Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Bigotry to Christians same as towards Muslims

GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 1:26:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've seen Liberals attack anyone who speaks against Islam, calling them bigots. Then I see the same people post biggoted remarks and design biggoted threads towards Christianity. There is no difference thou hypocrites...
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 1:45:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 1:26:48 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
I've seen Liberals attack anyone who speaks against Islam, calling them bigots. Then I see the same people post biggoted remarks and design biggoted threads towards Christianity. There is no difference thou hypocrites...

There appears to be this unholy alliance between the left and radical Islam in Western societies. It is absolutely bizarre. There is a gay pride parade every year in Toronto. A group calling themselves:Queers Against Israeli Apartheid spews out this hatred against Israel. Many of them are Jews. These useful idiots know very well that Israel is THE ONLY country in the Middle East where they are not subject to death for their lifestyle. In fact there are gay pride parades in Israel. This really sums up the insanity of it all.
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 7:30:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 1:26:48 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
I've seen Liberals attack anyone who speaks against Islam, calling them bigots. Then I see the same people post biggoted remarks and design biggoted threads towards Christianity. There is no difference thou hypocrites...

What I can't understand is if Islam is a religion of peace why don't peaceful Muslims hand these terrorists over to the authorities? Surely they know of those who have turned radical and plot harm? It just takes an anonymous phone call. It is time for them to step up and promote peace by getting rid of those who want to indiscriminately harm innocent civilians. War and terror, rape and kidnapping, beheading and mutilating, suicide bombing and threats of brutality, subjugation and control, radicalization and indoctrination of the young and those who are not wise enough to know the way of peace, these are not instruments of peace.

The voice of the world needs to be heard and acted on against this barbarity.

Muslims need to stand for peace. People who felt it was such a religion are starting to doubt that Islam is a peaceful religion as some of its members claim. More and more Muslims are showing the contrary in their anger and resentment that is resulting in more and more brutality. Stand up and stop this brutality and radicalization.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 9:02:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 1:26:48 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
I've seen Liberals attack anyone who speaks against Islam, calling them bigots. Then I see the same people post biggoted remarks and design biggoted threads towards Christianity. There is no difference thou hypocrites...

Any chance you could demonstrate any of these alleged hypocrisies?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 11:01:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 7:30:29 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:26:48 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
I've seen Liberals attack anyone who speaks against Islam, calling them bigots. Then I see the same people post biggoted remarks and design bigoted threads towards Christianity. There is no difference thou hypocrites...
What I can't understand is if Islam is a religion of peace why don't peaceful Muslims hand these terrorists over to the authorities?
That's the wrong question, Peter, since by the time Islamic nationalism turns to terrorism, the culprits are already isolated -- socially, physically and intellectually -- from the Muslim mainstream.

The right question is why zealous and hate-filled religious ideologies aren't challenged and contested earlier, louder and more universally within the same faith -- especially when more Muslims than non-Muslims are being oppressed and killed by Islamic nationalism.

And that's an interesting question because it doesn't just turn up in Islam; it can show up anywhere religious sentiment is high. For example, the so-called 'Religion of Love' -- Christianity -- has a long history of tolerating Christian nationalism too, even when it begins spitting hate and harming Christians.

Why is that?

Religious nationalism is a politically mobilising force: religious and political leaders are typically quick to exploit it, slow to denounce it, inclined to excuse dogmatic hate and bigotry on populist grounds, then seem unaccountably perplexed when religious nationalism turns to violence. And modern media is often quick to promote it, since it attracts viewers.

So this isn't just a Muslim problem. Christian nationalism dogged Europe for centuries, and has now become a century-old problem for the US; Judaic nationalism has created similar problems in Israel; Hindu nationalism is an issue in parts of India, and Buddhist nationalism has reared its head in Myanmar.

