|
Post by blondie on Feb 24, 2007 16:47:56 GMT -5
"Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria." www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 24, 2007 19:59:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 24, 2007 23:28:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 24, 2007 23:39:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 25, 2007 0:05:48 GMT -5
Wow, great link. Postmodernism, and its subset multiculturalism, is often misunderstood. Not to show my hand, but I'm very familiar with this. All religion boils down to revealed truth. All revealed truths are equal. My understanding of Postmodernism, which is as valid as anyones, doesn't equate revealed truth with evidence. Morality (ethics) based on humanism is preferable morality based on revealed truth.
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on Feb 25, 2007 5:04:17 GMT -5
No. Religion boils down to faith. Were there a completely revealed truth, there would only be one religion. Morality based on humanism renders socio-economic systems that impoverish, debase, and eventually kill its participants. Socialism, Communism, etc. Such "morality" has purged over 150 million people from the face of the earth in the last century.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 25, 2007 10:34:49 GMT -5
No. Religion boils down to faith. Were there a completely revealed truth, there would only be one religion. All the various religious groups have faith that their revealed truth is the right one. Morality based on humanism renders socio-economic systems that impoverish, debase, and eventually kill its participants. Socialism, Communism, etc. Such "morality" has purged over 150 million people from the face of the earth in the last century. Socialism and Communism are economic, not moral systems. Besides Socialists aren't particularly brutal. I believe a more accurate example would be that liberal Western Democracies represent an ethical code based on humanism and the Taliban represents a moral code based on revealed truth. Humanism tells us not to execute homosexuals. Revealed truth tells us to smite them sodomites. I know a lot of people like to think our laws come from the Bible. But people have always used religion to rationalize whatever their cultural norms happen to be. The obvious example is the numerous, different, societies that have used the Bible to justify their laws
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 26, 2007 12:54:31 GMT -5
I thought so too. I particularly liked this passage, "What remains a mystery is why many intelligent people stick to the postmodern frame of mind, even though so many intelligent writers—Terry Eagleton and John Searle, to name just two—have thoroughly deconstructed its tenets. I think this has to do with the postmodernist conviction that an attitude that they see as relativistic and pragmatic would help in the struggle against religious terrorism. They hope that, if we abstain from radical criticism of the terrorist mindset, we can pacify the most radical elements." Postmodernism, and its subset multiculturalism, is often misunderstood. Not to show my hand, but I'm very familiar with this. All religion boils down to revealed truth. All revealed truths are equal. How does a atheist come to believe in "revealed truth?" Revealed by whom? Rather, I think a more practical atheist would think religions were born from an appeal to authority by claim of divine revelation. A practical atheist would discount such a claim and examine the truths quite independent of their supposed origins. Whatever madness you may think all religions to be, clearly some are better (less violent) than others. My understanding of Postmodernism, which is as valid as anyones, doesn't equate revealed truth with evidence. Except when discussing what is believed. A "revealed truth" is supposed to be divine truth by its adherents. The adherents of different religions do suppose different things to be divine. Morality (ethics) based on humanism is preferable morality based on revealed truth. So defend your humanist ethics. Defend them from people who actually are assaulting them. Try to understand that Christians do largely agree with what you would call secular ethics, which oddly enough have been developed in predominately Christian societies.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 26, 2007 14:30:00 GMT -5
"What remains a mystery is why many intelligent people stick to the postmodern frame of mind, even though so many intelligent writers—Terry Eagleton and John Searle, to name just two—have thoroughly deconstructed its tenets. I think this has to do with the postmodernist conviction that an attitude that they see as relativistic and pragmatic would help in the struggle against religious terrorism. They hope that, if we abstain from radical criticism of the terrorist mindset, we can pacify the most radical elements." These are literary critics. Not my specialty. There are a bunch of different kinds of postmodernism. How does a atheist come to believe in "revealed truth?" Revealed by whom? Rather, I think a more practical atheist would think religions were born from an appeal to authority by claim of divine revelation. A practical atheist would discount such a claim and examine the truths quite independent of their supposed origins. Whatever madness you may think all religions to be, clearly some are better (less violent) than others. Except when discussing what is believed. A "revealed truth" is supposed to be divine truth by its adherents. The adherents of different religions do suppose different things to be divine. Revealed truth. Moses, Saint Paul, Buddha. Ideas just pop in their heads from??? Unlike, say Aristotle who figures things out. Changes his mind etc. My understanding of postmodernism involves using clear, simple language. So defend your humanist ethics. Defend them from people who actually are assaulting them. Try to understand that Christians do largely agree with what you would call secular ethics, which oddly enough have been developed in predominately Christian societies. I know humanism developed in Christian countries. So did Communism and Nazism. No points there.