|
On March 25 2016 05:00 KwarK wrote:
Sex, and other pleasures, are of the body. If we accept the Greek philosophical idea that things of body are diametrically opposed to things of the spirit then it's a very short jump to sex being a sin. What you have to understand is that most of the New Testament was written by a Greek who never met Jesus but jumped onto the bandwagon after Jesus left and then took it over.
Do you have a source for that? Sounds pretty interesting.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
paul and ascetic streak. establishing a continuation to modern day is difficult
|
As a self-proclaimed "radical" Christian, Paul sucks. :D
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
catholic girls can be very radical indeed
|
Episcopalian*
|
In hindsight, should Western and Northern European countries have focused on attracting 'Caucasian' immigrants from the rest of Europe and North America to move to their countries after WWII?
Assuming that acceptance and integration among different European-ancestry groups would have been smoother.
|
On March 27 2016 03:06 domane wrote:
In hindsight, should Western and Northern European countries have focused on attracting 'Caucasian' immigrants from the rest of Europe and North America to move to their countries after WWII?
Assuming that acceptance and integration among different European-ancestry groups would have been smoother.
And what exactly do you think that would have changed and/or prevented?
|
On March 27 2016 03:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2016 03:06 domane wrote:
In hindsight, should Western and Northern European countries have focused on attracting 'Caucasian' immigrants from the rest of Europe and North America to move to their countries after WWII?
Assuming that acceptance and integration among different European-ancestry groups would have been smoother. And what exactly do you think that would have changed and/or prevented?
Perhaps it would have been a little similar to the relationship between West and East Germans after reunification. Several steps further, since it's white immigrants not speaking their language and having to learn and adjust to the environment and its differences.
I'm wondering if in the first place, there could have been enough white East/South Europeans and North Americans available willing relocate (enough to support the Post-WWII / Cold War / Post-Cold War economies of France, Germany, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc.). Plus the politics and consequences of millions of people relocating.
Also wondering about the state of societal cohesion/divisiveness, trust/distrust, and satisfaction/dissatisfaction with such a demographic composition.
|
On March 27 2016 03:06 domane wrote:
In hindsight, should Western and Northern European countries have focused on attracting 'Caucasian' immigrants from the rest of Europe and North America to move to their countries after WWII?
Assuming that acceptance and integration among different European-ancestry groups would have been smoother.
(1) Integration among different European nationalities is not necessarily smooth. For example, you can find back in the late 19th/early 20th in the French medias stuff saying that Polish, Spanish, Portuguese or Italian immigrants are not integrated, disrespectful, etc.
(2) Immigration from North Africa and Africa has proven a source of both cultural and financiary wealth, a wealth that heavily outweights the drawbacks of that immigration, so assuming it wouldn't have been harder nor costlier to attract immigrants from NA/Europe, I'd answer no to your question.
edit : I really don't think you can compare the cultural differences between East West Germans to those of, for example, French and Finnish people, or British and Yugoslav people.
|
On March 27 2016 04:09 domane wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2016 03:23 Gorsameth wrote:On March 27 2016 03:06 domane wrote:
In hindsight, should Western and Northern European countries have focused on attracting 'Caucasian' immigrants from the rest of Europe and North America to move to their countries after WWII?
Assuming that acceptance and integration among different European-ancestry groups would have been smoother. And what exactly do you think that would have changed and/or prevented? Perhaps it would have been a little similar to the relationship between West and East Germans after reunification. Several steps further, since it's white immigrants not speaking their language and having to learn and adjust to the environment and its differences. I'm wondering if in the first place, there could have been enough white East/South Europeans and North Americans available willing relocate (enough to support the Post-WWII / Cold War / Post-Cold War economies of France, Germany, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc.). Plus the politics and consequences of millions of people relocating. Also wondering about the state of societal cohesion/divisiveness, trust/distrust, and satisfaction/dissatisfaction with such a demographic composition.
Sweden did import a lot of people post WWII. First from Finland since they got kind of gutted in WWII, later on from Yugoslavia and the surrounding region. Then from Iraq followed by the ex-soviet states. Now it is from multiple places inside and outside of EU. The ones shown in the media as problems are from outside EU (I don't know the truth), while the previous wave from Iraq prior to 9/11 didn't cause as many problems (since the country had a different social system then in my opinion). It is kind of hard to find objective data since nobody is measuring in a relevant way over the entire 70 year period.
|
Norway28797 Posts
I for one am extremely happy about overall third world immigration into Norway. That doesn't mean I can't see that there have been problems - just that I think our society is vastly richer culturally for it, and that the problems we have faced pale in comparison with this benefit.
|
Canada11355 Posts
What is 'culture' in the context Liquid`Drone is speaking about? I've never been able to understand. Like I understand that it's people bringing the things they normally do with them but how does that affect other people aside from having more options for places to eat?
|
Norway28797 Posts
considering how you apparently like to eat poop, I can understand why you would consider that unimportant.