History shows us that the best answer to religious nationalism is the one the US was founded on: secular pluralism. However that's actually the principle presently being attacked by both Christian and Muslim nationalism. So it seems to me that Christian nationalists are blaming Islam for trying to dismantle cultural values that they'd quietly prefer to dismantle themselves.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 11:32:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 1:26:48 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
I've seen Liberals attack anyone who speaks against Islam, calling them bigots. Then I see the same people post biggoted remarks and design biggoted threads towards Christianity. There is no difference thou hypocrites...
You seem to have missed the elephant in the room, the republican blowjob with a comb over is currently running first in the bigot stakes.
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 4:28:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 11:01:55 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/8/2015 7:30:29 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:26:48 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
I've seen Liberals attack anyone who speaks against Islam, calling them bigots. Then I see the same people post biggoted remarks and design bigoted threads towards Christianity. There is no difference thou hypocrites...
What I can't understand is if Islam is a religion of peace why don't peaceful Muslims hand these terrorists over to the authorities?
That's the wrong question, Peter, since by the time Islamic nationalism turns to terrorism, the culprits are already isolated -- socially, physically and intellectually -- from the Muslim mainstream.

When you see a radical Muslim chopping off someones head or leading 200 kidnapped schoolgirls through your community why do you say nothing if you are a peaceful seeking Muslim and know this is wrong? These kind of things don't take place in a vacuum.

The right question is why zealous and hate-filled religious ideologies aren't challenged and contested earlier, louder and more universally within the same faith -- especially when more Muslims than non-Muslims are being oppressed and killed by Islamic nationalism.

True, why aren't they?

And that's an interesting question because it doesn't just turn up in Islam; it can show up anywhere religious sentiment is high. For example, the so-called 'Religion of Love' -- Christianity -- has a long history of tolerating Christian nationalism too, even when it begins spitting hate and harming Christians.

Turn the spotlight on atheism too. Take a look at the 20th century and the number of people murdered by atheistic regimes, those who do not hold to God and become their own. Take a look at the Putin's and Kim Jong-un's of the world. Atheism does not hold the answers for peace because it can't even define good. It has no ultimate, universal measure. Once one of these people gets power the totalitarianism necessary to maintain such power is pushed on the masses.

Why is that?

There are radicals in every belief system. The question is which system of belief is true. Radicals who stray from truth are no longer part of such a belief.

Religious nationalism is a politically mobilising force: religious and political leaders are typically quick to exploit it, slow to denounce it, inclined to excuse dogmatic hate and bigotry on populist grounds, then seem unaccountably perplexed when religious nationalism turns to violence. And modern media is often quick to promote it, since it attracts viewers.

Of which I include atheism.

So this isn't just a Muslim problem. Christian nationalism dogged Europe for centuries, and has now become a century-old problem for the US; Judaic nationalism has created similar problems in Israel; Hindu nationalism is an issue in parts of India, and Buddhist nationalism has reared its head in Myanmar.

And atheistic nationalism.

History shows us that the best answer to religious nationalism is the one the US was founded on: secular pluralism. However that's actually the principle presently being attacked by both Christian and Muslim nationalism. So it seems to me that Christian nationalists are blaming Islam for trying to dismantle cultural values that they'd quietly prefer to dismantle themselves.

Secular pluralism is not what the US was founded on. Secular pluralism is what it has evolved into because of such institutions as Hollywood, the mass media, secular university and the gatekeepers of society, those people who influence the masses and hold to such ideologies holding the key positions of power.

The reason cultural values are in such turmoil is because people have lost the sense of where these values originate from. So they make their own up, each man his own, each group their own, and they huddle around in their little pockets of resistance opposed to the greater universal good, the necessary good, because it has been blurred by the voice of secularism, and man made religion, each to his own preference.

They have lost sight of the true ideal by making up their own. The problem is that their own is not an ideal but a living hell.

Peter
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 6:07:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 4:28:57 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:01:55 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/8/2015 7:30:29 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:26:48 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
I've seen Liberals attack anyone who speaks against Islam, calling them bigots. Then I see the same people post biggoted remarks and design bigoted threads towards Christianity. There is no difference thou hypocrites...
What I can't understand is if Islam is a religion of peace why don't peaceful Muslims hand these terrorists over to the authorities?
That's the wrong question, Peter, since by the time Islamic nationalism turns to terrorism, the culprits are already isolated -- socially, physically and intellectually -- from the Muslim mainstream.
When you see a radical Muslim chopping off someones head or leading 200 kidnapped schoolgirls through your community why do you say nothing if you are a peaceful seeking Muslim and know this is wrong?