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 26, 2007 18:47:51 GMT -5
These are literary critics. Not my specialty. There are a bunch of different kinds of postmodernism. I take it that you didn't read the "great link" I provided. The entire piece was devoted to repudiation of postmodern thought. By a secularist even! And now another retreat as blondie says "No not that postmodernism." Revealed truth. Moses, Saint Paul, Buddha. Ideas just pop in their heads from??? ?You tell me. You are the avowed atheist. Do you actually believe that they have a deity talking to them or will you concede that, a more practical atheist would think religions were born from an appeal to authority by claim of divine revelation. I know humanism developed in Christian countries. So did Communism and Nazism. No points there. Communism was largely founded upon the philosophies of the atheist Karl Marx. Nazism had foundation in the works of Martin Heidegger and at least did appropriate Friedrich Nietzsche. The point was to defend your secular ethics and stop making excuses for the most flagrant of offenders, which is islam.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 27, 2007 2:47:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 27, 2007 9:54:23 GMT -5
I take it that you didn't read the "great link" I provided. The entire piece was devoted to repudiation of postmodern thought. By a secularist even! I'm a postmodernist and I'm not afraid to criticize religion. It is a very good article. And a fair criticism of how some people cling to one extreme brand of postmodernism (multiculturalism). There is a lot more to postmodernism than that. That's why I said this: All religion boils down to revealed truth. All revealed truths are equal.
My understanding of Postmodernism, which is as valid as anyones, doesn't equate revealed truth with evidence.
Morality (ethics) based on humanism is preferable morality based on revealed truth. And now another retreat as blondie says "No not that postmodernism." ?You tell me. You are the avowed atheist. Do you actually believe that they have a deity talking to them or will you concede that, a more practical atheist would think religions were born from an appeal to authority by claim of divine revelation. They just made it up. There is no reason to believe in true revelation. Not that that's stopping anyone. Communism was largely founded upon the philosophies of the atheist Karl Marx. Nazism had foundation in the works of Martin Heidegger and at least did appropriate Friedrich Nietzsche. All from Christian countries. The point was to defend your secular ethics and stop making excuses for the most flagrant of offenders, which is islam. I'm not making excuses for Islam. I'm just saying it's just as valid as any other revealed truth. Now go ahead. Read this really really carefully and still not undersatand it.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 27, 2007 13:28:55 GMT -5
I'm a postmodernist and I'm not afraid to criticize religion. It is a very good article. And a fair criticism of how some people cling to one extreme brand of postmodernism (multiculturalism). There is a lot more to postmodernism than that. That's why I said this: All religion boils down to revealed truth. All revealed truths are equal. My understanding of Postmodernism, which is as valid as anyones, doesn't equate revealed truth with evidence. Morality (ethics) based on humanism is preferable morality based on revealed truth. I would have thought you would have finally corrected that last sentence, when quoting it again. Just further evidence that you do not even read what you include in your bricolage. And now you brand the "multiculturalist" as extremist, to be discerned from other more moderate postmodernist? So what is your "postmodernist" criteria for discerning between cultures? How in a postmodernist frame of mind are we to discern that "extremist multiculturalist" from those more moderate "postmodernist?" They just made it up. There is no reason to believe in true revelation. Not that that's stopping anyone. What like postmodernism is made up? How did you come to judge postmodernism to be wisdom? Does the name of the philosopher affect which maxims you hold to be true? I have not asked you to discern what you think is, or is not, divinely revealed. I have assumed that an avowed atheist did not believe in "revealed truth." So why even use the term? I will restate that, a more practical atheist would think religions were born from an appeal to authority by claim of divine revelation. Do you not make, in your arguments, an appeal to authority? -albeit