Seriously though, food is a significant part of it. A somewhat different mentality is another. Music a third. Dance a fourth. Different artistic expressions a fifth (although that's somewhat covered by #3 and #4)
Also, I really enjoy talking to people from different cultures because they have a different perspective on things. Relating to their perspective enables me to enrich my own.
|
Western Germany had a massive amount (At least 12 million) of refugees who later became immigrants after WW2, mostly ethnic germans from the now-no-longer German areas in eastern europe. Dealing with this was obviously a gigantic problem, and lead to some problems with integration, but was ultimatively successfully solved despite some hardship.
This pretty unique experience might also explain some of the difference in the handling of the current refugee crisis. A lot of the people in my grandparents generation have either been refugees themselves, or remember that wave of refugees, and the horrors they told of fleeing from, and the prejudices they had to face here, and feel that we should be capable of dealing with the much smaller influx of people from Syria despite larger cultural differences, and that helping refugees is a duty to every human.
|
|
|
On March 27 2016 05:31 Fecalfeast wrote:
What is 'culture' in the context Liquid`Drone is speaking about? I've never been able to understand. Like I understand that it's people bringing the things they normally do with them but how does that affect other people aside from having more options for places to eat?
Its really only something you see in hindsight.
The core of the issue being a belief that the more people from other cultures society has to deal with, the less xenophobic they will be over time allowing for a more peaceful and globalized society.
Also food/music/etc...
|
On March 27 2016 16:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2016 05:31 Fecalfeast wrote:
What is 'culture' in the context Liquid`Drone is speaking about? I've never been able to understand. Like I understand that it's people bringing the things they normally do with them but how does that affect other people aside from having more options for places to eat? Its really only something you see in hindsight. The core of the issue being a belief that the more people from other cultures society has to deal with, the less xenophobic they will be over time allowing for a more peaceful and globalized society. Also food/music/etc...
Us Swedes are very happy we have Zlatan, from an immigrant family from ex Yugoslavia. 
So they also brought a more individual technical football, and a bit of attitude instead on the usual boring Swedish polite team play.
There are also a couple of (Swedish immigrant) hilarious stand up comedians that have a bit different style from most Swedes. I don't really follow that scene, so can't give you names, sorry. It'd be in Swedish anyway.
|
On March 25 2016 21:09 farvacola wrote:
As a self-proclaimed "radical" Christian, Paul sucks. :D
Paul doesn't really suck if you accept the standard academic view (common in mainline churches as well) on Paul's authorship. Most of the stuff modern Christians dislike is in the Pastoral Epistles (1/2 Tim, Titus), which he most certainly did not write, and occasionally in places that scholars consider suspected interpolations (usually they are interrupting narrative flow, using clearly non-Pauline vocabulary or ideas). The later, pseudo-Pauline stuff tends to include stuff that looks kinda sexist and pro-slavery, both of which Paul was definitely not.
On March 25 2016 05:00 KwarK wrote:
Sex, and other pleasures, are of the body. If we accept the Greek philosophical idea that things of body are diametrically opposed to things of the spirit then it's a very short jump to sex being a sin. What you have to understand is that most of the New Testament was written by a Greek who never met Jesus but jumped onto the bandwagon after Jesus left and then took it over.
Sure, it's a short jump. But neither Paul nor any of the New Testament authors made it, up to and including the Pastoral Epistles. Paul himself had a calling to celibacy, but he never condemned other Christian leaders, including Peter (whom the Catholic Church claims as the first Pope) for taking husbands or wives. Paul's mantra on that stuff was "be what you are, don't get bogged down so that you can focus on the bigger stuff."
Also, Paul hardly wrote most of the New Testament. Plurality, sure. Not close to a majority.
And it's not really fair to say either that Paul was "a Greek" (he was a Jew, a Pharisee of the House of Hillel).
He didn't really take anything over either. The record is pretty clearly that he founded some churches in Asia Minor and Greece, leaving Judea to the Apostles and the southern and western Med. to other missionaries.
|
What does it mean to "switch out?" And not the urban dictionary definition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