We no longer see Christians burning heretics at the stake as they did under Mary Tudor, or pushing Cathar women and children into fire-pits, as they did in Northern France. And that's not because Christian canon somehow became kinder thirteen centuries after the last of it was written, but because prosperity, secular education, pluralism and governmental accountability make for a better civilisation than does religion alone.

The Religion of Love cannot cast stones at the Religion of Peace. Both were propagated because they wed themselves to nationalistic expansionism for centuries. Their cynical success of monotheistic absolutism in supporting whatever despot ruled the day haunts the bloodstained histories of both faiths.

And that's an interesting question because it doesn't just turn up in Islam; it can show up anywhere religious sentiment is high. For example, the so-called 'Religion of Love' -- Christianity -- has a long history of tolerating Christian nationalism too, even when it begins spitting hate and harming Christians.

Turn the spotlight on atheism too. Take a look at the 20th century and the number of people murdered by atheistic regimes
By despots, you mean. Because despots murder people, Peter. It comes with the job rather than coming with the faith, and often -- like Hitler, Stalin, Putin, or Kim Jong Il -- make themselves the centre of a personality cult anyway.

The question you must ask though, is why religions claiming complete faith in a better, later life, are so readily seduced by despots in this life.

There are radicals in every belief system. The question is which system of belief is true. Radicals who stray from truth are no longer part of such a belief.
The presupposition of absolute, inerrant and unaccountable truth is at the core of all radicalism, including Christian nationalism, Islamicism, Zionism and Marxism.

Religious nationalism is a politically mobilising force: religious and political leaders are typically quick to exploit it, slow to denounce it, inclined to excuse dogmatic hate and bigotry on populist grounds, then seem unaccountably perplexed when religious nationalism turns to violence. And modern media is often quick to promote it, since it attracts viewers.
Of which I include atheism.
Then you do so ignorantly. Marxism has had nationalistic forms, but atheism has not.

Marxism has a dogma to build nationalism around; atheism doesn't. And when Marxism is upheld as absolute, inerrant, unaccountable truth, Marxist nationalism has been as appalling as has been Christianity when Christian hegemonists assert the absolute, inerrant, unaccountable truth of their faith.

The reason is that last bit: when you uphold absolute, inerrant, unaccountable beliefs, you already are a slavish follower-in-waiting of any dictator-in-waiting who, no matter how cynically, tells you what you want to hear.

So this isn't just a Muslim problem. Christian nationalism dogged Europe for centuries, and has now become a century-old problem for the US; Judaic nationalism has created similar problems in Israel; Hindu nationalism is an issue in parts of India, and Buddhist nationalism has reared its head in Myanmar.
And atheistic nationalism.
Marxist nationalism, certainly. Atheism is non-doctrinal. It's just the rejection of the religious authority to pronounce the existence of gods.

History shows us that the best answer to religious nationalism is the one the US was founded on: secular pluralism. However that's actually the principle presently being attacked by both Christian and Muslim nationalism. So it seems to me that Christian nationalists are blaming Islam for trying to dismantle cultural values that they'd quietly prefer to dismantle themselves.
Secular pluralism is not what the US was founded on. Secular pluralism is what it has evolved into because of such institutions as Hollywood, the mass media, secular university and the gatekeepers of society, those people who influence the masses and hold to such ideologies holding the key positions of power.
The reason cultural values are in such turmoil is because people have lost the sense of where these values originate from.
I couldn't agree more.

Eurocolonialism founded many Christian nations: you can see them all through South America. But what made the US' political identity stand out was the amount of Enlightenment thinking among its founders. The signature US values therefore didn't originate from Christianity, but from the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment owes something to Protestantism for its independent thought, but every world faith has had offshoots of independent thought. What made the Enlightenment distinctive and so effective for US intellectual, economic and political development, was the idea that reason and observation, rather than dogma, were key to making good decisions.

Had Enlightenment Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists founded the US, it could still be a pluralist secular democracy -- and we can find examples of pluralist secular democracies with majority faiths of each. However, the US cannot retain that character when Christian nationalists seek to govern, because just as no Islamic nationalists love independent thought, no Christian nationalists do either.