not to any supposed god, but rather to supposedly more learned philosophers- All from Christian countries. Are you actually suggesting that Christian peoples should be criticized for failing to censor atheist philosophies? I'm not making excuses for Islam. I'm just saying it's just as valid as any other revealed truth. Now go ahead. Read this really really carefully and still not undersatand it. Personally, I'm not rather upset that a young child may believe in the tooth fairy. She may be hopelessly deluded but not dangerously so. If I were, however, to find that a belief had developed that the tooth fairy had said "strike at the mouths of adults wherever you find them" and that "those that die in the cause of the tooth fairy will be given 72 lollipops in the afterlife," I would then be concerned. There are fundamental difference between faiths. However concepts have become to be accepted as true, these "truths" are the definition of their respective faiths. Some of these concepts that are claimed to be divinely revealed by adherents do align with independently arrived maxims. A more honest atheist might weigh the supposed equality of all "revealed truth" by such alignment.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 27, 2007 14:32:15 GMT -5
I would have thought you would have finally corrected that last sentence, when quoting it again. Just further evidence that you do not even read what you include in your bricolage. Ha ha, going after grammar on an internet forum is tantamount to admitting you can't back up your arguments. And now you brand the "multiculturalist" as extremist, to be discerned from other more moderate postmodernist? So what is your "postmodernist" criteria for discerning between cultures? How in a postmodernist frame of mind are we to discern that "extremist multiculturalist" from those more moderate "postmodernist?" One way is by listening to people, like me, who know what they're talking about. I don't have a problem discerning extremist Christians from moderate ones. What like postmodernism is made up? How did you come to judge postmodernism to be wisdom? Does the name of the philosopher affect which maxims you hold to be true? no I have not asked you to discern what you think is, or is not, divinely revealed. I have assumed that an avowed atheist did not believe in "revealed truth." So why even use the term? Because it's appropriate. I will restate that, a more practical atheist would think religions were born from an appeal to authority by claim of divine revelation. That's a slightly more convoluted way of restating that all religion is based on revealed truth. Do you not make, in your arguments, an appeal to authority? -albeit not to any supposed god, but rather to supposedly more learned philosophers- no Are you actually suggesting that Christian peoples should be criticized for failing to censor atheist philosophies? No, I was responding to your argument above that Humanism was developed in Christian countries. If you read so carefully, how did you miss that? There are fundamental difference between faiths. However concepts have become to be accepted as true, these "truths" are the definition of their respective faiths. Some of these concepts that are claimed to be divinely revealed by adherents do align with independently arrived maxims. A more honest atheist might weigh the supposed equality of all "revealed truth" by such alignment. Is this a convoluted way of saying only good Christians are real Christians and only bad Muslims are real Muslims? I doesn't matter if your revealed truth tells you to give away cotton candy; it's still bogus. (Did you like that semicolon? Pretty good, huh?) I think we all know (though you may be an exception) that this isn't Islam's finest hour. 1,000 years ago it was just the opposite. So obviously it's a cultural and not a religious thing. This thread started as a link to an objective survey which actually punches holes in your basic premise. Rather your basic prejudice. Check carefully. I may have made a typo.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 27, 2007 17:37:04 GMT -5
Ha ha, going after grammar on an internet forum is tantamount to admitting you can't back up your arguments. Then why did I proceed to back up my argument? The snipe at your inability to complete a sentence was a bonus that really does show that you are putting very little effort into communicating. You also drop links that you do not seem to have not read. Comment on articles that you have misunderstood. And you espouse a philosophy that you seem to have barely considered. One way is by listening to people, like me, who know what they're talking about. I don't have a problem discerning extremist Christians from moderate ones. So you derive truth by an appeal to authority? "....by listening to people, like me, who know what they're talking about." Why am I underwhelmed by such revelation? You have yet to demonstrate that you have even the simplest grasp of what either of us is talking about. Postmodernism isn't made up? Does that mean you hold it to be a revealed truth or a deduced truth? Because it's appropriate. You have yet to prove that. Am I to accept this as a "revealed truth?" By whom is it revealed? That's a slightly more convoluted way of restating that all religion is based on revealed truth. More convoluted than an avowed atheist repeatedly referring to a "revealed