFA sympathizers and because of that have an anarchic mentality. Hating the police at all costs. Even if it kills them.
Thus far, I have yet to see anyone in this thread support or praise Antifa. The only debate we've had over Antifa is how large a movement it is, and how much damage it has caused--not whether it's good or bad.
I count one forumite who has some "anarchist" ideas, but I am not going to make assumptions about them because of it. Let's not stereotype each other as hate-filled radicals.
With all due respect, was I not classified as a hate filled racist bigoted radical just a couple of months ago?
Also any establishment run or frequented by bikers is either a strip club or a drug haven. Huge difference in clientele.
And that is my point. A bouncer at one of these clubs are still considered a bouncer in the statistics. It doesn't differentiate between you, or a person who worked at a shady strip club, just like the numbers dont differ from a beat cop to an administration one.
Also any establishment run or frequented by bikers is either a strip club or a drug haven. Huge difference in clientele.
And that is my point. A bouncer at one of these clubs are still considered a bouncer in the statistics. It doesn't differentiate between you, or a person who worked at a shady strip club, just like the numbers dont differ from a beat cop to an administration one.
I understand totally what you are saying. I am still active in the Club (Bounce) community. Lot of old friends. Those establishments have less violent encounters because people know who owns them. Don't want to go into a bikers strip Club and start harassing the girls. That's someones property you are messing with and in turn they will mess with you.
Also in Canada people are more respectful of the value in human life. Don't know if you understand what I mean but here we are not so quick to resort to violence as in the states. Different culture I guess. Or maybe less common sense down there. Maybe.
I always smile a little when statists paint anarchists as blood-thirsty radicals. C'mon - all those home-made bomb thrown by anarchists into restaurants don't hold up for one serious massacre conducted by state.
I would implore you to study the destruction and terror by ANTIFA and any other group that sympathizes with them in Europe over the last three decades. Maybe that will put your smile upside down.
I've referred previously to my wish to consider the evidence when making policy and the reason I follow this thread is that the arguments are normally about evidence. Do you have any evidence to suggest that ANTIFA or similar groups are in fact a major threat in Europe?
We've had quite extensive discussions in the past about the annual reports on terrorism produced by Europol. The latest of those is for 2016 and records a total across the EU of 27 terrorist attacks by left-wing and anarchist groups. None of those caused any deaths. The report also refers to more general public order offences by these groups, such as rioting at demonstrations. Again there were no deaths associated with these.
Hit men for hire. Now being used in America they have been used in Europe by countries governments to break up and cause violence at peaceful protests aimed at the governments. These two face chumps take payments from the same governments they criticize. Joke the whole lot of them.
Let's not forget the biggest Anarchists right now... Jihadists. They go against everything Islam has built and are mercenaries for hire all over the world. How many have they killed in Europe?
So violence is OK to you, as long as there are no deaths it's all right? Move along nothing to see here? No deaths no stats? Oh well it's only minor not a major influence. Really?
Violence is not OK. It is not OK to hurt another Human being especially for an ideology. Trying to change law and order through violence is wrong.
I don't care for generalizations, and being wrongfully included in a group. Just for clarification, I'm against Antifa and the white supremacy movement both. As for the aforementioned Anitifa, that is in question here, from the viewpoint of one that studies terrorists and the psychology of terrorism, I see it as a growing problem and potentially alot more dangerous than they are now. After looking at them a little more tonight I see some correlation between them and the Weathermen, or as they were first called Weather Underground (also for social change and dangerous 'rebels for a cause', quite a few years ago). When a group such as this, Antifa, with no mainline central organization, it gets much harder to combat them. This has been similar to other terrorist groups such as ELF and ALF as well. The movement looks to be made of of many individual anarchist types, maybe for what they see as a valid cause but one that will not take much to escalate to the use of more effective and dangerous methods. This splintered and very loosely organized type of group is hard to combat, if not the hardest.
I pretty much am against any radical violence promoting group. That said, there is a sort of logic and rationalization to many of these groups mentioned, we cannot ignore it (this is understanding their reasoning, not endorsing them). Things are getting heated and dangerously past the point of any meaningful form of dialogue now, to the violent end of the spectrum. This is fairly normal for folks that 'feel' ignored through normal channels For those looking to join in it is easier and more exciting for the right type of person to join in. It will always be easier than trying to have a rational dialogue for many, unfortunately.