So why don't peaceful Muslims rise against Muslim nationalism? For the same reason that mainline American Protestants, though increasingly uncomfortable about rising Evangelicalism, don't outright condemn it either.

Doing so would require overcoming a dogmatic conflict of interest, to assert an independent thought that they're taught not to assert.
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 7:01:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 6:07:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/8/2015 4:28:57 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:01:55 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/8/2015 7:30:29 AM, PGA wrote:
What I can't understand is if Islam is a religion of peace why don't peaceful Muslims hand these terrorists over to the authorities?
That's the wrong question, Peter, since by the time Islamic nationalism turns to terrorism, the culprits are already isolated -- socially, physically and intellectually -- from the Muslim mainstream.
When you see a radical Muslim chopping off someones head or leading 200 kidnapped schoolgirls through your community why do you say nothing if you are a peaceful seeking Muslim and know this is wrong?

We no longer see Christians burning heretics at the stake as they did under Mary Tudor, or pushing Cathar women and children into fire-pits, as they did in Northern France. And that's not because Christian canon somehow became kinder thirteen centuries after the last of it was written, but because prosperity, secular education, pluralism and governmental accountability make for a better civilisation than does religion alone.

When were Christians ever called upon to burn heretics or fight with physical weapons for the truth of Christianity? What secularism, pluralism, religious pluralism and relativism have done is make man his own god, deciding for himself what he will and will not do and blurred ever finding truth. Truth become "I prefer" or "we prefer" and if you don't then we will force you to adopt our values, banish you or kill you.

The Religion of Love cannot cast stones at the Religion of Peace. Both were propagated because they wed themselves to nationalistic expansionism for centuries. Their cynical success of monotheistic absolutism in supporting whatever despot ruled the day haunts the bloodstained histories of both faiths.

You need to take a good hard look at the world. When we lose sight of the best, the ideal, the measure of all things, we fall for anything. Why are your ideas any "better" than theirs? Because you say so? Because YOU think so? Why are you the measure? How do you determine the best? What is your reference for "best?"

We have been through this discussion before and it goes nowhere but to your preferences.

And that's an interesting question because it doesn't just turn up in Islam; it can show up anywhere religious sentiment is high. For example, the so-called 'Religion of Love' -- Christianity -- has a long history of tolerating Christian nationalism too, even when it begins spitting hate and harming Christians.

Turn the spotlight on atheism too. Take a look at the 20th century and the number of people murdered by atheistic regimes
By despots, you mean. Because despots murder people, Peter. It comes with the job rather than coming with the faith, and often -- like Hitler, Stalin, Putin, or Kim Jong Il -- make themselves the centre of a personality cult anyway.

And the world becomes subject to their megalomania. What makes your views better if better is just a relative term Ruv?

The question you must ask though, is why religions claiming complete faith in a better, later life, are so readily seduced by despots in this life.

Because for the most part religions are man made. They stray from following the true and make up a god to please themselves, one that they can conform to their image of what a god should be or at least try because in the end everything will be forgiven them because of their own merit and the nature they have made this god to be.

There are radicals in every belief system. The question is which system of belief is true. Radicals who stray from truth are no longer part of such a belief.
The presupposition of absolute, inerrant and unaccountable truth is at the core of all radicalism, including Christian nationalism, Islamicism, Zionism and Marxism.

Are you stating an absolute or is this just your opinion and a generalization? Where is the certainty of any position that does not have at its core something that is absolutely true?

Religious nationalism is a politically mobilising force: religious and political leaders are typically quick to exploit it, slow to denounce it, inclined to excuse dogmatic hate and bigotry on populist grounds, then seem unaccountably perplexed when religious nationalism turns to violence. And modern media is often quick to promote it, since it attracts viewers.
Of which I include atheism.
Then you do so ignorantly. Marxism has had nationalistic forms, but atheism has not.

Atheism has many forms.

Marxism has a dogma to build nationalism around; atheism doesn't. And when Marxism is upheld as absolute, inerrant, unaccountable truth, Marxist nationalism has been as appalling as has been Christianity when Christian hegemonists assert the absolute, inerrant, unaccountable truth of their faith.

Sure secularism does have is goals and aspirations to build a society that conforms to its principles. This is what you are after. You think it will be a "better" world by the relative way in which you decide what better is.