truth?" Why did these people who supposedly made up these ideas give credit to a deity? Why not take full credit for them as do modern philosophers? What a stunning display of intellect. Almost as impressive as this vaunted source of postmodernist thought. www.elsewhere.org/pomoNo, I was responding to your argument above that Humanism was developed in Christian countries. If you read so carefully, how did you miss that? How dense can you possibly be? I know your avowed postmodernism does help you in retaining your ignorance, but this particular linear thought is not that long of a chain. Pop a ridlin' and try to understand the comedy that you've become. I pointed out, as incidental, -it wasn't even central to my point- that modern humanist ethics were developed in predominately Christian countries. You pointed out that Nazism and Communism were also developed in predominately Christian countries. I reminded you, since I'm sure you already knew, that the philosophers central to the development of these ideologies were atheist often linked to postmodernism. You then restated that such development was in a predominately Christian countries. That does clearly suggest that Christianity is at fault for allowing such foolish ideas to flourish. The fact that the philosophers, that you build your postmodernism upon, had Christian neighbors does nothing to refute that modern Christians and atheist -those that are capable of objective and rational thought - do have similar ethics, when compared to a 7th century death cult. Is this a convoluted way of saying only good Christians are real Christians and only bad Muslims are real Muslims? Is that the answer you arrived at, when you gave actual consideration to the tenets of the respective faiths? I doesn't matter if your revealed truth tells you to give away cotton candy; it's still bogus. (Did you like that semicolon? Pretty good, huh?) Neither the cotton candy, nor the compulsion to give it away is dangerous. I think we all know (though you may be an exception) that this isn't Islam's finest hour. 1,000 years ago it was just the opposite. So obviously it's a cultural and not a religious thing. Prove it. You know nothing of reason and less of history. Roughly 1,000 years ago Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah decreed that "the Christians wear wooden crosses, half a meter long by half a meter wide, around their necks. The Jews were ordered to wear a wooden calf hanging around the neck, so as to remind them of the sin of the golden calf." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hakim_bi-Amr_AllahIs that what you refer to as Islam's finest hour? Or perhaps you do still cheer his destruction to bedrock of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher? This thread started as a link to an objective survey which actually punches holes in your basic premise. Rather your basic prejudice. And again you shift. What does a postmodernist know of objectivity? Do you now believe in objective truth? Rationality? That survey knocked holes in nothing. It does nothing to address the concept of taquiya or that muslims do often display a differing definition of what constitutes a civilian from that of western civilizations. Neither does it address that I have never made any claim of what a majority of muslims think. The source of the violence is the koran, the example of the murderous pedophile, and 1300+ years of dhimmi beating tradition. Prejudice? You are the person that repeatedly comments on things of which you display no understanding. What could such unconsidered opinions be other than prejudice? Some interesting background information about your survey can be found here. www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015416.phpCheck carefully. I may have made a typo. In fact you did. But you make such invitation only so that you might obscure how totally I have excoriated your arguments with your prejudices about forum etiquette.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 27, 2007 20:02:47 GMT -5
MaccusGermanis,
I know you're intelligent, but we have different kinds of brains
It may totally blow you mind, but I can glance at a web page or article and get the gist of it right away. For instance your link to jihadwatch. It's obvious what that is and it's nothing like the Christian Science Monitor. I like to send people to evilbible.com, but I would never put it on par with a reputable news source.
Forget postmodernism. I've been studying and writing about it for years and have my theories which are just as valid as anyones. You would probably agree with my postmodernism.
The idea that Islam is somehow inherently evil and wasn't the center of the civilized world at one time is a ridiculous claim. Part of my postmodernism is that people should make clear, coherent points. I've often said that the best way to argue for religion is to read poetry at people.
For instance: all religion is based on revealed truth. All revealed truth is equally valid.
I'm always curious as to how intelligent people, like yourself, can possibly believe in the outrageous claims of Christianity. I've heard that smart people are better at rationalizing.
The resurrection and other miracles of Christ are obviously not true. The Gospels are akin to the Aeneid, (though not as well written) which nobody believes anymore. These are both works of mythology created about the same time.
