Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope
| OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72511] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 15:48  |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I don't want to start another religious or political thread - I just found
this ironic, at best:
The Pope is under fire from the Islamic community because he quoted a
Byzantine emperor's ancient writings in a talk rejecting religious
motivation for violence. The emperor, in obscure writings hundreds of year
old, characterized the teachings of Muhammad (Islam's founder) as "evil and
inhuman" because if it's command to "spread by the sword the faith". The
Pope made no such characterization - just quoted the old guy, and it isn't
even clear if he quoted any of the "offensive" text.
As a protest, two Catholic, two Anglican, and one Greek church in the West
Bank were attacked by Palestinians using guns, firebombs and lighter fluid -
charring the churches and riddling them with bullet holes.
Umm...reality check: 2+2=4. The Earth still circles the Sun. And doesn't
reacting with violence just prove the Emperor's assessment, and then some?
Yet the press and the Islamic world seem to have missed the irony of this
response, or at least are reluctant to admit it.
The Pope's comment is getting more press than the fact that violence was
actually perpetrated when the churches were torched. To note, this was a
response, not a crime.
Why are we (the world culture) so quick to defend Islam and work so hard to
avoid offending Muslims, regardless of the cost - even if it means rewriting
the definitions of peace and violence? Just something to think about....
Ignorance isn't bliss, it's the last step one takes before falling off of a
cliff.
Back to music...
Dedric
|
|
|
|
| Re: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72512 is a reply to message #72511] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 16:41  |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It's Bush's fault.
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:C131DB49.356D%dterry@keyofd.net...
> I don't want to start another religious or political thread - I just found
> this ironic, at best:
>
> The Pope is under fire from the Islamic community because he quoted a
> Byzantine emperor's ancient writings in a talk rejecting religious
> motivation for violence. The emperor, in obscure writings hundreds of
year
> old, characterized the teachings of Muhammad (Islam's founder) as "evil
and
> inhuman" because if it's command to "spread by the sword the faith". The
> Pope made no such characterization - just quoted the old guy, and it isn't
> even clear if he quoted any of the "offensive" text.
>
> As a protest, two Catholic, two Anglican, and one Greek church in the West
> Bank were attacked by Palestinians using guns, firebombs and lighter
fluid -
> charring the churches and riddling them with bullet holes.
>
> Umm...reality check: 2+2=4. The Earth still circles the Sun. And
doesn't
> reacting with violence just prove the Emperor's assessment, and then some?
> Yet the press and the Islamic world seem to have missed the irony of this
> response, or at least are reluctant to admit it.
>
> The Pope's comment is getting more press than the fact that violence was
> actually perpetrated when the churches were torched. To note, this was a
> response, not a crime.
>
> Why are we (the world culture) so quick to defend Islam and work so hard
to
> avoid offending Muslims, regardless of the cost - even if it means
rewriting
> the definitions of peace and violence? Just something to think about....
>
> Ignorance isn't bliss, it's the last step one takes before falling off of
a
> cliff.
>
> Back to music...
> Dedric
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72516 is a reply to message #72512] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 17:52 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Agreed to both.
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:450c8c11@linux...
> It's Bush's fault.
>
> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> news:C131DB49.356D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>> I don't want to start another religious or political thread - I just
>> found
>> this ironic, at best:
>>
>> The Pope is under fire from the Islamic community because he quoted a
>> Byzantine emperor's ancient writings in a talk rejecting religious
>> motivation for violence. The emperor, in obscure writings hundreds of
> year
>> old, characterized the teachings of Muhammad (Islam's founder) as "evil
> and
>> inhuman" because if it's command to "spread by the sword the faith". The
>> Pope made no such characterization - just quoted the old guy, and it
>> isn't
>> even clear if he quoted any of the "offensive" text.
>>
>> As a protest, two Catholic, two Anglican, and one Greek church in the
>> West
>> Bank were attacked by Palestinians using guns, firebombs and lighter
> fluid -
>> charring the churches and riddling them with bullet holes.
>>
>> Umm...reality check: 2+2=4. The Earth still circles the Sun. And
> doesn't
>> reacting with violence just prove the Emperor's assessment, and then
>> some?
>> Yet the press and the Islamic world seem to have missed the irony of this
>> response, or at least are reluctant to admit it.
>>
>> The Pope's comment is getting more press than the fact that violence was
>> actually perpetrated when the churches were torched. To note, this was a
>> response, not a crime.
>>
>> Why are we (the world culture) so quick to defend Islam and work so hard
> to
>> avoid offending Muslims, regardless of the cost - even if it means
> rewriting
>> the definitions of peace and violence? Just something to think about....
>>
>> Ignorance isn't bliss, it's the last step one takes before falling off of
> a
>> cliff.
>>
>> Back to music...
>> Dedric
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72517 is a reply to message #72511] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 18:14 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Seems to me that it's time to bring back King Arthur.....
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:C131DB49.356D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>I don't want to start another religious or political thread - I just found
> this ironic, at best:
>
> The Pope is under fire from the Islamic community because he quoted a
> Byzantine emperor's ancient writings in a talk rejecting religious
> motivation for violence. The emperor, in obscure writings hundreds of
> year
> old, characterized the teachings of Muhammad (Islam's founder) as "evil
> and
> inhuman" because if it's command to "spread by the sword the faith". The
> Pope made no such characterization - just quoted the old guy, and it isn't
> even clear if he quoted any of the "offensive" text.
>
> As a protest, two Catholic, two Anglican, and one Greek church in the West
> Bank were attacked by Palestinians using guns, firebombs and lighter
> fluid -
> charring the churches and riddling them with bullet holes.
>
> Umm...reality check: 2+2=4. The Earth still circles the Sun. And
> doesn't
> reacting with violence just prove the Emperor's assessment, and then some?
> Yet the press and the Islamic world seem to have missed the irony of this
> response, or at least are reluctant to admit it.
>
> The Pope's comment is getting more press than the fact that violence was
> actually perpetrated when the churches were torched. To note, this was a
> response, not a crime.
>
> Why are we (the world culture) so quick to defend Islam and work so hard
> to
> avoid offending Muslims, regardless of the cost - even if it means
> rewriting
> the definitions of peace and violence? Just something to think about....
>
> Ignorance isn't bliss, it's the last step one takes before falling off of
> a
> cliff.
>
> Back to music...
> Dedric
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72519 is a reply to message #72511] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 18:29 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I recall a similar irony, if that's the right word, during the Danish
cartoon flap: Muslim fanatics using violence to protest the implication
that Islam is a violent religion. Is it possible they didn't realize they
were proving the validity of the cartoons? Hard to believe.
Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden and others have much of the Muslim world
convinced that the US is engaged in a war on Islam. Even more
unfortunately, I think for some this actually is an unspoken motive in our
"war on terror."
To paraphrase John Lennon: imagine . . . no religion.
Sigh,
Sarah
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:C131DB49.356D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>I don't want to start another religious or political thread - I just found
> this ironic, at best:
>
> The Pope is under fire from the Islamic community because he quoted a
> Byzantine emperor's ancient writings in a talk rejecting religious
> motivation for violence. The emperor, in obscure writings hundreds of
> year
> old, characterized the teachings of Muhammad (Islam's founder) as "evil
> and
> inhuman" because if it's command to "spread by the sword the faith". The
> Pope made no such characterization - just quoted the old guy, and it isn't
> even clear if he quoted any of the "offensive" text.