The reason is that last bit: when you uphold absolute, inerrant, unaccountable beliefs, you already are a slavish follower-in-waiting of any dictator-in-waiting who, no matter how cynically, tells you what you want to hear.

The point is, is there a belief system that is absolute or is it all a matter of who can force their belief system on someone else. You want a "better" world but you want a world that conforms to your beliefs. I don't. I don't see your relativism as a necessary good or a best in house practice. It leads to all the other kinds of relativism as soon as you start to enforce your ideas.

So this isn't just a Muslim problem. Christian nationalism dogged Europe for centuries, and has now become a century-old problem for the US; Judaic nationalism has created similar problems in Israel; Hindu nationalism is an issue in parts of India, and Buddhist nationalism has reared its head in Myanmar.
And atheistic nationalism.
Marxist nationalism, certainly. Atheism is non-doctrinal. It's just the rejection of the religious authority to pronounce the existence of gods.

There is only one true God. You can't have gods that all contradict the others. Secularism has its own gods. Secular individuals think their system of belief is so much more superior than any other. They want their thoughts, their values, their ways to preside over humanity because they see them as better. You would not be advocating secularism unless you thought it a better system. That system is just a power play like all the other belief systems that deem themselves "better." If there is no absolute best then we are just under the mercy, or lack of, of those who seize power. You want that to be you or those who hold your views, views you like.

In a world in which there is no ultimate authority, no absolute standard and measure, it becomes a game of preference. Your preference is no better than any other and it can't be unless it borrows from an ultimate universal best, one that should and must be because it is necessary for any values to be right and ultimately good.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 7:23:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 6:07:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/8/2015 4:28:57 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:01:55 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

The reason cultural values are in such turmoil is because people have lost the sense of where these values originate from.
I couldn't agree more.

Eurocolonialism founded many Christian nations: you can see them all through South America. But what made the US' political identity stand out was the amount of Enlightenment thinking among its founders. The signature US values therefore didn't originate from Christianity, but from the Enlightenment.

No, Christian people influenced many Euro nations. The Enlightenment changed the way man looked at himself. He became the measure of all things and lost sight of God. The result is a world, for the most part, that operates on human values rather than on godly ones. It only borrows from godly values when it aspires to greatness, then it forgets where these values come from.

The Enlightenment owes something to Protestantism for its independent thought, but every world faith has had offshoots of independent thought. What made the Enlightenment distinctive and so effective for US intellectual, economic and political development, was the idea that reason and observation, rather than dogma, were key to making good decisions.

What is behind any belief system is what interests me and when you push your belief system back far enough it becomes nonsensical, an absurdity. The very thing that made man distinct among every other created thing was his mind and reason, that he could think God's thoughts after Him and come up with values and meaning in life.

Push you ideology back far enough and it does not have the means to sustain meaning because the system where it comes from is meaningless and incapable of meaning.

Had Enlightenment Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists founded the US, it could still be a pluralist secular democracy -- and we can find examples of pluralist secular democracies with majority faiths of each. However, the US cannot retain that character when Christian nationalists seek to govern, because just as no Islamic nationalists love independent thought, no Christian nationalists do either.

Your thought is not independent. Neither is any democratic thought. It all builds on particular principles that are borrowed from somewhere else.

So why don't peaceful Muslims rise against Muslim nationalism? For the same reason that mainline American Protestants, though increasingly uncomfortable about rising Evangelicalism, don't outright condemn it either.

The voice of Protestants are drowned in a sea of pluralism and religious diversity and they are labeled intolerant. Groups are intolerant until someone machine guns down a large number of their own, those who also promote religious plurality and diversity. Then they realize their system does not work. France is by-in-large a secular nation.

Doing so would require overcoming a dogmatic conflict of interest, to assert an independent thought that they're taught not to assert.

Independent thought? Whose? Conflict of interests? Whose?