You need to back away. You can't see the forrest for the trees. Try to be more pithy and coherent.
For instance, among your insults I found a point, "modern humanist ethics were developed in predominately Christian countries." Of course I agree with that. Do you think I don't? I just rebutted that Communism and Nazism did too.
Here's another one, "The source of the violence is the koran, the example of the murderous pedophile, and 1300+ years of dhimmi beating tradition." Do you know what special pleading is? This is a great example of it. Anyone can go out an see how Muslim understand the Koran.
I've got a big picture mind, which is why I'm good at philosophy. You must be a computer programmer or an English teacher.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 27, 2007 22:13:03 GMT -5
MaccusGermanis, I know you're intelligent, but we have different kinds of brains There are different kinds of brains?! In the same species?! You will believe anything. There are different ideologies. Some are demonstrably better than others. It may totally blow you mind, but I can glance at a web page or article and get the gist of it right away. I'm not even surprised...that you would claim such. But then repeatedly you have not shown yourself to have gotten even the gist of such articles. Your are lazy and you hide behind postmodernism your complete lack of scholarship and intellectual honesty. For instance your link to jihadwatch. It's obvious what that is and it's nothing like the Christian Science Monitor. Sounds like prejudice to me. I like to send people to evilbible.com, but I would never put it on par with a reputable news source. What like Reuters that publishes fake photos? Forget postmodernism. I've been studying and writing about it for years and have my theories which are just as valid as anyones. That's the lovely thing about studying a completely relativist philosophy. You needn't get it right, you need only proclaim defiantly. You would probably agree with my postmodernism. Nope. You've convinced me. We have totally different brains dude. Mine is infected with objective reasoning. The idea that Islam is somehow inherently evil and wasn't the center of the civilized world at one time is a ridiculous claim. Then ridicule it skippy. Islam was only at the center of civilization when sitting smugly in the ruins of the Persian and Byzantine Empires. Part of my postmodernism is that people should make clear, coherent points. Where have you been hiding that postmodernism? You've not shown the ability to do such here. I've often said that the best way to argue for religion is to read poetry at people. For instance: all religion is based on revealed truth. All revealed truth is equally valid. Not terribly poetic nor is it true. I'm always curious as to how intelligent people, like yourself, can possibly believe in the outrageous claims of Christianity. I've heard that smart people are better at rationalizing. You extracted a confession of faith from me. And you still have no idea what my beliefs are. My criticism of your madness has been on objective rational grounds. The resurrection and other miracles of Christ are obviously not true. The Gospels are akin to the Aeneid, (though not as well written) which nobody believes anymore. These are both works of mythology created about the same time. I think we have already established that you don't believe in God nor Jesus, but apparently you believe in everything else. You need to back away. You can't see the forrest for the trees. Try to be more pithy and coherent. For instance, among your insults I found a point, "modern humanist ethics were developed in predominately Christian countries." Of course I agree with that. Do you think I don't? I just rebutted that Communism and Nazism did too. Because Christians are not the simple minded people that you do pre-suppose. Communism and Nazism do have closer ties to atheism and postmodernism. Here's another one, "The source of the violence is the koran, the example of the murderous pedophile, and 1300+ years of dhimmi beating tradition." Do you know what special pleading is? This is a great example of it. No it isn't. How long did you glance at the definition of that logical fallacy. Nowhere does the Bible call for the violent subjugation, conversion, or death of all unbelievers. The koran does. Not even the most anti-Christian texts claim that Jesus married a six year old girl. Accepted Islamic resources reveal that mo' married Ayesha when we was six and consummated that marriage when she was nine. All of your historic criticsms of Christianity have had Christians at the lead of the reform. Islam has shown no such ability to reform itself. Anyone can go out an see how Muslim understand the Koran. Anyone except you can read the koran and hadith and decided for themselves whether they are being lied to. I've got a big picture mind, which is why I'm good at philosophy. You aren't even good at lying about being good at philosophy. You must be a computer programmer or an English teacher. Just a self confessed redneck of independent learning that has made a complete public spectacle of you on this and other threads. Edit:typos
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 27, 2007 22:44:36 GMT -5
With all of the above you failed to make a single coherent point. Except maybe you believe jihadwatch is as reputable a source as the Christian Science Monitor. Do you really wasn't to stand behind that?