>
> As a protest, two Catholic, two Anglican, and one Greek church in the West
> Bank were attacked by Palestinians using guns, firebombs and lighter
> fluid -
> charring the churches and riddling them with bullet holes.
>
> Umm...reality check: 2+2=4. The Earth still circles the Sun. And
> doesn't
> reacting with violence just prove the Emperor's assessment, and then some?
> Yet the press and the Islamic world seem to have missed the irony of this
> response, or at least are reluctant to admit it.
>
> The Pope's comment is getting more press than the fact that violence was
> actually perpetrated when the churches were torched. To note, this was a
> response, not a crime.
>
> Why are we (the world culture) so quick to defend Islam and work so hard
> to
> avoid offending Muslims, regardless of the cost - even if it means
> rewriting
> the definitions of peace and violence? Just something to think about....
>
> Ignorance isn't bliss, it's the last step one takes before falling off of
> a
> cliff.
>
> Back to music...
> Dedric
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72520 is a reply to message #72517] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 18:35 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You don't need King Arthur, silly . . . you have King George the Decider and
Richard (Cheney) the Lyin' Hearted. :)
S
"Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:450c9fbe$1@linux...
> Seems to me that it's time to bring back King Arthur.....
> --
> Martin Harrington
> www.lendanear-sound.com
>
> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> news:C131DB49.356D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>I don't want to start another religious or political thread - I just found
>> this ironic, at best:
>>
>> The Pope is under fire from the Islamic community because he quoted a
>> Byzantine emperor's ancient writings in a talk rejecting religious
>> motivation for violence. The emperor, in obscure writings hundreds of
>> year
>> old, characterized the teachings of Muhammad (Islam's founder) as "evil
>> and
>> inhuman" because if it's command to "spread by the sword the faith". The
>> Pope made no such characterization - just quoted the old guy, and it
>> isn't
>> even clear if he quoted any of the "offensive" text.
>>
>> As a protest, two Catholic, two Anglican, and one Greek church in the
>> West
>> Bank were attacked by Palestinians using guns, firebombs and lighter
>> fluid -
>> charring the churches and riddling them with bullet holes.
>>
>> Umm...reality check: 2+2=4. The Earth still circles the Sun. And
>> doesn't
>> reacting with violence just prove the Emperor's assessment, and then
>> some?
>> Yet the press and the Islamic world seem to have missed the irony of this
>> response, or at least are reluctant to admit it.
>>
>> The Pope's comment is getting more press than the fact that violence was
>> actually perpetrated when the churches were torched. To note, this was a
>> response, not a crime.
>>
>> Why are we (the world culture) so quick to defend Islam and work so hard
>> to
>> avoid offending Muslims, regardless of the cost - even if it means
>> rewriting
>> the definitions of peace and violence? Just something to think about....
>>
>> Ignorance isn't bliss, it's the last step one takes before falling off of
>> a
>> cliff.
>>
>> Back to music...
>> Dedric
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72521 is a reply to message #72516] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 18:36 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
......wait!!!....it's Clinton's fault!!!........no!!!.......it's Eisenhower's
fault!!!!!!.......hell, maybe it's Muhammad's fault!!!......not, it's Jesus'
fault!!!!.....
"justcron" <parisnews@hydrorecords.com> wrote in message
news:450c9a65@linux...
> Agreed to both.
>
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> news:450c8c11@linux...
> > It's Bush's fault.
> >
> > "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> > news:C131DB49.356D%dterry@keyofd.net...
> >> I don't want to start another religious or political thread - I just
> >> found
> >> this ironic, at best:
> >>
> >> The Pope is under fire from the Islamic community because he quoted a
> >> Byzantine emperor's ancient writings in a talk rejecting religious
> >> motivation for violence. The emperor, in obscure writings hundreds of
> > year
> >> old, characterized the teachings of Muhammad (Islam's founder) as "evil
> > and
> >> inhuman" because if it's command to "spread by the sword the faith".
The
> >> Pope made no such characterization - just quoted the old guy, and it
> >> isn't
> >> even clear if he quoted any of the "offensive" text.
> >>
> >> As a protest, two Catholic, two Anglican, and one Greek church in the
> >> West
> >> Bank were attacked by Palestinians using guns, firebombs and lighter
> > fluid -
> >> charring the churches and riddling them with bullet holes.
> >>
> >> Umm...reality check: 2+2=4. The Earth still circles the Sun. And
> > doesn't
> >> reacting with violence just prove the Emperor's assessment, and then
> >> some?
> >> Yet the press and the Islamic world seem to have missed the irony of
this
> >> response, or at least are reluctant to admit it.
> >>
> >> The Pope's comment is getting more press than the fact that violence
was
> >> actually perpetrated when the churches were torched. To note, this was
a
> >> response, not a crime.
> >>
> >> Why are we (the world culture) so quick to defend Islam and work so
hard
> > to
> >> avoid offending Muslims, regardless of the cost - even if it means
> > rewriting
> >> the definitions of peace and violence? Just something to think
about....
> >>
> >> Ignorance isn't bliss, it's the last step one takes before falling off
of
> > a
> >> cliff.
> >>
> >> Back to music...
> >> Dedric
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72523 is a reply to message #72519] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 19:00 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Apparently it's an abomination to Islam to discuss whether or not Mohammed
said anything other than what a few *chosen* mullas decide is OK. I still
find it disturbingly amazing that those on the left in this country are so
friggin blind that they don't see what is in store for them if they win the
ideological struggle that is going on in this country and in doing so,
further empower the very anthisesis of everything they believe in.
Take a good look at what is happening. It is not Bush's fault. It started
long before Bush took office. It is the natural progression of the radical
Islamic agenda to use *any* excuse to jump up and down like a bunch of
automations, shoot guns in the air and burn things whil'st blithering a
bunch of racist, hate driven nonsense.
Coming soon to a *Sudetenland* near you.
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message news:450ca327@linux...
> I recall a similar irony, if that's the right word, during the Danish
> cartoon flap: Muslim fanatics using violence to protest the implication
> that Islam is a violent religion. Is it possible they didn't realize they
> were proving the validity of the cartoons? Hard to believe.
>
> Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden and others have much of the Muslim world
> convinced that the US is engaged in a war on Islam. Even more
> unfortunately, I think for some this actually is an unspoken motive in our
> "war on terror."
>
> To paraphrase John Lennon: imagine . . . no religion.
>
> Sigh,
>
> Sarah
>
>
> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> news:C131DB49.356D%dterry@keyofd.net...
> >I don't want to start another religious or political thread - I just
found
> > this ironic, at best:
> >
> > The Pope is under fire from the Islamic community because he quoted a
> > Byzantine emperor's ancient writings in a talk rejecting religious
> > motivation for violence. The emperor, in obscure writings hundreds of
> > year
> > old, characterized the teachings of Muhammad (Islam's founder) as "evil
> > and
> > inhuman" because if it's command to "spread by the sword the faith".
The
> > Pope made no such characterization - just quoted the old guy, and it
isn't
> > even clear if he quoted any of the "offensive" text.
> >
> > As a protest, two Catholic, two Anglican, and one Greek church in the
West
> > Bank were attacked by Palestinians using guns, firebombs and lighter
> > fluid -
> > charring the churches and riddling them with bullet holes.