It is quite easy to put myself into the minds of many of these hate or reactionary groups, to see it from their point of view, but that is what I do. I do not condone any of these activities but at the same time can easily understand why they do so. Again, it is not an endorsement, far from it, but a way of infiltrating the mindset to understand and predict. As for myself, I don't mind condemning these radical groups as I do not see it as the best and most peaceful way to promote change.
That said I am most certainly no pacifist, but I got into conflict management and resolution because it is much easier to talk than it is to use violence (or lawyers and police for that matter), and, for the most part, much more beneficial and productive as well.
In general, as far as comparing one group vs another, who does the most violence, it doesn't matter to me in the end, violence and death are violence and death. Small groups can be just as effective as large groups, and so to can be the lone actor. It is pretty easy to go from one, to a few, to many, and to a large group, anarchist or otherwise, organized or kept splintered, over any given period of time. *** All groups start somewhere, and many often start relatively 'harmless'. I do not discount the power of Antifa. The danger would be to base them only on what they have done, and not on what they could do. Vigilance is necessary, not only with them but with quite a few other groups as well, with some obviously on a higher priority watch list than others. I have yet to rate them recently.
Oh, and Yeman is a complete and utter slaughterhouse, I've at least seen quite a bit of that. I'm really getting tired of this' buddy buddy can do no wrong thing' going on with Saudi Arabia (just for one example).
I don't care for generalizations, and being wrongfully included in a group. Just for clarification, I'm against Antifa and the white supremacy movement both. As for the aforementioned Anitifa, that is in question here, from the viewpoint of one that studies terrorists and the psychology of terrorism, I see it as a growing problem and potentially alot more dangerous than they are now. After looking at them a little more tonight I see some correlation between them and the Weathermen, or as they were first called Weather Underground (also for social change and dangerous 'rebels for a cause', quite a few years ago). When a group such as this, Antifa, with no mainline central organization, it gets much harder to combat them. This has been similar to other terrorist groups such as ELF and ALF as well. The movement looks to be made of of many individual anarchist types, maybe for what they see as a valid cause but one that will not take much to escalate to the use of more effective and dangerous methods. This splintered and very loosely organized type of group is hard to combat, if not the hardest.
I pretty much am against any radical violence promoting group. That said, there is a sort of logic and rationalization to many of these groups mentioned, we cannot ignore it (this is understanding their reasoning, not endorsing them). Things are getting heated and dangerously past the point of any meaningful form of dialogue now, to the violent end of the spectrum. This is fairly normal for folks that 'feel' ignored through normal channels For those looking to join in it is easier and more exciting for the right type of person to join in. It will always be easier than trying to have a rational dialogue for many, unfortunately.
It is quite easy to put myself into the minds of many of these hate or reactionary groups, to see it from their point of view, but that is what I do. I do not condone any of these activities but at the same time can easily understand why they do so. Again, it is not an endorsement, far from it, but a way of infiltrating the mindset to understand and predict. As for myself, I don't mind condemning these radical groups as I do not see it as the best and most peaceful way to promote change.
That said I am most certainly no pacifist, but I got into conflict management and resolution because it is much easier to talk than it is to use violence (or lawyers and police for that matter), and, for the most part, much more beneficial and productive as well.
In general, as far as comparing one group vs another, who does the most violence, it doesn't matter to me in the end, violence and death are violence and death. Small groups can be just as effective as large groups, and so to can be the lone actor. It is pretty easy to go from one, to a few, to many, and to a large group, anarchist or otherwise, organized or kept splintered, over any given period of time. *** All groups start somewhere, and many often start relatively 'harmless'. I do not discount the power of Antifa. The danger would be to base them only on what they have done, and not on what they could do. Vigilance is necessary, not only with them but with quite a few other groups as well, with some obviously on a higher priority watch list than others. I have yet to rate them recently.
Oh, and Yeman is a complete and utter slaughterhouse, I've at least seen quite a bit of that. I'm really getting tired of this' buddy buddy can do no wrong thing' going on with Saudi Arabia (just for one example).
I would implore you to study the destruction and terror by ANTIFA and any other group that sympathizes with them in Europe over the last three decades. Maybe that will put your smile upside down.