"Nowhere does the Bible call for the violent subjugation, conversion, or death of all unbelievers."
I guess this isn't technically a lie, but I'm not big on technicalities.
Have you ever applied your nitpicking to the Bible itself? Without special pleading?
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 28, 2007 16:58:49 GMT -5
What does my "nitpicking" of the Bible, without "special pleading" have to do with the supposed "myth of muslim support for terror?"
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 28, 2007 20:26:16 GMT -5
You seem to find a lot of nasty stuff in the Koran. Have you ever read the Bible?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 28, 2007 20:31:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 28, 2007 23:40:45 GMT -5
You do realize that Vlad was influenced by Turkish muslims at a rather young age don't you? "Vlad's father was under considerable political pressure from the Ottoman sultan. Threatened with invasion, he gave a promise to be the vassal of the Sultan and gave up his two younger sons as hostages so that he would keep his promise." from the linked wiki from another source, "In 1444, at the age of thirteen, young Vlad and his brother Radu were sent to Adrianople as hostages, to appease the Sultan. He remained there until 1448, at which time he was released by the Turks, who supported him as their candidate for the Wallachian throne. Vlad’s younger brother apparently chose to remain in Turkey, where he had grown up. (Radu is later supported by the Turks as a candidate for the Wallachian throne, in opposition to his own brother, Vlad.)" www.donlinke.com/drakula/vlad.htm#Vlad
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 1, 2007 9:02:20 GMT -5
Wow, you totally missed my point.
There have been plenty of evil Christians and Muslims. Also plenty of nice ones.
My point was about special pleading.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 1, 2007 9:09:15 GMT -5
This is from your own link:
"His real education began in 1436 after his father succeeded in claiming the Wallachian throne by killing his Danesti rival. His training was typical to that of the sons of nobility throughout Europe. His first tutor in his apprenticeship to knighthood was an elderly boyar who had fought against the Turks at the battle of Nicolopolis. Vlad learned all the skills of war and peace that were deemed necessary for a Christian knight."
I've seen this before. Your mind sort of opens and shuts to only let you see what you want.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Mar 1, 2007 12:47:36 GMT -5
Wow, you totally missed my point. There have been plenty of evil Christians and Muslims. Also plenty of nice ones. My point was about special pleading. Actually, you failed to make any point. You claim that it is "special pleading" to deny that Vlad III Dracula actions bear any resemblance to those of Jesus, while showing one example of a consistency throughout islamic tradition that does begin with mohamhead and has yet to end. Incidentally dracula is a purposeful mispronunciation of drachen, so that his Wallachian subjects did actually call him a devil rather than dragon. "Al-Hakim_bi-Amr_Allah" means ""Ruler by God's Command."
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 1, 2007 13:33:46 GMT -5
My point is this: There have been plenty of evil Christians and Muslims. Also plenty of nice ones. Do you think American Muslims are crazy and mean? That their God only told them to do bad things? Do you think American Christians are all sweetness and light? That their God only told them to do nice things? That would be a combination of special pleading and the straw man argument. My spelling and grammar might not be very good, but at least I'm capable of objective reasoning and self criticism. I guess if we were playing Dungeons and Dragons we'd be pretty well matched. You know ol' Jebus bears a pretty strong resemblance to this guy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris-Dionysus
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Mar 1, 2007 15:27:00 GMT -5
My point is this: There have been plenty of evil Christians and Muslims. Also plenty of nice ones. Evil people can pretend to be nice. Also a person can call themselves something that they are not. Movements of revival are not spearheaded by those wholly ignorant of the tenets of their respective faiths. Reform that does not address these same tenets is in danger of being swept away in revival. If a person is apostate in every way but name then why insist on being called what you aren't? Some of the nicest muslims simply aren't muslims today. Do you think American Muslims are crazy and mean? That their God only told them to do bad things? I don't believe that any deity has spoken to them. I still find it amusing that an avowed atheist would ask such a question. I do not think all nominal muslims are crazy or mean. I know that meanness toward kufr is taught by the koran and other islamic tradition. I have seen their oft quoted "if a man kills" passage in its entire context, wherein dhimmi Jews are being addressed. This passage was never meant to temper moslem hatred toward kufr, as is