> >
> > Umm...reality check: 2+2=4. The Earth still circles the Sun. And
> > doesn't
> > reacting with violence just prove the Emperor's assessment, and then
some?
> > Yet the press and the Islamic world seem to have missed the irony of
this
> > response, or at least are reluctant to admit it.
> >
> > The Pope's comment is getting more press than the fact that violence was
> > actually perpetrated when the churches were torched. To note, this was
a
> > response, not a crime.
> >
> > Why are we (the world culture) so quick to defend Islam and work so hard
> > to
> > avoid offending Muslims, regardless of the cost - even if it means
> > rewriting
> > the definitions of peace and violence? Just something to think
about....
> >
> > Ignorance isn't bliss, it's the last step one takes before falling off
of
> > a
> > cliff.
> >
> > Back to music...
> > Dedric
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72532 is a reply to message #72530] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 22:25 |
gene lennon
Messages: 565
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>"gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>>the president has had an even scarier motivation.
>>
>>Religion.
>
>
>Gene, that's absurd. You just passed the 5-year anniversary
>of the worst attack on americans in history, and you can't even
>grant the president the motive of protecting the rest of us?
>
>
I’m not going to argue this with you. You still have a right to your opinion,
as do I (at least for the moment). This is not just about religious fervor,
I honestly think the Pres is not 100% with it. I don’t think he has all his
oars In the water. If I am right, this is the most dangerous period in our
history.
But to my point, this is also from the Washington Post:
Another Rapture writer says he advises White House
by Dan Froomkin, Washington Post
Aug. 4, 2006
Joel C. Rosenberg, who writes Christian apocalyptic fiction, told me in an
interview this week that he was invited to a White House Bible study group
last year to talk about current events and biblical prophecy.
Rosenberg said that on February 10, 2005, he came to speak to a "couple dozen"
White House aides in the Old Executive Office Building — and has stayed in
touch with several of them since.
Rosenberg wouldn't say exactly what was discussed. "The meeting itself was
off the record, as you could imagine," he said. He declined to name the staffer
he said invited him or describe the attendees in any way other than to say
that the president was not among them. "I can't imagine they'd want to talk
about it," he said.
"I can't tell you that the people that I spoke with agree with me, or believe
that prophecy can really help you understand what will happen next in the
Middle East, but I'm not surprised that they're intrigued."
The White House press office wasn't able to confirm the visit for me, but
there have been previous reports about White House Bible study groups inviting
Christian authors to come speak.
Apocalyptic advice:
Aug. 12, 2003:
Apocalypse preacher says Bush administration solicits his advice
Aug. 17, 2003:
Rice briefs 'Christian Zionists'
on Mideast peace plan
May 18, 2004:
White House checked with rapture Christians before latest Israel move
Aug. 8, 2006:
Cheering for apocalypse, evangelical lunatics counsel Bush White House
Rapture radicals
Bush and the fundamentalists
Rosenberg says he got a call last year from a White House staffer.
"He said 'A lot of people over here are reading your novels, and they're
intrigued that these things keep on happening ... . Your novels keep foreshadowing
actual coming events. ... And so we're curious, how are you doing it? What's
the secret? Why don't you come over and walk us through the story behind
these novels?' So I did."
Rosenberg — like Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, the authors of the phenomenally
popular Left Behind series — writes fiction inspired by biblical prophecy
about the apocalypse. The consistent theme is that certain current events
presage the end times, the Rapture, and the return of Jesus Christ. Rosenberg's
particular pitch to journalists is that his books come true.
Here he is in a recent interview with Christian talk-show host Pat Robertson
, talking about what he thinks is going to happen next: "Now I have to say,
Pat, I believe that Ezekiel 38 and 39 — the prophecies that we're talking
about — I think this is about the end of radical Islam as we know it. God
says He's going to supernaturally judge Iran, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, these
other countries. We're talking about fire from heaven, a massive earthquake.
It's going to be devastating and tragic. But I believe that afterwards there's
going to be a great spiritual awakening. We're seeing more Muslims coming
to Christ right now than at any other time in history. But I think that's
just the beginning. We've got dark days ahead of us. But I believe there's
a light at the end of that tunnel."
Rosenberg says he got a call last year from a White House staffer. "He said
'A lot of people over here are reading your novels, and they're intrigued
that these things keep on happening ... . Your novels keep foreshadowing
actual coming events. ... And so we're curious, how are you doing it? What's
the secret? Why don't you come over and walk us through the story behind
these novels?' So I did."
Judy Keen first wrote back in October 2002, in USA Today, that "some White
House staffers have been meeting weekly at hour-long prayer and Bible study
sessions."
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72533 is a reply to message #72532] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 22:35 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gene,
If I actually believed this, I might agree with you. We've certainly
disagreed on a number of issues like this but I respect your opinion. I'm
sincerely interested to know if this is for real. I've got no problem with
people practicing their faith but I do believe that faith in something (like
armageddon) can definitely bring it about. I've read a number of articles
discussing thes things you bring up here, but the sources were easily as
fanatical as they purported Bush to be.
I agree that we may be living in the most dangerous time in the history of
the human race, but I don't see the same villian that you do.
Deej
"gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:450cdc49$1@linux...
>
> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
> >
> >"gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
> >
> >>the president has had an even scarier motivation.
> >>
> >>Religion.
> >
> >
> >Gene, that's absurd. You just passed the 5-year anniversary
> >of the worst attack on americans in history, and you can't even
> >grant the president the motive of protecting the rest of us?
> >
> >
>
> I'm not going to argue this with you. You still have a right to your
opinion,
> as do I (at least for the moment). This is not just about religious
fervor,
> I honestly think the Pres is not 100% with it. I don't think he has all
his
> oars In the water. If I am right, this is the most dangerous period in our
> history.
>
>
> But to my point, this is also from the Washington Post:
>
> Another Rapture writer says he advises White House
>
> by Dan Froomkin, Washington Post
>
> Aug. 4, 2006
>
> Joel C. Rosenberg, who writes Christian apocalyptic fiction, told me in an
> interview this week that he was invited to a White House Bible study group
> last year to talk about current events and biblical prophecy.
>
> Rosenberg said that on February 10, 2005, he came to speak to a "couple
dozen"
> White House aides in the Old Executive Office Building - and has stayed in
> touch with several of them since.
>
> Rosenberg wouldn't say exactly what was discussed. "The meeting itself was
> off the record, as you could imagine," he said. He declined to name the
staffer
> he said invited him or describe the attendees in any way other than to say
> that the president was not among them. "I can't imagine they'd want to
talk
> about it," he said.
>
> "I can't tell you that the people that I spoke with agree with me, or
believe
> that prophecy can really help you understand what will happen next in the
> Middle East, but I'm not surprised that they're intrigued."
>
> The White House press office wasn't able to confirm the visit for me, but
> there have been previous reports about White House Bible study groups
inviting
> Christian authors to come speak.
>
>
> Apocalyptic advice:
> Aug. 12, 2003:
> Apocalypse preacher says Bush administration solicits his advice
>
> Aug. 17, 2003:
> Rice briefs 'Christian Zionists'
> on Mideast peace plan
>
> May 18, 2004:
> White House checked with rapture Christians before latest Israel move
>
> Aug. 8, 2006:
> Cheering for apocalypse, evangelical lunatics counsel Bush White House
>
> Rapture radicals
> Bush and the fundamentalists
> Rosenberg says he got a call last year from a White House staffer.