You seem to think that Antifaschistische Aktion and anarchism are the same thing. They are not. Prince Kropotkin is turning in his grave. I would implore you to explore difference between them. And please, educate me - did anarchists murdered ca 8000 people in 11 days? Because this is what statists did Srebrenica in 1995 (which was, btw, mass murder committed by christians on muslims with death toll higher than WTC). So no. The statists are much bigger threat than anarchists to everybody.
ANTIFA sympathizers to the rescue. As you were all.
I'd appreciate if you focused on discussed matter, instead of throwing vague insinuations aimed at other users. It's seems like someone with common sense would do.
Guess we have to wait till they start killing people in the present to say that what they are doing is wrong and an act of terrorism?
Absolutely not. You're misunderstanding me totally if you think I support terrorism or violence in general. I think the actions you refer to are wrong and are acts of terrorism - but they are already recorded as such. Attacks by the Greek 'Cells of Fire' group referred to in the above link were included in the 27 left-wing terrorist attacks (which includes planned attacks not actually carried out) recorded across the EU in 2016. The other articles you referred to linked to Spain and Italy, which along with Greece were the only other EU countries to suffer left-wing terror attacks in 2016.
I am not saying these attacks are justified in any way. However, your earlier post suggested that left-wing attacks had been a major problem in Europe for the last 3 decades. I think in most countries people would certainly not share that view. It's possible that the perceptions of people in Greece, Spain and Italy may differ from those elsewhere, though I would be surprised if even there they share your view.
Let's not forget the biggest Anarchists right now... Jihadists. They go against everything Islam has built and are mercenaries for hire all over the world. How many have they killed in Europe?
I agree that jihadists are a significantly greater threat than left-wing terrorism, but you seem to be suggesting that they should be treated as part of an overall anarchist threat. Jihadists are almost the polar opposite of anarchists - their expressed aim is to establish an extremely rigid and controlled society. It's therefore perhaps not surprising that Spanish members of left-wing extremist groups have travelled to Iraq and Syria to fight against Islamic State.
Jihadists are the exact same mercenaries used right now by the US government (Antifa) to cause chaos and instability in countries. All these groups have been remade and re branded. The core understands what they are doing. They get orders and cause chaos. When shit gets too hot they bug out. The others that remain are the ones we all have to be afraid of. The ideolog. These are the people that actually believe they are doing good in their sick and twisted minds. Whether it be fighting infidels or Nazis or Communists.
Zaghoul explains it perfectly above. It just blows my mind that when someone says Antifa or Communist or Leftist people fly out of the woodwork in this forum. Then say they don't sympathize.
I do not condone violence. I do not condone Nazis. I do not condone communists. I do not condone Antifa or any other Anarchist group. I do not condone Alt right. I do not condone Alt left. I do not condone shady CNN. I do not condone shady FOX... I am on the side of Humanity, and we are LOOOOOOSING.
What does mass murder of Muslims by Christians have to do with Antifa?
- I always smile a little when statists paint anarchists as blood-thirsty radicals. C'mon - all those home-made bomb thrown by anarchists into restaurants don't hold up for one serious massacre conducted by state. - I would implore you to study the destruction and terror by ANTIFA and any other group that sympathizes with them in Europe over the last three decades. Maybe that will put your smile upside down. - Did anarchists murdered ca 8000 people in 11 days? Because this is what statists did Srebrenica in 1995.
So sorry, but still: statists are danger, not anarchists. It's far more likely that you'll be gunned down by police or thrown into jail for avoid taxes than being stabbed by anarchist.
What does mass murder of Muslims by Christians have to do with Antifa?
- I always smile a little when statists paint anarchists as blood-thirsty radicals. C'mon - all those home-made bomb thrown by anarchists into restaurants don't hold up for one serious massacre conducted by state. - I would implore you to study the destruction and terror by ANTIFA and any other group that sympathizes with them in Europe over the last three decades. Maybe that will put your smile upside down. - Did anarchists murdered ca 8000 people in 11 days? Because this is what statists did Srebrenica in 1995.
So sorry, but still: statists are danger, not anarchists. It's far more likely that you'll be gunned down by police or thrown into jail for avoid taxes than being stabbed by anarchist.
Until they are the ones in power my friend. Then we will be fighting them.
Until they are the ones in power my friend. Then we will be fighting them.
...so can we agree that *until then* statists are the bad guys, and it's silly to cry out how scary anarchists are? Or will it be considered supporting ANTIFA and wanting every policeman to be dead?