sugested today. It was meant as a threat toward a subjugated population. Do you think American Christians are all sweetness and light? That their God only told them to do nice things? I do not think that all nominal Christians are sweetness or light. I know that Christ's example was one of meekness and forgiveness. I have oft seen the violent examples from Deuteronomy misused to suggest that the imposition of such laws is a part of Christian tradition. The law given in Deut. was limited to the people of Israel, and people of their house. Christians,that have voluntarily taken this law upon themselves, are not charged with any political mission to impose said laws. That would be a combination of special pleading and the straw man argument. Or it may turn out to be the honest answering of dishonestly asked questions. My spelling and grammar might not be very good, but at least I'm capable of objective reasoning and self criticism. I guess if we were playing Dungeons and Dragons we'd be pretty well matched. You've yet to show yourself capable of any objectivity. Rather you devotion to postmodernism does suggest a wholesale rejection of objectivity and reason. What your silly games have to do with this, I do not know. Except Jesus has never been reported to have young male lovers. I am not aware that any cult of Dionysus currently asking for the imposition of sharia in modern societies. Just what do you think the Dionysian threat is?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 1, 2007 17:04:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Mar 1, 2007 17:51:36 GMT -5
And so, someone did call Jesus gay. My ignorance that such a charge was made does not prove said charge. Even if the charge could be proven, that would not prove either Jesus or Dionysus to be as violent as mohamhead. Nor does it prove that either were the same type of pederast that mo' was. As you are an avowed atheist. All of the above, I would assume, are thought to be myths. I will point out that the tradition of the myth of Jesus rejects the charge of a young male lover. The charge is based on non-canonical writings. Most myths of Dionysus accept that he had young male lovers. The hadith record that Aisha was playing with dolls, which is largely forbidden for post-pubescent muslim women, when mohamhead consummated their marriage. Mo' himself recounts lusting for her when she was still an infant. These charges are not from rejected heresy. They are accepted tradition in islam. This is why islamic countries hold 9 to be the age of puberty for women while using a more universal 13 for males. This is not special pleading. I have examined your criticisms and found distinct differences. I have even argued upon the assumption that all of the named are myths. I have not said that you cannot criticize Jesus. After all, a Christian does already revere a humiliated savior. I have only encouraged you to be more honest about which of what you suppose to be myths is most dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 1, 2007 19:25:21 GMT -5
All of the above, I would assume, are thought to be myths. I will point out that the tradition of the myth of Jesus rejects the charge of a young male lover. The charge is based on non-canonical writings. The New Testament canon is random compared to the Koran. All evidence points to it being compiled for political, rather than supernatural, reasons. This doesn't seem to bother Christians. It's hard to find the revealed truth in it. I like to use Saint Paul as a clear example of a Christian who had one of these revelations and wrote about it. I know how Christians in America practice their faith and I know how Muslims in America practice theirs. The vast majority of each are peaceful. American Muslims don't have sex with 9-year-old girls. They have the same basic ethical system as Christians and Atheists. Why do you keep trying to vilify them? It's easy for Atheists and Muslims to find all kind of crazy thing in the Bible and horrible examples of Christian atrocities. I could go further and insist that Christians who don't accept the evidence of Jesus being gay or don't persecute Jews aren't real Christians, but that would be ridiculous. This is exactly what you're doing in regards to Islam. Al-Qaeda can be compared to Christian Identity. Most Christians and Muslims are just regular folk. Since I don't believe in revealed truth, and I'm a postmodernist, I equate all supernatural worldviews. If I compare the validity of al-Quaeda with the Quakers I'm being consistent. The very nature of revealed truth removes it from scrutiny. Revelation can be absolutely random. If some God revealed that having sex with little kids and killing people who disagreed with you was the way to go this would be the ultimate "good." I reject all revealed truth. Just because you like the current American interpretation of Christianity doesn't say anything about it's veracity. The similarities between Jesus and Dionysus are pretty wild, huh? I've always assumed Jesus was a real guy (though not magic) but the more I learn about classic religion and mythology the more he's starting to look a lot more like just another Greek God.
|
|