>
> "He said 'A lot of people over here are reading your novels, and they're
> intrigued that these things keep on happening ... . Your novels keep
foreshadowing
> actual coming events. ... And so we're curious, how are you doing it?
What's
> the secret? Why don't you come over and walk us through the story behind
> these novels?' So I did."
> Rosenberg - like Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, the authors of the
phenomenally
> popular Left Behind series - writes fiction inspired by biblical prophecy
> about the apocalypse. The consistent theme is that certain current events
> presage the end times, the Rapture, and the return of Jesus Christ.
Rosenberg's
> particular pitch to journalists is that his books come true.
>
> Here he is in a recent interview with Christian talk-show host Pat
Robertson
> , talking about what he thinks is going to happen next: "Now I have to
say,
> Pat, I believe that Ezekiel 38 and 39 - the prophecies that we're talking
> about - I think this is about the end of radical Islam as we know it. God
> says He's going to supernaturally judge Iran, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, these
> other countries. We're talking about fire from heaven, a massive
earthquake.
> It's going to be devastating and tragic. But I believe that afterwards
there's
> going to be a great spiritual awakening. We're seeing more Muslims coming
> to Christ right now than at any other time in history. But I think that's
> just the beginning. We've got dark days ahead of us. But I believe there's
> a light at the end of that tunnel."
>
> Rosenberg says he got a call last year from a White House staffer. "He
said
> 'A lot of people over here are reading your novels, and they're intrigued
> that these things keep on happening ... . Your novels keep foreshadowing
> actual coming events. ... And so we're curious, how are you doing it?
What's
> the secret? Why don't you come over and walk us through the story behind
> these novels?' So I did."
>
> Judy Keen first wrote back in October 2002, in USA Today, that "some White
> House staffers have been meeting weekly at hour-long prayer and Bible
study
> sessions."
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72534 is a reply to message #72533] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 23:17 |
gene lennon
Messages: 565
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>Gene,
>
>If I actually believed this, I might agree with you. We've certainly
>disagreed on a number of issues like this but I respect your opinion. I'm
>sincerely interested to know if this is for real. I've got no problem with
>people practicing their faith but I do believe that faith in something (like
>armageddon) can definitely bring it about. I've read a number of articles
>discussing thes things you bring up here, but the sources were easily as
>fanatical as they purported Bush to be.
>
>I agree that we may be living in the most dangerous time in the history
of
>the human race, but I don't see the same villian that you do.
>
>Deej
>
There is not just one villain, there are plenty of villains. Saddam Hussein,
sure, Kim Il-sung, absolutely. The Janjaweed – yep, Taliban, OK.
I don’t want to be on this list!
As a US citizen, I feel like I have been put on the list by the unconscionable
actions of our government.
Torture, sure…start wars without cause, OK, cause the deaths of tens of thousands
if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the name of bringing them
freedom, no problem. Open everyone’s mail, have trials and find people guilty
and put them to death without ever showing any evidence, why not.
Well I do have a problem. It is NOT OK.
I want my country back.
It was never perfect. No country ever was, but we stood for something great,
even if we sometimes had less than stellar moments. I know in my heart that
if the Founding Fathers of the United States were alive today they would
be calling for impeachment or revolution.
I don’t care if the President prays. We have had many excellent and effective
presidents that were deeply religions, but if he thinks that all the wars
and problems we are having in the world are actually a good thing because
they have ignited a resurgence in Christian Values, we are in deep shit.
Gene
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72535 is a reply to message #72527] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 00:07 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gene -
You probably didn't realize it (so no offense), but your response pretty
much confirms my assertion that the tendency of our country and even the
world society, is to place blame for religious conflict, violence and
religiously motivated terrorism anywhere but with the single largest
growing, and currently most violent religion in the world. We ignore car
bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of tortured and
murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming the
administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made the Pope quote a
Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening, all-accepting religion
our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western Muslims might
be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything else in many of the
conservative Islamic countries of the world. I know, have talked to, and
have heard missionaries to these countries speak - it's a different world
from the free discussions and widely varying opinions we have here. People
die for converting to anything else, or their families do. At best, their
families disown them and they sneak out of the country under threat of
death. In fact it's the exact opposite of the "freedom" our country
continually pushes the limits of. Odd that we would turn on our own country
in favor of supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to this kind of
ideology, somehow believing that is the more politically correct thing to
do.
The problem I see isn't religion, but a lack of faith in God, and hence any
sense of direction and moral guidance. God gives us the choice to believe
or not. Based on documents of their activities - in the name of Allah the
9/11 terrorists pretty much broke every one of the 10 commandments in 24
hours. That may seem a trivial or even silly fact, but there is a sad, and
frightening irony there. Faith in God isn't what one should fear - it's
believing in anything that conveniently appeases one's personal whims that
is the true danger.... the terrorists proved that in one day. That also
includes believing in nothing.
As Blaise Pascal once said (paraphrased): if one believes in God and is
wrong, at worst one has lived a good live and had some false hope as a sense
of comfort along the way; if one doesn't believe and is wrong, then at
best, all is lost for eternity. This is the paradox that we should be
considering, and yet the most fear-inducing thought is that the President
might believe in something other than nothing. Is no belief really better
than belief? What reference point for right and wrong accompanies disbelief
in anything higher than one's own decisions? What reference point for
respect for other people's beliefs accompanies a lack of belief in any
guideline for living life and having respect and compassion for others?
It isn't the administration's fault that the Pope quoted a guy Islam doesn't
like just because he called like he saw it - something we do on this forum
every single day, ironically. It also isn't Christianity's intent to take
over the world, or the government. Far from it. The only goal is to give
people a chance to decide. Yet, those that want to decide to not believe
would rather take that right away and remove Christianity from public view.
The only way to force someone to remove their belief from public in a
country that promotes the freedom to believe as one wishes, is to outlaw it.
Yet another paradox.
Through our short sighted political glasses we want to see the world as a
black and white, free-will, partisan vote where one's party always wins and
the decisions are always in our favor, but fail to see any validity in
believing a God that gave us the very moral compass to maintain the balance
that kind of choice affords us. In essence we put our trust in the very
thing we prove day in and day out to be one of the most fallible
characteristics of humanity - political and relativistic ideology.
I guess I ignored my own first comment....sorry about that.
I should get back to mourning NI Battery 2's destruction of 10 hours of work
:-((....
Regards,
Dedric
On 9/16/06 9:09 PM, in article 450cbc70$1@linux, "gene Lennon"
<glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> I don't want to start another religious or political thread -...
>
>
> These are frightening times. While the true neocons in the current
> administration
> have had a variety of political, financial and power-based reasons for
> perusing
> the war against Iraq, the president has had an even scarier motivation.
>
> Religion.
>
> If you missed it, this week Bush has announced the "Third Great Awakening"
> of the international religious struggle. This is a good thing as he sees
> it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight against terrorists
> (Translation - Due to his good work in GodÂ’s name). A war that he depicts
> as "a confrontation between good and evil."
> In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a bit of trouble (as
> has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
>
> Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be headed?
>
> Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could easily go down
> hill from here.
>
> More on the "Third Awakening":
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR200609120159
> 4_pf.html
>
> Gene
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72536 is a reply to message #72527] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 00:02 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>I don't want to start another religious or political thread -...
