|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 16, 2007 23:40:40 GMT -5
I think there's more to the atheist/secular attacks on Christianity than a 'simply' disdain for religions. If anything, their disdain is rather narrowly focused and selective, being directed wholly against Christians and, to a slightly leser extent, Jews. That is certainly true of persons calling themselves atheist here on this forum. I can't help but respect people that actually are what they profess, regardless of what it is that they profess. I can't stand supposed reasonable atheist people that refuse to see the rather unique danger of islam. No other religions seems to be held up for scrutiny. One might ask, Why? I know some fine atheist and or agnostics that will attack the most pressing danger of our time. A wide variety of beliefs and dis-beliefs are all proud to be called infidels here. ibloga.blogspot.com/Only one of the famous apostates is listed as Christian here www.apostatesofislam.com/apostates.htmIncluded in that list of universal unbelievers is Ali Sina of www.news.faithfreedom.org/Since Leftist politics are synonymous with atheism- there seem to be no conservative atheists for some reason- then one can view their selective outrage throw the prisim of the politics involved. What conservative principals are you looking for? www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=390&h=42www.godlessprolifers.org/home.htmlAnd a personal favorite of mine. thestudyofrevenge.blogspot.com/Is atheism actually synonymous with leftist politics or is it just another word like liberal that has been stolen by the left? What is it that these people don't believe? I believe Umberto Eco is right in his observance, "We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity." www.umbertoeco.com/id-49/Umberto_Eco_About_God.html We should discard what they would be called in favor of the actions that they do exhibit. A friend of mine is fond of calling them left dhimmi fascists and philobarbarists. nodhimmitude.blogspot.com/2005/11/strange-fruit.htmlLeftists and atheists both want the United States to 'evolve'- some would say 'de-evolve'- from the supposed theocracy they see (despite no evidence to prove such a viewpoint) here to a 'more enlightened' secular-progressive liberal socialistic state that is prevalent in Western Europe. One of the first steps the S-Ps must take in order to bring this change about is to have the influence of religion, specifically Judeo-Christian religion, eliminated so much as possible because, to the S-Ps, there is no higher authority than the State and the belief in a religious Higher Power makes people less likely to embrace 'government as god'. True. Whereas, actually reasonable atheists and agnostics can recognize certain civic virtues in Christian citizens and subjects. Christ himself is quoted as saying, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." And so long as dutiful Christians do so render such civic duty, why should any disbeliever take offense that such Christians would also "render unto God that which is God's." Now, to the extent that any disbeliever, in anything, would like to limit gov't intrusion into their own practice of disbelief, I would have to support such limitation. The church, I believe is to be separate from state. Leftist are wrong to assume that such is actually constitutionally protected but it makes it no less wise to keep church and state separate. If you can remove God as a day-to-day influence in people's lives, you make moral relativism a much more attractive lifestyle choice because it removes the moral inhibitions that a more religious society might place on deviant behaviors. This, of course, plays very well with the S-Ps and their ideological first cousins, the atheists (although the atheists would be dissatisfied with the S-P's continued belief in God or a god of some sort but, once you remove the 'fear of God' from the S-Ps, the next step- that being a renouncement of religion- is easy to make). How would such a religious society place inhibitions on deviant behaviors? If you imply that they would help sinners to understand the self destructive nature of their acts then I am in agreement. If you speak of the criminalization of consensual acts then I do disagree. Nevertheless, the people you speak of would likely take great offense to even the mildest counsel given by Christians to people that are in no doubt need of hope. But more importantly, What the hell does all this have to do with "Islamic Renaissance"? Where is this renaissance blondie?
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 16, 2007 23:46:14 GMT -5
I've certainly never heard anyone around here say anything bad about Islam. Well shoot. I certainly am trying. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore Is he a grandstanding politician? Yes. That had a valid constitutional point? Yes. Am I a fan? No. The body count from his "theocratic threat"? 0 www.legislature.state.al.us/senate/senators/senatebios/sd014.htmlHas this guy killed someone that I don't know about? www.theocracywatch.org/ I carefully looked over this site and found some troubling mingling of church and state, I found no evidence that the "theocratic threat" is a pressing threat to life. The more true theocratic threat, "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." Co-founder of CAIR Omar Ahmad www.anti-cair-net.org/www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015245.php 4 injured, 5 dead www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012926.php 14 injured en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar 6 injured, 0 dead www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012614.php 5 injured, 1 dead And lest we forget the 2996 dead, September 11, 2001. That was not Hank Erwin nor his heroic dad at the control of any of those planes.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 17, 2007 10:45:37 GMT -5
Hank Erwin and Roy Moore are both Theocrats. They are busy working to establishing a Christian nation. I've heard them both say on a number of occasions that they believe American laws are based on the Bible. They believe politicians get their authority from Jesus, not the consent of the governed. Also Roy Moore was toying with running for president on the Constitution Party. www.constitutionparty.com/mission_statement.php
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 17, 2007 17:39:12 GMT -5
For the S-Ps and their atheist allies to prevail in the culture war, true morality- and by that I mean a moral basis for judging what is right and waht is wrong- has to be marginalized, if not eliminated outright.
