Stupid is as stupid does and stupidity votes Obama

[DinoDoc]

On the original topic:

[giblets]

You can argue that America's democracy is qualitatively different from (or more democratic than) Athen's democracy, but it's much harder to argue that Athens wasn't a democracy at all.

It is now, but I can't see the system created in the 1700's as being more democratic. Definitely not the world's oldest universal suffrage democracy, so HC's claim was incorrect.

[Lorizael]

The electoral college applies only to presidential elections. Yes, the president is important, but there are two other branches at the Federal level, one of which is democratically-elected. State and local levels vary significantly, but some of them are very democratic. More to the point, the US grants the franchise with far fewer restrictions than Athens did, even at the founding of the US.

[kentonio]

Democracy really isn't very old. The United States is for all intents and purposes the oldest democracy, and only had universal suffrage as late as the 20s.

You didn't have real universal sufferage until 1965. Even if you count the 20's date, you were still well beaten by the mighty democracy of New Zealand who kicked all our asses in the democracy stakes back in 1893.

[Lorizael]

Well, no country has truly universal suffrage. Children, animals, fetuses, artificial intelligences -- all disenfranchised.

[snoopy369]

Well, no country has truly universal suffrage. Children, animals, fetuses, artificial intelligences -- all disenfranchised.

Not if OzzyKP can help it

[dannubis]

He grew up and now is a very confused young man...

[MrFun]

Since this thread is about stupidity ......

[Kuciwalker]

Do any of you think it is actually a useful enterprise to argue about the definition of "democracy"?

Athenian government was what it was.

American government is what it is.

Who the **** cares what you call either?

[DinoDoc]

Do any of you think it is actually a useful enterprise to argue about the definition of "democracy"?

Athenian government was what it was.

American government is what it is.

Who the **** cares what you call either?

Kuci, this thread is about stupidity. It's bound to start stupid discussions.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is interesting you cite "Fathers of the Church" because it seems like you are quite happy with their 'internal authority' (as you see it) but only theirs - are you among those who believe God turned off the spigot after the first 100 years?

Plenty of Church fathers through all parts of history - plus, you know how I regard Chesterton, and he's not that old! Nor, for example, is Benedict XVI. If I rejected progressive revelation, why then would I accept the Immaculate Conception? Yes, things can and do change. The dispute isn't over that - the dispute is over whether I believe those supporting homosexuality are inspired. Progressive revelation does not contradict that which came before. There are always dissenters arguing that their dissent is the real deal and then they blow away like chaff. This is just the latest one.

[Ben Kenobi]

we should examine our traditions to see if they can be improved upon. This is the key for me: we cannot let things go unexamined.

Something we actually agree on, btw.

The big distinction for me between liberal/conservative is rather easy. Do you believe that human nature can change? If you believe yes - go sit with Rousseau and the liberals. IF you believe no - go sit with Hobbes and the conservatives. The reason I stack Imran in with the liberals is because (unless he's changed his opinion), that human nature can change, and we can change human nature for the better by changing society for the better.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The dispute isn't over that - the dispute is over whether I believe those supporting homosexuality are inspired.

Which is what I do believe, and then you turn around and act like that means I believe in internal rather than external revelation .

[Ben Kenobi]

Which is what I do believe, and then you turn around and act like that means I believe in internal rather than external revelation

I say that because I don't believe it's revelation driving your support. You believed in it before you ever became Christian. It feels to me that you believe it's right and so that overrides whatever the bible teaches about the subject. It's not helping either that your pastor and your church authories are disciples of Schleiermacher - and Barth really doesn't give you the tools to accurately assess revelation either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I say that because I don't believe it's revelation driving your support. You believed in it before you ever became Christian. It feels to me that you believe it's right and so that overrides whatever the bible teaches about the subject. It's not helping either that your pastor and your church authories are disciples of Schleiermacher - and Barth really doesn't give you the tools to accurately assess revelation either.

So if one believes something before coming to Christ, if they still believe it after coming to Christ that must mean it comes from inside of them and not from God? What silliness! You act as if God doesn't work on people even before they believe.

ELCA is much more Barthian than Schleiermachian, FWIW.

And, of course, my first Pastor and Church Authority (Assemblies of God) are Fundamentalist Pentecostals.