>
>
>These are frightening times. While the true neocons in the current administration
>have had a variety of political, financial and power-based reasons for perusing
>the war against Iraq, the president has had an even scarier motivation.
>
>Religion.
I think Bush believes in religious freedom, I don't think the jehadist feel
the same way.
>
>If you missed it, this week Bush has announced the "Third Great Awakening"
>of the international religious struggle. This is a good thing as he sees
>it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight against terrorists
>(Translation - Due to his good work in God’s name). A war that he depicts
>as "a confrontation between good and evil."
>In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a bit of trouble (as
>has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
>
>Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be headed?
I don't think we are being give a choice, or did you forget 9/11?
>
>Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could easily go down
>hill from here.
>
Things will go down hill if we do take care of these problems.
>More on the "Third Awakening":
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR2006091201594_pf.html
>
>Gene
>
Gene, maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but it sounds like
you are saying that Bush is starting and wants a religious war. I think
you may be confused. Other people have already started the religious war.
Look in to the sixth and seventh pillar of Islam, some where in there it
speaks of living by the sword. In other words, if you don't convert, you
are to die. I for one do not believe they are civil or peaceful people.
There has not been peace among those people for thousands of years, and
now THEY have sucked us in.
They would be nothing in the middle east, but the Communists, Russia and
China, supplied all these third world countries with tons of weapons! Now
they can make bombs and wage war. Now they know how to make nuclear bombs
that can take out US cities. Look at the middle east, south America, North
Korea and the mess all across the continent of Africa. Evil people gave
more evil people weapons to fight wars with. This has created a world problem,
and the Communist want to keep supplying them with weapons and technology.
I know, here comes the liberals with, we gave them weapons too. Think about
it, where did this start?
I'm no fan of Bush, but it's just too easy, and unfair to say it's all Bush's
fault.
I will say however, the War in Iraq was completely mishandled. Just do
the math, one hundred and fifty thousand troops to take care of thirty five
million people plus, and thousands of miles of open boarder, in a place
the size of California. With five million troops, maybe??? I believe Bush
and his friends wanted to be there for years and make all kinds of money
on this war. He has created a bigger problem by not taking care of Iraq
quickly. There is a lot of blame to go around in our federal government,
it's not just one man.
As far as the war on terror, people should be honest with themselves. you
can't negotiate a war. there is no diplomatic solution to a war. If you
stop to talk, they reinforce, rebuild, and reorganize for more war. Or did
we forget the lessons of the past.
In the end, bombs can never stop idealism. The problem is the people that
want Jehad will not stop. Peace will never be lasting with these people,
it's in their nature to be waring. They think they will be rewarded if they
kill and die in the name of Islam. So how do you fix it?
We are more concerned with terrorist rights than doing the job we need to
do. When they hit us, we'll have to take them out, make no mistake, it's
going to get serious. When they kill millions of americans, blame the spineless
politicians that wanted to talk things out and find political solutions instead
of facing the hard truth, we are at WAR. We should take care of the problems
now, but we are just too weak as a nation. Really think about why we are
weak as a nation, and where the blame should go.
James
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72537 is a reply to message #72534] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 00:35 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gene, I too respect your opinion.
I do ask you to look at another viewpoint.
I do consider yours, despite disagreeing with it often.
>As a US citizen, I feel like I have been put on the list by the unconscionable
>actions of our government.
>
>Torture, sure…
There is no torture, not by any sane definition of the word.
Human Rights Watch recently defined putting an terrorist in a
cold room, and blasting them with Red Hot Chili Peppers as
torture. Hilarious. Abu Ghraib? Hazing rituals compared to
Saddam, and the perps went to jail!
>Start wars without cause,
Now you know a case can be made for that war, don't you? Don't
agree? Fine, but don't assume it does not exist.
>OK, cause the deaths of tens of thousands
>if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the name of bringing
them
>freedom, no problem.
We spend millions of dollars on accurate weapons so we can kill
the fewest innocents of any war in history,to liberate 25 million
people, and this is how you characterize it? Again this just
isn't a fair representation.
>Open everyone’s mail,
Never happened. In fact, the eavesdropping of international
calls, made by likely terrorists,which was completely legal to
do, and provided valuable information, was revealed by the
NY Times, in an act of treason (to many of us). No one is
opening your mail.
>have trials and find people guilty
>and put them to death without ever showing any evidence, why not.
Where did this happen? First, the Geneva Conventions
*explicitly* exclude spies and saboteurs from protection, and
governments regularly have executed them without being charged
under the GC's, so how do you figure that jihadi are covered?
Do you think you and your loved ones are at risk from these
people? If you don't, why not?
>Well I do have a problem. It is NOT OK.
>
>I want my country back.
Yeah, and I want to go see Bird and Diz on 52nd st. and meet
a hot dame there.
Your country is a pre-9/11 one and I do not argue with you
because I like arguing, nor do I wish to offend you, since
I actually quite like you. But I am convinced that your views
would result in my family being put in terrible danger. I
cannot remain silent.
We will face jihadis, and we would if Ghandi himself were
president. They have revealed themselves to us, for the past
30 years, to be the scum they are. To believe that they can
be negotiated with, has to be beyond the pale today.
I wish it were otherwise.
>It was never perfect. No country ever was, but we stood for something great,
>even if we sometimes had less than stellar moments. I know in my heart that
>if the Founding Fathers of the United States were alive today they would
>be calling for impeachment or revolution.
This is an interesting point. They were very wary of "foreign
entanglements" but they also went to North Africa and fought the
Barbary Pirates so that the seas would be safe, so I am not sure
you are right on this.
They would certainly barely recognize our country though.
Liberal, big-govt. would have horrified them for certain; surely
you realize this?
> I don’t care if the President prays. We have had many excellent and effective
>presidents that were deeply religions, but if he thinks that all the wars
>and problems we are having in the world are actually a good thing because
>they have ignited a resurgence in Christian Values, we are in deep shit.
I agree, but where is the *evidence* that he makes his decisions
based upon those things? He's such a cautious man in so many
ways. Don't believe me? Remember the "moral equivilence"
argument that idiots like Ward Churchill make? That we are all
"little eichmanns" participating in this great evil?
OK, so assume for a moment that we are morally equivalent to
Al Queda. Now, what would we have done the morning of 9/12/01?
Think about it! All those subs, all those missiles, all those
nukes.
Green glass in Kabul, green glass in Baghdad, same in Tehran,
same in Damascus. Then Bush gets on TV and says: "who's next"?
That's moral equivalence my friend, and frankly it's what those
bastards would do to us if they could.
Instead, Bush tries to foment democracy, and he believes in it
so much that he pays to do it the slow and painful way when he
could have punched the big red button, and converted the
survivors at gunpoint.
As a Christian, I can tell you that the Bible *at no point* says
that we are to start wars and kill people to bring about
armageddon. There are idiots who believe such things, but
those named in the article you quoted are not among them, and
those beliefs are not widely held among us. Believing it to be
soon, is very different from trying to make it happen.
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72539 is a reply to message #72536] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 01:02 |
gene lennon
Messages: 565
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Gene, maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but it sounds like
>you are saying that Bush is starting and wants a religious war. I think
>you may be confused. Other people have already started the religious
war.