Once you eliminate the fear of God's judgement from life's activities, there is a very ready and eager substitute: the State.
Couple a reverence for the State with an embrasure of moral relativism and you have the S-P utopia.
You're right, of course.
My intention was to compel readers to consider the possibility that the S-Ps and atheists see Christianity as the true threat to their particular vision for the world to a much greater degree than Islam, at least in part due to the fact that there are far more self-identified Christians here than there are Muslims.
Of course, the S-Ps are overlooking the fact that, if Christianity falls and Muslims take over, they'll be among the very first to go in an Islamic theocracy. if they think Jerry falwell is intolerant of the S-P agenda, wait until the are judged by Osma Bin Laden....
Nothing wrong with skepticism, particularly in the realm of science. Were people not skeptical of 'conventional wisdom', the theory that the earth is the center of the solar system would still be around.
Still, I would draw a distinction between 'agnostics' and 'atheists' here because agnostics are not as openly hostile against Judeo-Christianity as are atheists. I honestly don't belive agnostics see religion as a threat to them, as atheists- and, indeed, the Left as well- does.
A good point.
One would expect that atheists would tend to be tolerant of Christians because Christians do, by and large, act in a manner that is consistent with civility and with an eye towards promoting a just society. Not a socialistic society in which guarantee of equality of outcome is the desire end but one in which equality of opportunity is the end goal.
Again though, the S-P agenda does not desire a moral society in which opportunity is equal. Morality- at least that morality which derives from belief in Judeo-Christan ethics and teaching- is at odds with their secular, godless society in which the State is the deity. Viewed thus, it is easy to see why they find religion so threatening because their worldview simply cannot be embraced by a truly religious people.
I'd suggest reintroducing the concept of "shame" into society.
I don't recall having a child out of wedlock as being against the law at any time in our history (I could be wrong however) but, at least until the late 1960s- coincidentially when the counter-culture began flourishing- there was an element of shame to such a practice, at least towards the woman (unfairly...it should have been against both partners but it was a symptom of the double standard that existed then and still, in some situations, continues today). Ostracization came from society as a whole and that ostracization was based mostly on religious beliefs.
Today's broad acceptance of (sorry to be blunt) bastard children, particularly in the black community, is simply a prima facie example of deviance made acceptable, though it causes immeasurable damage to society as a whole. How does having a child out of wedlock benefit society? How does gay marriage benefit society? How does promiscutiy benefit society? And on and on.
I can't think of many personal issues between consenting adults that I'd seek to ban through making them criminal, but I could see several that I wouldn't codify societal acceptance of either.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 17, 2007 17:47:28 GMT -5
"Ostracization came from society as a whole and that ostracization was based mostly on religious beliefs.
Today's broad acceptance of (sorry to be blunt) bastard children, particularly in the black community, is simply a prima facie example of deviance made acceptable, though it causes immeasurable damage to society as a whole. How does having a child out of wedlock benefit society? How does gay marriage benefit society? How does promiscutiy benefit society? And on and on.