Help me out. You seem to be better at that common sense thingy.
Anyone who follows an ideology or a person, rather than assessing each situation using all available data and making decisions based upon that, is the bad guy.
I'm sure it would make all of us bad guys. Nobody perceves the world without ideological lenses. But my main point is that some radical groups are more of a threat than the others. ISIS soldiers are bigger threat than satanists, for an instance. It doesn't mean that I support satanism.
Let's me weigh in on the rescinding of DACA. The "Dreamers" are children of illegal immigrants who were brought over when they were young. It was not their fault, they had no say in the matter, and they know no home but this one. What they have to go through to stay here through this program makes them a hell of alot more American than most of us. They have to have spotless criminal records. They have to pay $500 every year to renew. They voluntarily made themselves known. 91% of them are employed. If these 800,000 people are deported, this country stands to lose $400 billion in GDP. 100,000 of them own homes. Any idea what happens to the housing market in those neighborhoods when their owners are shipped out of the country?? And, again, to what country?? Most of them have been here since before they could walk or talk. Might as well drop them off in the desert with a waterskin. They've done more to actually EARN the right to be in this country than 99% of us, who simply got lucky and came out of our mother's womb inside US borders. And for Trump's Christian supporters who are behind this, I have a whole stack of Bible verses to throw in their face.
Those whole stack of bible verses that you have, are they from your thorough study of all books and scriptures in the Bible or just some random out of context things you found?
Also did you study these said verses in Hellenic or in the Abrahamic?
Those whole stack of bible verses that you have, are they from your thorough study of all books and scriptures in the Bible or just some random out of context things you found?
Also did you study these said verses in Hellenic or in the Abrahamic?
Point being (of course) that many Trump supporters would use bible verses to say, deny rights to gay people, yet will completely ignore passages about immigrants. As for being in context, there isn't a person alive who can put them in context, since half of it is myths to begin with. That being said, I'm not sure who made you arbiter of what the context of said verses would or would not be. My argument is that many conservatives take certain portions of the Bible literally, and as such, can't choose which ones are and which ones aren't. Which I suspect you knew I was talking about before you even typed your message.
Those whole stack of bible verses that you have, are they from your thorough study of all books and scriptures in the Bible or just some random out of context things you found?
Also did you study these said verses in Hellenic or in the Abrahamic?
Point being (of course) that many Trump supporters would use bible verses to say, deny rights to gay people, yet will completely ignore passages about immigrants. As for being in context, there isn't a person alive who can put them in context, since half of it is myths to begin with. That being said, I'm not sure who made you arbiter of what the context of said verses would or would not be. My argument is that many conservatives take certain portions of the Bible literally, and as such, can't choose which ones are and which ones aren't. Which I suspect you knew I was talking about before you even typed your message.
I agree with you that these people should remain in the US. If the gov takes your tax money then you should be allowed to stay.
Yes they can be put into context if you study the material. Everything said in any holy book is said for a reason. Now some things can be out dated but saying things are Myth or dismissing deity as a whole is foolish. We don't know the truth of anything.
As for me, I and many others can be an "arbiter" because we have studied the material. Not listened to some HBO host telling us what's in there.
The word Myth comes from the Hellenic word (μυθολογία) mythology. In it's ancient meaning it is translated as " an important event that must be told". Come down to modern times and the English (Germanic) language has a changed it's meaning. Same as for the word apocalypse (αποκάλυψη). It means to reveal or to be exposed from hiding. Now a days most people think it means a catastrophe ( another Hellenic word) or dooms day. Thanks DC comics for that one.
Now common sense dictates that we should never dismiss something we have absolute no knowledge of and that old world teachings do not necessarily translate well in modern times.
I do as stated above agree that this "dreamers" new law is bullshit. They should be given citizenship.
re : is anything in the christian lore (and every other religion for that matter) beyond scrutiny
Yeah, sort of, but not in a very meaningful way.
You can't really prove the existence or non-existence of a being who is both all powerful and existing outside the observable universe. I mean, it should be within such an entity's power to create proof of its nonexistence, so. Or at least to convince everyone that such proof exists.
Now the bible is chock full of things that seem impossible according to modern science. But of course you could just say that God magicked it all up til it was possible, and then just forgot to mention in in the books. The problem with this is that it applies to just about any book with an all powerful entity.