> Look in to the sixth and seventh pillar of Islam, some where in there it
>speaks of living by the sword. In other words, if you don't convert, you
>are to die. I for one do not believe they are civil or peaceful people.
> There has not been peace among those people for thousands of years, and
>now THEY have sucked us in.
>
>They would be nothing in the middle east, but the Communists, Russia and
>China, supplied all these third world countries with tons of weapons! Now
>they can make bombs and wage war. Now they know how to make nuclear bombs
>that can take out US cities. Look at the middle east, south America, North
>Korea and the mess all across the continent of Africa. Evil people gave
>more evil people weapons to fight wars with. This has created a world problem,
>and the Communist want to keep supplying them with weapons and technology.
> I know, here comes the liberals with, we gave them weapons too. Think
about
>it, where did this start?
>
>I'm no fan of Bush, but it's just too easy, and unfair to say it's all Bush's
>fault.
>
> I will say however, the War in Iraq was completely mishandled. Just do
>the math, one hundred and fifty thousand troops to take care of thirty five
>million people plus, and thousands of miles of open boarder, in a place
>the size of California. With five million troops, maybe??? I believe Bush
>and his friends wanted to be there for years and make all kinds of money
>on this war. He has created a bigger problem by not taking care of Iraq
>quickly. There is a lot of blame to go around in our federal government,
>it's not just one man.
>
>As far as the war on terror, people should be honest with themselves. you
>can't negotiate a war. there is no diplomatic solution to a war. If you
>stop to talk, they reinforce, rebuild, and reorganize for more war. Or
did
>we forget the lessons of the past.
>
>In the end, bombs can never stop idealism. The problem is the people that
>want Jehad will not stop. Peace will never be lasting with these people,
>it's in their nature to be waring. They think they will be rewarded if
they
>kill and die in the name of Islam. So how do you fix it?
>
> We are more concerned with terrorist rights than doing the job we need
to
>do. When they hit us, we'll have to take them out, make no mistake, it's
>going to get serious. When they kill millions of americans, blame the spineless
>politicians that wanted to talk things out and find political solutions
instead
>of facing the hard truth, we are at WAR. We should take care of the problems
>now, but we are just too weak as a nation. Really think about why we are
>weak as a nation, and where the blame should go.
>
>James
>
James,
You have just as much right to your opinion as I do and I know we won’t change
each other’s minds one iota, but I still have to question you about this
statement:
“We should take care of the problems now, but we are just too weak as a nation.”
Please help me define what the problem is. Is it Muslims? Just some Muslims?
Which ones?
What about North Korea? They are not Muslims, but they are first (or perhaps
second) on the list of “most likely to do bad things” to us - Big bad bomb
things. Pakistan is Muslim and they have several bombs. They have just signed
a treaty with the Taliban, and they are hiding the real person that caused
9/11, where is the outrage against Osama bin Laden and the people protecting
him?
How about the Non-Aligned Movement. Over 100 countries banding together
against US policies and interests? – Should we get them all? Should we start
with Cuba or Venezuela?
Now that we have succeeded in alienating ourselves from the majority of the
world, should we see them all as threats? Almost all of our allies are abandoning
us, or at the least distancing themselves from us. The only real leader left
is on our side is Tony Blair, and he has been summarily dismissed by his
own party. With him out and anti-American sentiment running high in Great
Britain, who do we have left?
I never said it was all Bushes fault. He just took a relatively unheard of
small time international criminal/terrorist (Osama bin Laden) and turned
him into an international movement to destroy the US.
_____________________________
At a level of 1.2 billion, Muslims represent about 22% of the world's population.
They are the second largest religion in the world. Only Christianity is larger,
with 33% of the world's inhabitants.
Islam is growing about 2.9% per year. This is faster than the total world
population which increases about 2.3% annually. It is thus attracting a progressively
larger percentage of the world's population.
Peace to all
Gene
|
|
|
|
| Re: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72540 is a reply to message #72520] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 01:51 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ROTFL 8>)
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message news:450ca49a$1@linux...
> You don't need King Arthur, silly . . . you have King George the Decider
> and Richard (Cheney) the Lyin' Hearted. :)
>
> S
>
>
> "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:450c9fbe$1@linux...
>> Seems to me that it's time to bring back King Arthur.....
>> --
>> Martin Harrington
>> www.lendanear-sound.com
>>
>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>> news:C131DB49.356D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>I don't want to start another religious or political thread - I just
>>>found
>>> this ironic, at best:
>>>
>>> The Pope is under fire from the Islamic community because he quoted a
>>> Byzantine emperor's ancient writings in a talk rejecting religious
>>> motivation for violence. The emperor, in obscure writings hundreds of
>>> year
>>> old, characterized the teachings of Muhammad (Islam's founder) as "evil
>>> and
>>> inhuman" because if it's command to "spread by the sword the faith".
>>> The
>>> Pope made no such characterization - just quoted the old guy, and it
>>> isn't
>>> even clear if he quoted any of the "offensive" text.
>>>
>>> As a protest, two Catholic, two Anglican, and one Greek church in the
>>> West
>>> Bank were attacked by Palestinians using guns, firebombs and lighter
>>> fluid -
>>> charring the churches and riddling them with bullet holes.
>>>
>>> Umm...reality check: 2+2=4. The Earth still circles the Sun. And
>>> doesn't
>>> reacting with violence just prove the Emperor's assessment, and then
>>> some?
>>> Yet the press and the Islamic world seem to have missed the irony of
>>> this
>>> response, or at least are reluctant to admit it.
>>>
>>> The Pope's comment is getting more press than the fact that violence was
>>> actually perpetrated when the churches were torched. To note, this was
>>> a
>>> response, not a crime.
>>>
>>> Why are we (the world culture) so quick to defend Islam and work so hard
>>> to
>>> avoid offending Muslims, regardless of the cost - even if it means
>>> rewriting
>>> the definitions of peace and violence? Just something to think
>>> about....
>>>
>>> Ignorance isn't bliss, it's the last step one takes before falling off
>>> of a
>>> cliff.
>>>
>>> Back to music...
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72541 is a reply to message #72519] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 01:58 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I don't know if I'm a "leftie" (or a hippie for that matter), but I do know
I'm definitely not blind. And here's another thing I'm not -- I'm not an
idiot.
Not being an idiot enables me to reason beyond simplistic black-or-white
logic. In doing so, what I find "disturbingly amazing" is this oft repeated
nonsense that if I don't support Bush's Crusade, I support the terrorists.
NEWS FLASH: Scientists have concluded that there may be MORE than TWO
approaches to the problem of terrorism. This should come as a relief to
those who have believed that our only options are: 1. wage war on Islamic
countries, or 2. do nothing. Yes, folks, there may be other possibilities
in between those two extremes, as the recent thwarted terror plot in Britain
demonstrates.
"OK, smart-ass, what about Iran?" you may be asking about now. Yes, what
about Iran? Shall we leave Iraq in the toilet and try the same thing in
Iran and hope for a different result? Isn't that the definition of
insanity? OK, you say, what if Iran gets a nuke or two? Yeah, what if? Do
you think they're going to guarantee their own obliteration by lobbing nukes
into Israel? Or what? Isn't it possible that Iran notices that we haven't
even threatened to attack North Korea, the neglected "Axis of Evil" sibling?
Perhaps Iran is thinking, "If we have nukes, the US won't dare invade us."