Peter
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 7:46:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 7:01:56 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/8/2015 6:07:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/8/2015 4:28:57 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:01:55 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/8/2015 7:30:29 AM, PGA wrote:
What I can't understand is if Islam is a religion of peace why don't peaceful Muslims hand these terrorists over to the authorities?
That's the wrong question, Peter, since by the time Islamic nationalism turns to terrorism, the culprits are already isolated -- socially, physically and intellectually -- from the Muslim mainstream.
When you see a radical Muslim chopping off someones head or leading 200 kidnapped schoolgirls through your community why do you say nothing if you are a peaceful seeking Muslim and know this is wrong?

We no longer see Christians burning heretics at the stake as they did under Mary Tudor, or pushing Cathar women and children into fire-pits, as they did in Northern France. And that's not because Christian canon somehow became kinder thirteen centuries after the last of it was written, but because prosperity, secular education, pluralism and governmental accountability make for a better civilisation than does religion alone.
When were Christians ever called upon to burn heretics or fight with physical weapons for the truth of Christianity?
When were Christians ever made accountable for claims of being 'called upon' at all?

Why are your ideas any "better" than theirs? Because you say so? Because YOU think so? Why are you the measure? How do you determine the best? What is your reference for "best?"
Those are good, but off-topic questions, Peter, and you've asked them before. You generally ask them when all you have left to argue with is blind adherence to dogma. I understand it's your way of protesting, 'But if I didn't have blind adherence to dogma, how would I know what good is'?

Unfortunately, if all you have is blind adherence to dogma, you cannot know what good is; you can only know what compliance is. Perhaps one day you'll ask the question honestly -- as a genuine doubt, and not as a rebuttal. Until you do though, it will always appears in the wrong place -- as a last-ditch rhetorical distraction while you flounder for evidence, and have to come back in a later post after you've found some.

It does no good there, and here, as previously, I'll ignore it for the narrow-minded dishonesty it is.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 2:14:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 7:01:56 PM, PGA wrote:
Atheism has many forms.
Strong in this one the stupid is, mmm.
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 5:52:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 7:46:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/8/2015 7:01:56 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/8/2015 6:07:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/8/2015 4:28:57 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:01:55 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/8/2015 7:30:29 AM, PGA wrote:
What I can't understand is if Islam is a religion of peace why don't peaceful Muslims hand these terrorists over to the authorities?
That's the wrong question, Peter, since by the time Islamic nationalism turns to terrorism, the culprits are already isolated -- socially, physically and intellectually -- from the Muslim mainstream.
When you see a radical Muslim chopping off someones head or leading 200 kidnapped schoolgirls through your community why do you say nothing if you are a peaceful seeking Muslim and know this is wrong?

We no longer see Christians burning heretics at the stake as they did under Mary Tudor, or pushing Cathar women and children into fire-pits, as they did in Northern France. And that's not because Christian canon somehow became kinder thirteen centuries after the last of it was written, but because prosperity, secular education, pluralism and governmental accountability make for a better civilisation than does religion alone.
When were Christians ever called upon to burn heretics or fight with physical weapons for the truth of Christianity?
When were Christians ever made accountable for claims of being 'called upon' at all?

Jesus made it plain that His kingdom was not of this earthly realm otherwise His servants would fight for it. Paul made it clear that the weapons these Christians were to fight with were not the weapons of the world but the Word of God which had power to demolish strongholds of resistance.

Why are your ideas any "better" than theirs? Because you say so? Because YOU think so? Why are you the measure? How do you determine the best? What is your reference for "best?"
Those are good, but off-topic questions, Peter, and you've asked them before. You generally ask them when all you have left to argue with is blind adherence to dogma. I understand it's your way of protesting, 'But if I didn't have blind adherence to dogma, how would I know what good is'?

I ask them because you make qualitative value judgments that are a dime a dozen. Why is what you say the gospel truth?

Unfortunately, if all you have is blind adherence to dogma, you cannot know what good is; you can only know what compliance is. Perhaps one day you'll ask the question honestly -- as a genuine doubt, and not as a rebuttal. Until you do though, it will always appears in the wrong place -- as a last-ditch rhetorical distraction while you flounder for evidence, and have to come back in a later post after you've found some.

That is definitely the way you see it Ruv, but you rely heavily on your scientific method which also has its flaws when looking at this evidence. and has a dogmatism of its own it adheres to.

It does no good there, and here, as previously, I'll ignore it for the narrow-minded dishonesty it is.