Arda couldn't possibly be earth since there is no geological records that concord with whatTolkien described for the geography of the middle earth? And also the idea of a flat earth makes no sense according to our understanding of physics and valinor got raised in the sky fuck you what even is this bullshit?
Well, I mean, sure, but Eru could have magicked it all up, I mean, it's not like he couldn't have done it.
So yeah, the bible is sorta beyond scrutiny, since the very existence of an all powerful God can be used to explain everything. So is Tolkien's middle earth mythos, and everything else involving an all powerful deity.
oh no i've taken part in a pointless debate but i don't wanna erase this now that i've typed it
Comments
We've had quite extensive discussions in the past about the annual reports on terrorism produced by Europol. The latest of those is for 2016 and records a total across the EU of 27 terrorist attacks by left-wing and anarchist groups. None of those caused any deaths. The report also refers to more general public order offences by these groups, such as rioting at demonstrations. Again there were no deaths associated with these.
Guess we have to wait till they start killing people in the present to say that what they are doing is wrong and an act of terrorism?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/tourist-attacked-spain-anarchists-british-bus-barcelona-palma-de-mallorca-arran-restaurants-a7878226.html
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2040403,00.html
Hit men for hire. Now being used in America they have been used in Europe by countries governments to break up and cause violence at peaceful protests aimed at the governments. These two face chumps take payments from the same governments they criticize. Joke the whole lot of them.
Let's not forget the biggest Anarchists right now... Jihadists. They go against everything Islam has built and are mercenaries for hire all over the world. How many have they killed in Europe?
So violence is OK to you, as long as there are no deaths it's all right? Move along nothing to see here? No deaths no stats? Oh well it's only minor not a major influence. Really?
Violence is not OK. It is not OK to hurt another Human being especially for an ideology. Trying to change law and order through violence is wrong.
Wonder when they are going to report about the atrocities in Yemen?
I pretty much am against any radical violence promoting group. That said, there is a sort of logic and rationalization to many of these groups mentioned, we cannot ignore it (this is understanding their reasoning, not endorsing them). Things are getting heated and dangerously past the point of any meaningful form of dialogue now, to the violent end of the spectrum. This is fairly normal for folks that 'feel' ignored through normal channels For those looking to join in it is easier and more exciting for the right type of person to join in. It will always be easier than trying to have a rational dialogue for many, unfortunately.
It is quite easy to put myself into the minds of many of these hate or reactionary groups, to see it from their point of view, but that is what I do. I do not condone any of these activities but at the same time can easily understand why they do so. Again, it is not an endorsement, far from it, but a way of infiltrating the mindset to understand and predict. As for myself, I don't mind condemning these radical groups as I do not see it as the best and most peaceful way to promote change.
That said I am most certainly no pacifist, but I got into conflict management and resolution because it is much easier to talk than it is to use violence (or lawyers and police for that matter), and, for the most part, much more beneficial and productive as well.
In general, as far as comparing one group vs another, who does the most violence, it doesn't matter to me in the end, violence and death are violence and death. Small groups can be just as effective as large groups, and so to can be the lone actor.
It is pretty easy to go from one, to a few, to many, and to a large group, anarchist or otherwise, organized or kept splintered, over any given period of time.
***
All groups start somewhere, and many often start relatively 'harmless'. I do not discount the power of Antifa. The danger would be to base them only on what they have done, and not on what they could do. Vigilance is necessary, not only with them but with quite a few other groups as well, with some obviously on a higher priority watch list than others. I have yet to rate them recently.
Oh, and Yeman is a complete and utter slaughterhouse, I've at least seen quite a bit of that. I'm really getting tired of this' buddy buddy can do no wrong thing' going on with Saudi Arabia (just for one example).
You seem to think that Antifaschistische Aktion and anarchism are the same thing. They are not. Prince Kropotkin is turning in his grave. I would implore you to explore difference between them.
And please, educate me - did anarchists murdered ca 8000 people in 11 days? Because this is what statists did Srebrenica in 1995 (which was, btw, mass murder committed by christians on muslims with death toll higher than WTC).
So no. The statists are much bigger threat than anarchists to everybody.
I'd appreciate if you focused on discussed matter, instead of throwing vague insinuations aimed at other users. It's seems like someone with common sense would do.
Someone is forgetting the mass murder of Christians in Anatolia and Armenia by Muslims. Only close to 2 million. Not a lot.
