Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Imagine what they think about how Putin's regime has performed.
Ukraine Crisis
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
Petraeus has a long record of kissing up to those in power for his own personal gain and promotion and seems now to be permanently deluded by that to believe the wicked in power are doing good things.Worth a read (long), interview with retired General
PETRAEUS: ... I think that the Biden administration has performed impressively, and I say this as someone who publicly criticized the administration for the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan and the conduct of the withdrawal in August 2021.
Russian forces 'clearly have very poor standards,' Gen. Petraeus says | CNN
Retired Gen. David Petraeus, who commanded US forces in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, says the Russians are facing a Ukraine military that is exceptionally determined, surprisingly capable and innovative, and one that is fighting on its home territory for its very survival, writes Peter Bergen.us.cnn.com
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Read the interview Marke. He as a retired general and commander has a unique perspective, it's worth the read, I recommend it.
Thanks.
I know who Petraeus is. He was still at West Point when I spent a few days on campus there in the 1970s when contemplating becoming a student there. I believe he may be right about Ukraine. My rant was more from my disappointment in him in the Benghazi affair when he let Obama shut him up about what happened, and my disappointment with modern military leaders who have gone all out to support the wicked, perverted, God-dishonoring policies of God-rejecting hedonist leaders.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Images show Russian word for 'children' painted outside shelled Mariupol theatre
Satellite imagery of the Mariupol Drama Theatre shows the word 'children' written in Russian in front of and behind the theatre.
Vladimir Putin’s forces bombed a makeshift shelter being used by up to 1,200 civilians – including sick children – in a deliberate attack, Ukrainian authorities have claimed.
As the Ukraine crisis rages on, the Mariupol Drama Theatre is now a scene of devastation following the shelling.
Anger sparked by the alleged Russian attack – which Moscow has denied responsibility for – has been magnified by satellite imagery taken of the building on Monday showing that the word ‘children’ painted in Russian on the grounds outside – in a possible sign to bombers not to target it.
Ukraine’s foreign ministry said on Thursday morning that there are a number of people trapped inside the theatre, with the number of deaths currently not known.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Why far-right White evangelicals are among Vladimir Putin’s strongest American supporters
During the 1980s, far-right white evangelicals like the Moral Majority’s late Rev. Jerry Falwell, Sr., televangelist Jimmy Swaggart and Christian Broadcasting Network founder Pat Robertson railed against the Soviet Union relentlessly — often applauding President Ronald Reagan for standing up to the Kremlin. But times have changed.
These days, Donald Trump, not the late Ronald Reagan, is the most influential figure in the Republican Party — and white evangelicals, journalist Anthea Butler explains in an op-ed published by MSNBC’s website on March 1, are among Russian President Vladimir Putin’s most ardent admirers in the United States.
“While the world looks on in horror as Russia's invasion of Ukraine unfolds,” Butler observes in her op-ed, “one group has been praising Russian President Vladimir Putin. It turns out Putin has a fan base in America’s right-leaning evangelical politicians and pundits.”
Butler continues, “At this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, which wrapped up over the weekend, Lauren Witzke, a GOP candidate for the Senate in Delaware, said: ‘Here’s the deal. Russia is a Christian nationalist nation. They’re actually Russian Orthodox.... I identify more with Putin’s Christian values than I do with Joe Biden.”
Witzke’s praise of Putin, according to Butler, “isn’t an uncommon stance among some Republicans and white American evangelicals today” — as they have “admired Putin because of the alignment of their beliefs with his about homosexuality, authoritarianism and fealty to former President Donald Trump.” Far-right white evangelicals, Butler notes, believe that Putin’s Russia, Butler notes, “is the way America should be.”
The republican party has supporters with varied opinions among them. What America needs is not more influence from republicans but more influence from Christians who understand God.
I tend to agree.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
OR trump …
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I support and promote Catholic morals, we value chastity and celibacy as virtues and we disapprove of immorality which directly impinges chastity and celibacy.
What's so great about celibacy? Reminds me of Imbecility.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Moral superiority is true. It exists. We agree on this, you just call it law and I call it right. The issues wind up being interrelated so the question is, how do we decide? It's an ethical question in the highest sense. How do we distinguish ethics from morals, or 'vice versa'? There is a distinguishment between ethics and morals, we agree on that, the people who don't agree on that are Nazis. But what is the distinguishment?
