Wednesday, July 6, 2016

What's Wrong With the World Replies

Since they've started moderating me:


When we talk about a country that "has one religion" we generally mean a country in which the VAST, overwhelming majority hold one religion, upwards of 90% and perhaps even upwards of 95%.

What you mean we, kimosabe.

Besides, there's little in the way of competing religion in Russia - in large part, and certainly historically, it's just been 'Russian Orthodox' with a whole lot of irreligion. And even the irreligious had their cultural roots in the Orthodox.

You can't just make laws against ordinary daily life for 40% of the population that is conformed to what has been a kind of norm for years (even if not generations and generations), in the HOPE to achieve a future social unity. The social and "secular advantages" of religion don't justify that.

With respect, Tony - they can, and they have. With tremendous success. Is it perfect? No. Good God no. But it is a tremendous improvement. And before you object that these results came before this law, I'll note that they've been playing this game for a while now. Apparently they can do the very thing you said they can't, with the results you insisted would not come to fruition.

I note that you talk about the ethical lack of warrant (based on what? who knows) to introduce laws that favor a particular religion in Russia, on the grounds that for decades they had atheism imposed on them. Supporting orthodoxy would therefore be unthinkable. But they've had free and unrestricted influence from foreign religions - indeed, western style democracy, in a tangible sense - pretty much never.

And these laws - combined with the clamp down on secular media with perspectives different from the government's agenda, and other institutions that don't like Putin - are part and parcel of a new totalitarianism, not of state atheism and an agenda of dialectical materialism, but of state rule for the sake of retained state rule: power alone.

Well, no. It seems more like power for a particular view - Russian supremacy. What are the alternatives? Tell me 'Freedom! Sexual liberation!' - we could use some comedy here.

It's weird that you keep saying what the Russians cannot do, what they are unable to do, what the people won't have imposed on them. Then I turn around and look at what Russia's done, and how they're celebrating Putin and company for doing it. The irreligious in Russia have expressed their outrage at Yeltsin's law by converting in droves, buoying belief in God, and more. Apparently no one ever told them it was impossible.


There exist in abundance Protestant evangelicals in Russia, or would-be missionaries to Russia, who are all in favor of gay "marriage"?

I keep noting that the problem isn't limited to gay marriage, Lydia, but to a host of other influences. But frankly? If you think Soros and company are above funding churches, keep dreaming. It's like you people regard NGOs trying to influence governments and public opinion as some kind of nonsense bogeyman. Surely churches would never advance such things!


In any event, there are about five hundred kajillion ways for _any_ society to oppose propaganda for homosexual "marriage" that have precisely _zilch_ to do with opposing "missionary work."

Isn't this just so like us Americans.

'Here's five hundred kajillion ways to oppose propaganda for homosexual "marriage" that isn't like Russia's!'
"Oh, how many of them worked in your country?"
'None, but there are WAYS, damnit.'

Perhaps the ways aren't enough. In fact, perhaps focusing on gay marriage alone is insufficient.

You are merely trying to make the connection because you fancy yourself some kind of intellectual reactionary and


The idea that this law is _about_ homosexuality or has _anything_ to do with the spread of homosexual propaganda or that it is somehow _so difficult_ to think of ways to prevent the spread of homosexuality and homosexualist policies in Russia without _this_ type of law about "missionary activity,"

As I keep saying, and which you keep ignoring - perhaps due to that 'boredom' - this isn't limited to LGBT nonsense. Not by a longshot. I notice you've bitten your tongue with regards to how the Southern Baptists are dealing with their 'confederate flag' issue, and what it says about their mentality and character.

Not that the Russians are so great; they have some considerable cultural successes, and some major flaws too. Different flaws, but flaws all the same. You, meanwhile, can only notice that there may be fewer baptist missionaries in Russia. Believe me: not the biggest problem in the world right now. And if the Baptists wish to help spread the faith and convert the lost, they may want to focus more on their own backyard, what with their declining numbers.