I can't think of many personal issues between consenting adults that I'd seek to ban through making them criminal, but I could see several that I wouldn't codify societal acceptance of either. "
Very good points w.o.m.i. The question is whether or not we will continue as Rome did down the hill or stop and turn around. While I can't rule out a national revival of the spirit or of American principles, I just don't see it happening.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 17, 2007 18:58:17 GMT -5
One of Jesus' big ideas was getting rid of your material possessions. I don't know any Christians that do that. Christian morality, as practiced today, is dust in the wind. It's random. Secular morality, based on property rights and individual sovereignty is at least a coherent system. Also anyone that insists on labeling Atheist as "Liberal" is just ignorant. Atheism isn't a political stance. Here is a big part of the origin of modern conservatism: www.aynrand.org/site/PageServerBlend this with Christian Evangelical Fundamentalism and you have a neo-con. Talk about strange bedfellows.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on Feb 17, 2007 19:03:59 GMT -5
You are an intriging person?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 17, 2007 23:26:37 GMT -5
One of Jesus' big ideas was getting rid of your material possessions. I don't know any Christians that do that. Christian morality, as practiced today, is dust in the wind. It's random. It's called "titheing" if you have the financial means. if you don't, donating time is, if anything, even more giving of yourself than is monetary contributions. Donating household possessions no longer needed also counts. Neither of those conditions are inconsistent with religious belief. Perhaps, but both are advancing the exact same agenda- marginalization, if not outright elimination, of religious thought and belief from society. Also, I think some atheists have politicized atheism as, admittedly, have some religious folks of all persuasions. Neo-cons are people who are, essentially, recovering Liberals when liberalism was in the JFK/truman/FDR mold. When Liberalism went McGovernite- appeasement and pacifist foreign policy, expansion of the State at the expense of individual rights, confiscatory taxation, abortion on demand, political correctness run amok, etc.- they found they could no longer enbrace what liberalism had become, even though they continued to support some liberal agenda items such as civil rights, and found a new home within the center-left of the Republican party. With respect to Ayn Rand, the link of neo-cons and evangelicals is stretching things a bit. There are some similarities- both do believe in war to protect oneself, for instance- but not much similarity beyond that.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 20, 2007 17:31:18 GMT -5
My intention was to compel readers to consider the possibility that the S-Ps and atheists see Christianity as the true threat to their particular vision for the world to a much greater degree than Islam, at least in part due to the fact that there are far more self-identified Christians here than there are Muslims. I think they are most offended that anyone would actually be what they do claim to be. They are not offended by islam, because they only meet prevaricators and hypocrites of the faith. The hypocrites know they do not follow islam. I recently met a young woman that identified herself as a muslim. I of course knew immediately that she was not observant. She tells people that she is a muslim and they go off thinking that they know a muslim and she's cool. They do not speak to her long enough to know that her father has threatened her life. My horrible criticisms of islam did not offend her, she's lived them. These criticisms most offend the poorly educated dhimmis that she has told that she was a muslim. The same type of supposed atheists that do not want to admit that, even if you think Christianity is madness, Christianity has been a civilizing force upon the world that islam will never be. Of course, the S-Ps are overlooking the fact that, if Christianity falls and Muslims take over, they'll be among the very first to go in an Islamic theocracy. if they think Jerry falwell is intolerant of the S-P agenda, wait until the are judged by Osma Bin Laden.... To which they, being wholly ignorant of what islam is, would assume that they would have an equally secure right to criticize in an islamic state, as they have in states of Christian tradition. Still, I would draw a distinction between 'agnostics' and 'atheists' here because agnostics are not as openly hostile against Judeo-Christianity as are atheists. I honestly don't belive agnostics see religion as a threat to them, as atheists- and, indeed, the Left as well- does. Atheists do make that extra leap of faith to all together rule out any possibility of God, but nevertheless hostility toward Christianity doesn't always follow. A certain frankness can be expected, but then to study without ulterior motive the history of Christianity should reveal a high level of introspection and self initiated reform that is not seen in islam. Again though, the S-P agenda does not desire a moral society in which opportunity is equal. Morality- at least that morality which derives from belief in Judeo-Christan ethics and teaching- is at odds with their secular, godless society in which the State is the deity. Viewed thus, it is easy to see why they find religion so threatening because their worldview simply cannot be embraced by a truly religious people. Unfortunately Judeo-Christian ethics can sometimes lend themselves to the "progressive" ideas of the S-Ps. A certain level of communism is supported by Christian teachings and historical practice, so long as those that are included are so included because of their own volition. The SPs borrow Christian ethics of giving to the poor and mis-apply them to tell rather than show how other people are to live. Today's broad acceptance of (sorry to be blunt) bastard children, particularly in the black community, is simply a prima facie example of deviance made acceptable, though it causes immeasurable damage to society as a whole. I hope you'd intended to say that you'd hope to inflict a level of shame upon those that had the child out of wedlock rather than the child itself. Your previous candor and good will does induce me to assume such. Nevertheless, I do not think the Christian message is one of shame, but of forgiveness and transformation. Admittedly, if a father would, after counsel still not support his bastard child, then it would be impossible to respect him and difficult enough to muster any compassion toward the father. How does having a child out of wedlock benefit society? It isn't murder. It is in no way preferable to the child being borne into a stable family, but it is preferable to abortion. I can't think of many personal issues between consenting adults that I'd seek to ban through making them criminal, but I could see several that I wouldn't codify societal acceptance of either. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 20, 2007 17:59:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 20, 2007 18:27:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 20, 2007 18:53:20 GMT -5
In the link. We are invited to, "Learn about advances made by Jabir ibn Hayyan’s research in the field of chemistry. Known in the west as Geber, he is considered to be the founder of chemistry due to his enormous contributions to the field." I did learn something from the Encyclopedia Brittanica. www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9043128
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 20, 2007 18:56:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 20, 2007 18:57:39 GMT -5
MG,
I read the Britt article...I guess Jabir brought some interest in Chemistry in people trying to make gold, other that that, based on this article I am not impressed. Am I missing something here?