Once we separate morals from ethics, it's not like the rest of ethics besides morals is 'Kansas', it's got mountain ranges and it's got oceanic deep trenches, but according to which measurement, or according to which conception, or according to which ethics, are both morals excluded from the rest of ethics, and the rest of ethics morals excluded is a rich 'contour map' rather than just a 'flat' space?
I have finally read "natural law rights", I had never seen it explicit, although the notion existed, but finally I read it somewhere. Someone wants to say that 'natural law', which is a distinct theory, actually supports absolute moral rights (which is my moral theory or ethics or ethical theory, depending upon your preferred homonym, no deliberate disrespect intended). This is not true. Rights are self-existent, self-evident and God-given. You'll note that me saying "God-given" does not alter the full meaning and 'punch' of the first two. Like the inverse of the distinction between oh say a prefatory and an operative clause.
So for me the question is two-fold, what are our universal rights? and what is a person? We answer these questions politically, politics being the "art of the possible", this is one of those areas where politics is the only possible solution, if there even is a solution. The United States Constitution is the greatest achievement in the history of mankind----and it's a 'blowout'. 'Hands down' our constitution is the 'best thing going', and 'it isn't close'.
Our (Americans) answer to both of my questions is not given by some formula, but instead by a procedure, expressed in our written Constitution, and expressed or materialized in the operation of our regime. 'In layman's terms' we grapple through the administration of our three major branches of government. The president is absolutely powerful within limits, our legislature is absolutely powerful within other limits, and our Supreme Court is absolutely powerful within still other limits. They each constantly enter into skirmishes with each other as the decades go by. One of the most important skirmishes happened early, when the Supreme Court decided that they had the absolute power to judge laws enacted by the legislature.
Ever since the power of the S. Ct. has only grown in regard to my two questions posed above, about absolute universal moral human rights. What are our rights? and what is a person?
You can't answer these questions well without a cogent theory. So the parties nominate justices based on their 'judicial' theory, which is the same as their ethics, just highly detailed in the discipline of law. It's also therefore another word for their legal theory, which is jurisprudence, so their 'jurisprudential' theory is also another way to say it. And their 'political' theory too can be seen in all this morass as well, it's not completely distinct, none of these words are 100% distinct from all the other ones, it's a mess of a space, linguistically, and it's really kind of a shame because of how deeply important this problem is for mankind.
Problem being, what are our rights? and what is a person?
Also since Republicans nominate certain justices and Democrats nominate certain justices, we can see patterns in their rulings which reveal their individual theories. We can describe these theories, through observation of their rulings, just as well as we could also read the Bible and 'figger out' what it all means. We can generalize, find commonalities, and we can and do label them; "conservatives" and "liberals".
Liberals to me are people who believe in human rights. Conservatives to me believe in paternalism; they believe in including some ethical mountains or ethical deep ocean trenches into morality, through lawmaking. So I rather think of the S. Ct.'s "conservatives" as liberals, and not the "liberals". But that's mainly I think because the "liberals"' 'observed ethics' to me is utilitarian informed legal positivism, which isn't the same as "conservative" at all, which I take to mean, I believe in rights, but I believe that certain ethical choices are important enough that we are going to try to impose them on people 'for their own good'. The right they are OK infringing is our right to ethical independence, which is also called our right to the pursuit of happiness, which always begins with how we distinguish between morals and ethics.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
How about taking control of your dopamine system instead of just letting it lead you around by a leash?
Which? Celibacy? or what I said?
Gather ye rosebuds while ye may. Old Time is still a-flying: And this same flower that smiles to day, To morrow will be dying.
And, beyond that a mature romantic/sexual relationship with a fellow adult can be one of the most meaningful experienced a human can have. Certainly better than channeling erotic energy into religious fervor.
The similar letters in the word and the overall low level of suffocation involved in both.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
You do know that in Catholicism celibacy means avoiding any emission evoked or effected by a male's informed consent, right? I don't want to use that M word it's creepy. Celibacy means no M word. You know that, right?
I guess that just shows they are not "evangelists" for Christ.