I am not saying these attacks are justified in any way. However, your earlier post suggested that left-wing attacks had been a major problem in Europe for the last 3 decades. I think in most countries people would certainly not share that view. It's possible that the perceptions of people in Greece, Spain and Italy may differ from those elsewhere, though I would be surprised if even there they share your view.
I agree that jihadists are a significantly greater threat than left-wing terrorism, but you seem to be suggesting that they should be treated as part of an overall anarchist threat. Jihadists are almost the polar opposite of anarchists - their expressed aim is to establish an extremely rigid and controlled society. It's therefore perhaps not surprising that Spanish members of left-wing extremist groups have travelled to Iraq and Syria to fight against Islamic State.
Zaghoul explains it perfectly above. It just blows my mind that when someone says Antifa or Communist or Leftist people fly out of the woodwork in this forum. Then say they don't sympathize.
I do not condone violence. I do not condone Nazis. I do not condone communists. I do not condone Antifa or any other Anarchist group. I do not condone Alt right. I do not condone Alt left. I do not condone shady CNN. I do not condone shady FOX... I am on the side of Humanity, and we are LOOOOOOSING.
- I always smile a little when statists paint anarchists as blood-thirsty radicals. C'mon - all those home-made bomb thrown by anarchists into restaurants don't hold up for one serious massacre conducted by state.
- I would implore you to study the destruction and terror by ANTIFA and any other group that sympathizes with them in Europe over the last three decades. Maybe that will put your smile upside down.
- Did anarchists murdered ca 8000 people in 11 days? Because this is what statists did Srebrenica in 1995.
So sorry, but still: statists are danger, not anarchists. It's far more likely that you'll be gunned down by police or thrown into jail for avoid taxes than being stabbed by anarchist.
No hard feelings. All good.
...so can we agree that *until then* statists are the bad guys, and it's silly to cry out how scary anarchists are?
Or will it be considered supporting ANTIFA and wanting every policeman to be dead?
Help me out. You seem to be better at that common sense thingy.
Anyone who follows an ideology or a person, rather than assessing each situation using all available data and making decisions based upon that, is the bad guy.
But my main point is that some radical groups are more of a threat than the others. ISIS soldiers are bigger threat than satanists, for an instance. It doesn't mean that I support satanism.
Also did you study these said verses in Hellenic or in the Abrahamic?
Yes they can be put into context if you study the material. Everything said in any holy book is said for a reason. Now some things can be out dated but saying things are Myth or dismissing deity as a whole is foolish. We don't know the truth of anything.
As for me, I and many others can be an "arbiter" because we have studied the material. Not listened to some HBO host telling us what's in there.
The word Myth comes from the Hellenic word (μυθολογία) mythology. In it's ancient meaning it is translated as " an important event that must be told". Come down to modern times and the English (Germanic) language has a changed it's meaning. Same as for the word apocalypse (αποκάλυψη). It means to reveal or to be exposed from hiding. Now a days most people think it means a catastrophe ( another Hellenic word) or dooms day. Thanks DC comics for that one.
Now common sense dictates that we should never dismiss something we have absolute no knowledge of and that old world teachings do not necessarily translate well in modern times.
I do as stated above agree that this "dreamers" new law is bullshit. They should be given citizenship.
Yeah, sort of, but not in a very meaningful way.
You can't really prove the existence or non-existence of a being who is both all powerful and existing outside the observable universe. I mean, it should be within such an entity's power to create proof of its nonexistence, so. Or at least to convince everyone that such proof exists.
Now the bible is chock full of things that seem impossible according to modern science. But of course you could just say that God magicked it all up til it was possible, and then just forgot to mention in in the books. The problem with this is that it applies to just about any book with an all powerful entity.
Arda couldn't possibly be earth since there is no geological records that concord with whatTolkien described for the geography of the middle earth? And also the idea of a flat earth makes no sense according to our understanding of physics and valinor got raised in the sky fuck you what even is this bullshit?
Well, I mean, sure, but Eru could have magicked it all up, I mean, it's not like he couldn't have done it.
So yeah, the bible is sorta beyond scrutiny, since the very existence of an all powerful God can be used to explain everything. So is Tolkien's middle earth mythos, and everything else involving an all powerful deity.
oh no i've taken part in a pointless debate but i don't wanna erase this now that i've typed it