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 20, 2007 19:00:25 GMT -5
MG, I read the Britt article...I guess Jabir brought some interest in Chemistry in people trying to make gold, other that that, based on this article I am not impressed. Am I missing something here? The fact that much of what Jabir is credited with is of a much later orgin. "In the 14th century a Spanish alchemist placed the name Geber (the Latinized form of Jabir) on his own manuscripts, possibly to attribute them to Jabir and thus gain greater authority."
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 20, 2007 19:01:44 GMT -5
Phin, I think I missed the sarcasm of your post.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 20, 2007 19:07:46 GMT -5
Phin, I think I missed the sarcasm of your post. I wasn't being sarcastic, was just saying that other than the gold alchemy stuff, what else did he do? The article states 2,000 manuscripts attributed to the real Jabir. Then there is just a comment in the article that essentially marginalizes him, without going into any detail as to why.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 20, 2007 19:11:07 GMT -5
If you look at wiki or islamic sources, then the story is told quite differently. No mention of the 14th century Spanish author is made.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 20, 2007 19:13:46 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeberMentions things that are considered legitimate contribuitions and should get "props": "Ibn Hayyan is widely credited with the introduction of the experimental method into alchemy, and with the invention of numerous important processes still used in modern chemistry today, such as the syntheses of hydrochloric and nitric acids, distillation, and crystallisation." Forget the Davinci Code!! "His original works are highly esoteric and probably coded, though nobody today knows what the code is."
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 20, 2007 19:14:43 GMT -5
If you look at wiki or islamic sources, then the story is told quite differently. No mention of the 14th century Spanish author is made. It's at the top of wiki "Jabir ibn Hayyan" and "Geber" were also pen names of an anonymous 14th century Spanish alchemist: see Pseudo-Geber. For the crater, see Geber (crater).
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 20, 2007 20:44:56 GMT -5
If you look at wiki or islamic sources, then the story is told quite differently. No mention of the 14th century Spanish author is made. It's at the top of wiki "Jabir ibn Hayyan" and "Geber" were also pen names of an anonymous 14th century Spanish alchemist: see Pseudo-Geber. For the crater, see Geber (crater). Fair enough, I may have maligned wiki without cause in this instance. Nevertheless, you will note that the link blondie supplied did call him "the father of chemistry."
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 20, 2007 20:54:52 GMT -5
From the link. It is amazing how blondie will use blatent islamic propaganda without even a seconds scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 21, 2007 10:31:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 21, 2007 13:36:06 GMT -5
I just did a quick google search to help you get your head out of the sand. You do a quick google search without any scrutiny of the information that you link, and suppose that I have my head in the sand? Perhaps, if you could learn to read more carefully -or at all- your linked information you might find that it does not well check with independent resources. The claims found in your link, "The highly skilled ornamentation techniques that gave Italian luxury glass and ceramics their beauty, color, and luster were developed by Islamic glassmakers and potters in the Middle East between about 800 and 1350. These methods included the glass techniques of gilding and enameling, and the maiolica practices of tin-glaze and luster." www.absolutearts.com/artsnews/2004/05/05/32022.htmlDo not agree with other sources. "Examples of gilding can be traced to 2300 BCE on ancient Egyptian decorations. " www.schoolofappliedarts.org/history_p5.php"The earliest known enamelled objects were made in Cyprus in around the 13th century BC during the Mycenæan period. " www.ive.org.uk/faq/history.html"Tin glazes, normally fired on red or buff earthenware, were invented by the Assyrians three thousand years ago. " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin-glazingMore critique of islamic claims of technological advances can be found here. badhairblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/brief-debunking-of-list-of-top-20.htmlEven if you could manage to provide links to something other than blatant islamic propaganda that overstates islamic contribution to technologies, you would still fail to show how islam is to be considered a civilizing force. Early abolitionists in England and America were Christians. We are still waiting for slavery to be abolished in islamic countries. A Spanish Inquisitor called for the end of witch persecutions. And what would happen to a witch in Saudi Arabia today? Where is this promised renaissance?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 21, 2007 14:52:04 GMT -5
OK, I think I've got you figured out. You nitpick and look for little details and totally miss the big picture. Do you honestly believe that people who practice Islam have not contributed anything to the advancement of civilization? Take a close look at some of this architecture. images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&gbv=2&q=venice+italy+architecture&btnG=SearchAlso I didn't realize wikipedia and every history department in the country were participating in "blatant Islamic propaganda."