Narrow-minded? First off truth is very narrow. Second, how well have you researched the Bible? You have disclosed not that much and you have also come at it from a particular secular bias. You have a secular dogmatism you employ. It cannot be the case in your mind that a Creator God has given a revelation of Himself in His dealings with a particular people. You and most scholars start from a position that this cannot be so. I want to document what many modern scholars start from and the ideas this scholarship was built upon in regards to the Bible because ideas lead to consequences.

Peter
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:24:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 7:23:41 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/8/2015 6:07:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/8/2015 4:28:57 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:01:55 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

The reason cultural values are in such turmoil is because people have lost the sense of where these values originate from.
I couldn't agree more.

Eurocolonialism founded many Christian nations: you can see them all through South America. But what made the US' political identity stand out was the amount of Enlightenment thinking among its founders. The signature US values therefore didn't originate from Christianity, but from the Enlightenment.

No, Christian people influenced many Euro nations. The Enlightenment changed the way man looked at himself. He became the measure of all things and lost sight of God. The result is a world, for the most part, that operates on human values rather than on godly ones. It only borrows from godly values when it aspires to greatness, then it forgets where these values come from.

The Enlightenment owes something to Protestantism for its independent thought, but every world faith has had offshoots of independent thought. What made the Enlightenment distinctive and so effective for US intellectual, economic and political development, was the idea that reason and observation, rather than dogma, were key to making good decisions.

What is behind any belief system is what interests me and when you push your belief system back far enough it becomes nonsensical, an absurdity. The very thing that made man distinct among every other created thing was his mind and reason, that he could think God's thoughts after Him and come up with values and meaning in life.

Push you ideology back far enough and it does not have the means to sustain meaning because the system where it comes from is meaningless and incapable of meaning.

As a Preterists you have pushed your ideology back to 70 AD the destruction of the temple and city. Jesus pushed it further back to Isaiah, Malachi, Jeremiah and Daniel to validate his mission.
Where is the modern relevance to an ideology that was born of a people repeatedly punished by their God and neighbours, only to be destroyed by the Romans in the very period of great messianic activity, which produced a liar and a lunatic the Jews were most pleased to dispose. It is now the Christians turn to be baffled and stuck on stupid before Islam is handed the Baton.

Had Enlightenment Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists founded the US, it could still be a pluralist secular democracy -- and we can find examples of pluralist secular democracies with majority faiths of each. However, the US cannot retain that character when Christian nationalists seek to govern, because just as no Islamic nationalists love independent thought, no Christian nationalists do either.

Your thought is not independent. Neither is any democratic thought. It all builds on particular principles that are borrowed from somewhere else.

So why don't peaceful Muslims rise against Muslim nationalism? For the same reason that mainline American Protestants, though increasingly uncomfortable about rising Evangelicalism, don't outright condemn it either.

The voice of Protestants are drowned in a sea of pluralism and religious diversity and they are labeled intolerant. Groups are intolerant until someone machine guns down a large number of their own, those who also promote religious plurality and diversity. Then they realize their system does not work. France is by-in-large a secular nation.

Doing so would require overcoming a dogmatic conflict of interest, to assert an independent thought that they're taught not to assert.

Independent thought? Whose? Conflict of interests? Whose?

Peter
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 8:11:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 5:52:29 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/8/2015 7:46:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/8/2015 7:01:56 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/8/2015 6:07:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/8/2015 4:28:57 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:01:55 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/8/2015 7:30:29 AM, PGA wrote:
What I can't understand is if Islam is a religion of peace why don't peaceful Muslims hand these terrorists over to the authorities?
That's the wrong question, Peter, since by the time Islamic nationalism turns to terrorism, the culprits are already isolated -- socially, physically and intellectually -- from the Muslim mainstream.
When you see a radical Muslim chopping off someones head or leading 200 kidnapped schoolgirls through your community why do you say nothing if you are a peaceful seeking Muslim and know this is wrong?
We no longer see Christians burning heretics at the stake as they did under Mary Tudor, or pushing Cathar women and children into fire-pits, as they did in Northern France. And that's not because Christian canon somehow became kinder thirteen centuries after the last of it was written, but because prosperity, secular education, pluralism and governmental accountability make for a better civilisation than does religion alone.
When were Christians ever called upon to burn heretics or fight with physical weapons for the truth of Christianity?
When were Christians ever made accountable for claims of being 'called upon' at all?
Jesus made it plain that His kingdom was not of this earthly realm otherwise His servants would fight for it. Paul made it clear that the weapons these Christians were to fight with were not the weapons of the world but the Word of God which had power to demolish strongholds of resistance.
You're right: if you cherry-pick some parts of the opaque, unauthenticated, outdated, conflicted Christian canon, you can pretend -- to yourself at least -- that the Christians who cherry-pick other parts using equally opaque and unaccountable methods, must have it wrong while you of course, have it right.