Or maybe they can't. Maybe they don't know how to solve that. I wonder why?


JBsptfn said...


I just went to Atheistwatch, and apparently Joe Hinman is debating you know who again:

I don't know why, but as I said before, Joe loves debate.

On Skeppy's site, I clicked on another recent link, and saw Mr. Papa Smurf (or whatever his name is). He was saying some BS about how Christians are in love with belief. In response, I said that he was in love with plagiarism, and I showed him that link you showed me from Feser's site. I wonder what he will say to that.

Crude said...

I said that he was in love with plagiarism, and I showed him that link you showed me from Feser's site.


Ahhh, those guys are such idiots, it's awesome. :D Still a waste of time though. Then again, as I'm demonstrating, some time-wasting is addictive.

JBsptfn said...

I just posted a comment on that link I shared telling Skeppy about the post I made on his blog about his buddy. Can't wait to see what he says.

Anonymous said...

Then again, as I'm demonstrating, some time-wasting is addictive.

We need an ambulance. Somebody just suffered a major burn.

Crude said...

We need an ambulance. Somebody just suffered a major burn.

Ha, that's actually no slight at WWWtW. Whatever their faults they are lightyears beyond the idiots we're discussing. I just know it won't get anywhere. That place is like... National Review Religion at this point.

Anonymous said...

They've become a parody of themselves, Lydia especially. She went from somebody I respected to somebody I alternately cringe at and am disgusted by.

To think that website once had Edward Feser as a writer...

Crude said...

I think Lydia is at her best when she doesn't interact with people. She does not take criticism or debate well, at least on certain topics. Honestly, I thought I was being pretty civil in the exchanges. She's literally reading things I'm not even saying and attributing them to me, which is odd. I nowhere said 'This is Protestantism's fault!'

I do recall Ed wrote there and then ditched almost immediately.

JBsptfn said...

Skeppy has this to say about the plagiarizing:

Crude is obsessed with this accusation. He has been saying the same thing over and over again for years. You, know, because he's filled with the loving spirit of the Lord.

However, Papa Johns (or whatever the plagiarizer's name is) still hasn't responded. Interesting.

Craig said...

"I do recall Ed wrote there and then ditched almost immediately."

If by "almost immediately" you mean "after two years," then yes: he wrote for them from October 2008 to November 2010. (How time flies.)

It's a pity to see: they are (and Lydia in particular is) capable of better -- even in debaate -- but this sort of thing does tend to recur.

Crude said...


Hahaha. 'Accusation.' It ain't an accusation - it's the documented truth!

And I bring it up because it illustrates something about this guy. He's not just a liar - he will lie about his knowledge, and he'll do so purely so he sounds more intelligent while he goes on the attack. That's the great thing: there was no reason for Linton to plagiarize that, other than 'Oh shit, he has no idea what he's talking about and someone called him on it, time for him to lie so he can keep attacking, otherwise people will suspect he's just a ragey idiot.'

Anyway, JB - now you see why I regard these guys as worth no time. Really, I don't want to argue with them through third parties - so no need to relay their goings-on to me. I did this for literally years; Linton's a liar and a plagiarist, and that's not even his only case of such. Skep is an idiot and, ha ha, a feminist. (Carrier's exposure as a massive creep no doubt worries his fragile psyche.) Quoting a movie: they are to be scorned rather than pitied. Ask Skep who the hottest female New Atheist is. Tell him he can rank them according to weight class if it makes things easier.


Time flies indeed! I thought it was under a year.

The thing is - I don't dislike Lydia. Or anyone else there. I think they are tragically misguided, being a pack of National Review Christians, which I used to be myself. I'm afraid that not only has the world changed, but their principles were part of the reason it did so. I think I'm abrasive, but generally I'm as abrasive as whoever I'm dealing with.

My point in that current thread is simple: Russia's having success. They reject our values in many ways, and uphold some we have a less solid grasp on nowadays. The National Review Christian regards Russia with contempt. I do not. They have a different way of doing things.

We need a different way too.