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 21, 2007 15:05:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 21, 2007 15:10:06 GMT -5
That library Website is nuts.
Just search for Islam and the West by Seyyed Hossein Nasr.
You might be able to listen online.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 21, 2007 21:42:55 GMT -5
Blondie
What MG pointed out is hardly "nitpicking".
Your assertion that Muslims pioneered the art of glass decoration is just flat out incorrect.
It would be like me saying that Boeing pioneered the art of plane making because they did design and create a functional airplane, conveniently leaving out the fact that the Writer Brothers may just have beat them to the punch.
Now, if you want to say that Muslims contributed to the advancement of glass decoration- or indeed many other arts and sciences- then you're on much more firm ground.
The problem with that assertion is, while correct, hardly makes Islam's contributions unique or even all that out of the ordinary.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 22, 2007 10:26:01 GMT -5
Blondie What MG pointed out is hardly "nitpicking". Your assertion that Muslims pioneered the art of glass decoration is just flat out incorrect. It would be like me saying that Boeing pioneered the art of plane making because they did design and create a functional airplane, conveniently leaving out the fact that the Writer Brothers may just have beat them to the punch. Now, if you want to say that Muslims contributed to the advancement of glass decoration- or indeed many other arts and sciences- then you're on much more firm ground. The problem with that assertion is, while correct, hardly makes Islam's contributions unique or even all that out of the ordinary. By these standards nobody can be given credit for anything after the ancient world. Even our half ape ancestors used tools. I guess no human has even accomplished anything. Take up the glass thing with the J. Paul Getty Center. www.absolutearts.com/artsnews/2004/05/05/32022.htmlIf you are claiming that Islamic civilization hasn't contributed anything unique, I don't know what to tell you. Nobody with even the briefest familiarity with world history would make that claim.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 22, 2007 13:29:33 GMT -5
OK, I think I've got you figured out. You nitpick and look for little details and totally miss the big picture. Thank you, Womi for pointing out that I am not nit-picking. Blondie, I am only pointing out what you would have already discovered if you were to be in any way honest or even circumspect about this conversation. If you think you've got me "figured out," then why do you make criticism of your arguments so easy? You have invited me to, I did. The first picture I see is Which is a picture of St. Mark's basilica, "St Mark's Basilica (Italian: Basilica di San Marco in Venezia) is the most famous of the churches of Venice and one of the best known examples of Byzantine architecture." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Mark's_Basilica The second is "The site occupied by the Ala Napoleonica (the west side of the Piazza) once was occupied by the church of San Geminiano, rebuilt in the 16th-century by Sansovino, and the continuation of the Procuratie Vecchie and Nuove." www.cheapvenice.com/ala-napoleonica.htmDo you honestly believe that people who practice Islam have not contributed anything to the advancement of civilization? Yes. That is not to say that Arabs, Persians, or otherwise islamicized civilizations made no contributions. Nor is it to say that munafiq or dhimmis living under islamic regimes made no contributions. It is to say that if islam is faithfully "practiced" in emulation of the murderous pedophile, then that "practice" is not advancing of civilization. Also I didn't realize wikipedia and every history department in the country were participating in "blatant Islamic propaganda." Every history dept.? Your confusion no doubt stems from the brevity of your familiarity of with world history. Seyyed Hossein Nasr is an interesting person. I would have thought that an avowed atheist would be more likely to be more in line with the criticisms of his work found at the following link. www.nhinet.org/butterworth15-2.pdf
|
|