And Muslims can do this too, of course, with their equally opaque, unaccountable, unauthenticated, outdated and conflicted canon. And on it goes.

But the evil perpetrated by Christians under claims of dogmatic authority places what obligation upon you? To tut privately when Christian nationalists only slightly more militant than you vilify people they hate, and pass laws against them? Corrupt foreign governments? Agitate for legislative control in secular democracies? Confect excuses for ill-conceived wars?

You don't need to ask why Muslims of good will don't create kinder, more accountable thought in Islam, Peter, because you yourself are an example of why it's so hard for them to do so.

You're an intelligent man of decent character and evident good will who has twisted his apprehension of the world to make one strained, opaque, outdated and incoherent idea the only possible truth. And that has so damaged your reason, compassion and conscience that whenever your faith does harm in the name of its own advancement, it's never your responsibility to prevent or correct it -- not as a Christian or as a human.

That's your answer, Peter: peaceful Muslims of good will are confused, morally timid and in a conflict of interest because their dogma has placed upon them the same unreasonable demands for the subjugation of reason, compassion and accountability that yours has upon you.

Why are your ideas any "better" than theirs? Because you say so? Because YOU think so? Why are you the measure? How do you determine the best? What is your reference for "best?"
Those are good, but off-topic questions, Peter, and you've asked them before. You generally ask them when all you have left to argue with is blind adherence to dogma. I understand it's your way of protesting, 'But if I didn't have blind adherence to dogma, how would I know what good is'?
I ask them because you make qualitative value judgments that are a dime a dozen. Why is what you say the gospel truth?
I don't want you to see it as a gospel truth, Peter. I'm sincere in saying that all I want for you is to be the best, wisest, kindest and most fulfilled human being you can be.

And that means making up your own mind about things, not me making it up for you.

However, I don't believe you can make up your mind, because most of your mind is spent justifying the unjustifiable, rather than asking itself what justice really means.

That's the question I'd like you to ask yourself, instead of asking me:

what is justice?

Does it really come from an obscure compilation of ignorant doctrine whose origins you can never authenticate, and is it really achieved through the vague hope of outsourcing it postmortem to a cosmic moral accountant? And if it doesn't, how should it be produced?

Unfortunately, if all you have is blind adherence to dogma, you cannot know what good is; you can only know what compliance is. Perhaps one day you'll ask the question honestly -- as a genuine doubt, and not as a rebuttal. Until you do though, it will always appears in the wrong place -- as a last-ditch rhetorical distraction while you flounder for evidence, and have to come back in a later post after you've found some.
That is definitely the way you see it Ruv, but you rely heavily on your scientific method which also has its flaws when looking at this evidence. and has a dogmatism of its own it adheres to.
You're were welcome to explore that with me before, and abandoned questions in favour of preaching and self-justification. You remain welcome to explore it if you can muster the courage and self-discipline to actually see it through, however this thread is not the place.

It does no good there, and here, as previously, I'll ignore it for the narrow-minded dishonesty it is.
Narrow-minded? First off truth is very narrow. Second, how well have you researched the Bible?
Peter, what do you understand research to mean? I'd suggest that my idea of historical research might be much more exacting than the circular, presuppositionalist methods you've apparently employed for 35 years.

You've already established that you've never looked into best-practice historiological methodologies; never used them to perform even the most basic studies that should be necessary in underpinning an accountable, independent understanding of any ancient document.

I don't believe you've done 35 years of Bible study, Peter.

I suspect you've done six months of presuppositionalist interpretation, 70 times.