That would be a logical conclustion on their part, don't you think? If Iran
is financing terror, we're going to need the help of our allies, if we have
any left, to deal with them. We're also going to need leaders a lot smarter
and more honest than the one's we've got.
Here's a thought -- it occurs to me that in fighting the Nazis, Communism,
and now Terrorism that our real consistent enemy in all these is brutal
authoritarianism, AKA totalitarianism: we don't cotton to anyone trying to
violently force their beliefs upon everyone else. Well, wake up and smell
the despots, gang, because in our blind terror of Islamic extremists, we're
allowing the very thing we fight against to creep into our own government.
And this is proven every time someone is accused of "appeasing the
terrorists" because they oppose the "war" in Iraq.
Look, once and for all -- NOBODY LIKES TERRORISTS, OK? Except other
terrorists. But this doesn't mean we should continue to let insane people
lead the charge against them.
Love,
Sarah
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message news:450ca327@linux...
>I recall a similar irony, if that's the right word, during the Danish
>cartoon flap: Muslim fanatics using violence to protest the implication
>that Islam is a violent religion. Is it possible they didn't realize they
>were proving the validity of the cartoons? Hard to believe.
>
> Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden and others have much of the Muslim world
> convinced that the US is engaged in a war on Islam. Even more
> unfortunately, I think for some this actually is an unspoken motive in our
> "war on terror."
>
> To paraphrase John Lennon: imagine . . . no religion.
>
> Sigh,
>
> Sarah
>
>
> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> news:C131DB49.356D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>I don't want to start another religious or political thread - I just found
>> this ironic, at best:
>>
>> The Pope is under fire from the Islamic community because he quoted a
>> Byzantine emperor's ancient writings in a talk rejecting religious
>> motivation for violence. The emperor, in obscure writings hundreds of
>> year
>> old, characterized the teachings of Muhammad (Islam's founder) as "evil
>> and
>> inhuman" because if it's command to "spread by the sword the faith". The
>> Pope made no such characterization - just quoted the old guy, and it
>> isn't
>> even clear if he quoted any of the "offensive" text.
>>
>> As a protest, two Catholic, two Anglican, and one Greek church in the
>> West
>> Bank were attacked by Palestinians using guns, firebombs and lighter
>> fluid -
>> charring the churches and riddling them with bullet holes.
>>
>> Umm...reality check: 2+2=4. The Earth still circles the Sun. And
>> doesn't
>> reacting with violence just prove the Emperor's assessment, and then
>> some?
>> Yet the press and the Islamic world seem to have missed the irony of this
>> response, or at least are reluctant to admit it.
>>
>> The Pope's comment is getting more press than the fact that violence was
>> actually perpetrated when the churches were torched. To note, this was a
>> response, not a crime.
>>
>> Why are we (the world culture) so quick to defend Islam and work so hard
>> to
>> avoid offending Muslims, regardless of the cost - even if it means
>> rewriting
>> the definitions of peace and violence? Just something to think about....
>>
>> Ignorance isn't bliss, it's the last step one takes before falling off of
>> a
>> cliff.
>>
>> Back to music...
>> Dedric
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72550 is a reply to message #72539] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 05:55 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> Almost all of our allies are abandoning >us, or at the least distancing
themselves from us.
This started long before 9-11. France, Russia , China and the UN were
working against us throughout the 90's. We just didn't have a clue because
we didn't have an intelligence service.
"gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:450d0128$1@linux...
>
> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Gene, maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but it sounds like
> >you are saying that Bush is starting and wants a religious war. I think
> >you may be confused. Other people have already started the religious
> war.
> > Look in to the sixth and seventh pillar of Islam, some where in there it
> >speaks of living by the sword. In other words, if you don't convert, you
> >are to die. I for one do not believe they are civil or peaceful people.
> > There has not been peace among those people for thousands of years, and
> >now THEY have sucked us in.
> >
> >They would be nothing in the middle east, but the Communists, Russia and
> >China, supplied all these third world countries with tons of weapons!
Now
> >they can make bombs and wage war. Now they know how to make nuclear
bombs
> >that can take out US cities. Look at the middle east, south America,
North
> >Korea and the mess all across the continent of Africa. Evil people gave
> >more evil people weapons to fight wars with. This has created a world
problem,
> >and the Communist want to keep supplying them with weapons and
technology.
> > I know, here comes the liberals with, we gave them weapons too. Think
> about
> >it, where did this start?
> >
> >I'm no fan of Bush, but it's just too easy, and unfair to say it's all
Bush's
> >fault.
> >
> > I will say however, the War in Iraq was completely mishandled. Just do
> >the math, one hundred and fifty thousand troops to take care of thirty
five
> >million people plus, and thousands of miles of open boarder, in a place
> >the size of California. With five million troops, maybe??? I believe
Bush
> >and his friends wanted to be there for years and make all kinds of money
> >on this war. He has created a bigger problem by not taking care of Iraq
> >quickly. There is a lot of blame to go around in our federal government,
> >it's not just one man.
> >
> >As far as the war on terror, people should be honest with themselves. you
> >can't negotiate a war. there is no diplomatic solution to a war. If you
> >stop to talk, they reinforce, rebuild, and reorganize for more war. Or
> did
> >we forget the lessons of the past.
> >
> >In the end, bombs can never stop idealism. The problem is the people
that
> >want Jehad will not stop. Peace will never be lasting with these people,
> >it's in their nature to be waring. They think they will be rewarded if
> they
> >kill and die in the name of Islam. So how do you fix it?
> >
> > We are more concerned with terrorist rights than doing the job we need
> to
> >do. When they hit us, we'll have to take them out, make no mistake, it's
> >going to get serious. When they kill millions of americans, blame the
spineless
> >politicians that wanted to talk things out and find political solutions
> instead
> >of facing the hard truth, we are at WAR. We should take care of the
problems
> >now, but we are just too weak as a nation. Really think about why we
are
> >weak as a nation, and where the blame should go.
> >
> >James
> >
>
>
> James,
> You have just as much right to your opinion as I do and I know we won't
change
> each other's minds one iota, but I still have to question you about this
> statement:
>
> "We should take care of the problems now, but we are just too weak as a
nation."
>
> Please help me define what the problem is. Is it Muslims? Just some
Muslims?
> Which ones?
>
> What about North Korea? They are not Muslims, but they are first (or
perhaps
> second) on the list of "most likely to do bad things" to us - Big bad bomb
> things. Pakistan is Muslim and they have several bombs. They have just
signed
> a treaty with the Taliban, and they are hiding the real person that caused
> 9/11, where is the outrage against Osama bin Laden and the people
protecting
> him?
>
> How about the Non-Aligned Movement. Over 100 countries banding together
> against US policies and interests? - Should we get them all? Should we
start
> with Cuba or Venezuela?
>
> Now that we have succeeded in alienating ourselves from the majority of
the
> world, should we see them all as threats? Almost all of our allies are
abandoning
> us, or at the least distancing themselves from us. The only real leader
left
> is on our side is Tony Blair, and he has been summarily dismissed by his
> own party. With him out and anti-American sentiment running high in Great
> Britain, who do we have left?
>
> I never said it was all Bushes fault. He just took a relatively unheard of
> small time international criminal/terrorist (Osama bin Laden) and turned
> him into an international movement to destroy the US.
> _____________________________
>
> At a level of 1.2 billion, Muslims represent about 22% of the world's
population.
> They are the second largest religion in the world. Only Christianity is
larger,
> with 33% of the world's inhabitants.
> Islam is growing about 2.9% per year. This is faster than the total world
> population which increases about 2.3% annually. It is thus attracting a
progressively
> larger percentage of the world's population.
>
> Peace to all
> Gene
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72559 is a reply to message #72529] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 07:55 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
One man's obvious truth is another man's propaganda.
Factual truth is not the same as spin. Whatever you believe, (I'm not
speaking here of you specifically, Chris, but anyone), if you think
people who disagree with you are simply blind, you may be experiencing
confirmation bias.
A possible treatment for this is to find a friend who disagrees with
you, sit down with them, and really listen to their reasoning. Hold your
knee-jerk responses in check. Then find another friend with another
point of view and do the same. If you are particularly brave, talk with
strangers. You don't have to lose your point of view, but use these
conversations as an opportunity to drop any internal defensive system
and try, for a moment, to see things from someone else's point of view
without promoting your own. It's a healthy brain exercise. We may find
it's easier to love others when we operate from inclusively rather than
defensive insecurity.
Those of us who live in free countries MUST live with disagreement.
Disagreement makes free systems much stronger than systems that rigidly
enforce a single point of view, because free systems examine problems
from more than one perspective. The best solutions may come from a
combination of perspectives. At the very least there will be more
solutions from which to choose.
It's therefore healthy that we can have disagreements and enjoy
discussions to explore them.
It's just as important that within these discussions at least some
listening take place. If it's all mere preaching to respective exclusive
choirs then it becomes a sort of babble.
I think most people can agree that fanatical, power hungry ideologues
attempting to recruit others to kill for them are a danger to civilized
society.
If an authority figure encourages a person to feel cornered and
desperate, and then asks for his support in the context of that fear,
the person could willingly become a pawn to the authority figure's aims.
The person could, through manipulation of his own confirmation bias,
feel rewarded by following a movement, even a destructive movement.
Confirmation bias is a reward within the brain when you find information
that seems to support your own beliefs while generally ignoring even
factual information that contradicts what you believe. From there the
human talent of rationalization can kick in with the ability to feel
smug and superior over those who "simply cannot see." And thus we don
our own ironic blinders.
It can happen to anyone anywhere. It appears to be one of the trailer
hitches on the human brain by which you can be towed willingly along
while believing you are the driver.
It makes us susceptible, even receptive, to half-truths and even
outright lies. We can be mislead by scapegoating. Herded by pride.
Become parrots of spin and stake our lives on propaganda.
Fanatical nationalism, fanatical religious fervor, these can be
harnessed as Machiavellian tools by con artists, wannabe kings, despots,
technocrats and theocrats alike. It can happen anywhere.
We are not immune, but we are stronger by having a culture of free
thinking, respectful listening and vigorous discussion. Still, we are
NOT immune.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
Chris Latham wrote:
> Well stated!!!
> It just amazes me how blind some people and the mainstream media can be to
> obvious TRUTH!
>
> CL
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72562 is a reply to message #72541] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 08:19 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Sarah,
No one said you had to support Bush to not support terrorists, at least I
never did. It really doesn't help your argument to use sarcasm though.
I am referring to the ideology that has been growing in our country for many
years - way before Bush 1, or Reagan for that matter. It has nothing to do
with Bush 2. I was talking about the world's view of Islam in light of the
Pope's comments, so the fact that he keeps coming up as the response,
regardless of the original topic, just shows that we would rather blame Bush
than address what is happening in the world and in our country's ideology -
the people, not the government. The government has nothing to do with the
belief systems and relativism that is pervading our culture, media, schools,
streets, conversations - it's just a side topic for Monday morning water
cooler talk by pale comparison - one that ebbs and flows in the tide of that
ideology of the people.
After Bush leaves office I believe we will see the greatest surge of
relativistic and chaotic thinking in our history as a reaction of
counter-instinct. It isn't about supporting Bush, and I'm not "blaming" the
coming reaction on a lack of support for Bush - I couldn't care less if you
like him - it's been coming regardless. I don't hate Bush, but I don't like
him as a President either. I support our country though and want to see it
become a great and revered nation solely for it's commitment to caring about
and aiding people that can't help themselves, but that is probably wishful
thinking.
I can see past the political fears and ideology to understand that we were
also in serious danger during Reagan's years (Russia), Bush 1, and Clinton
too as terrorism worked on plans for 9/11 and more that we've since averted,
simply because the FBI, CIA and other police are on the vigil more than
before. We created the political climate we live with administration after
administration - one of deals and compromise to keep the right people happy.
It's better than many alternatives, but in way it just propagates a lack of
significant positive change in exchange for subtly slow moral decay, since
it in and of itself, and our competitive commerce driven society promotes a
lack of integrity. Until people (everyone, not just leaders) are willing to
risk money, careers, notoriety and stability to stand for something of more
substance than sustaining the nice house, car and happy-go-lucky lifestyle
we enjoy here, we will continue to cower to the whims of politics and the
special interest flavor of the day instead.
I do agree that there is more than one way to fight terrorism - yes, 3, 4 5,
maybe 100,000,000. Waging "war" on Islam isn't the answer. But assuming
this terror war is simply another political disagreement that can be
diplomatically solved with embargos and slaps on the wrist by the UN is also
overly optimistic - if only, really I wish it were. I'm not saying you think
it is - just making a point.
Truthfully, I don't believe we will ever "win" the war on terror, or rather
the ideology that is behind it. We will just delay it for a few years here
and there over the next 10, 20, maybe more if we are lucky. But, eventually
we will lose, and lose badly, simply because we as a nation don't have an
ideology that is stronger, more grounded, and more committed than theirs.
Then again, we really are fighting the wrong war, and I'm not referring to
Iraq.
Regards,
Dedric
On 9/17/06 2:58 AM, in article 450d0c7e@linux, "Sarah"
<sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
> I don't know if I'm a "leftie" (or a hippie for that matter), but I do know
> I'm definitely not blind. And here's another thing I'm not -- I'm not an
> idiot.
>
> Not being an idiot enables me to reason beyond simplistic black-or-white
> logic. In doing so, what I find "disturbingly amazing" is this oft repeated
> nonsense that if I don't support Bush's Crusade, I support the terrorists.
>
> NEWS FLASH: Scientists have concluded that there may be MORE than TWO
> approaches to the problem of terrorism. This should come as a relief to
> those who have believed that our only options are: 1. wage war on Islamic
> countries, or 2. do nothing. Yes, folks, there may be other possibilities
> in between those two extremes, as the recent thwarted terror plot in Britain
> demonstrates.
>
> "OK, smart-ass, what about Iran?" you may be asking about now. Yes, what
> about Iran? Shall we leave Iraq in the toilet and try the same thing in
> Iran and hope for a different result? Isn't that the definition of
> insanity? OK, you say, what if Iran gets a nuke or two? Yeah, what if? Do
> you think they're going to guarantee their own obliteration by lobbing nukes
> into Israel? Or what? Isn't it possible that Iran notices that we haven't
> even threatened to attack North Korea, the neglected "Axis of Evil" sibling?
> Perhaps Iran is thinking, "If we have nukes, the US won't dare invade us."
> That would be a logical conclustion on their part, don't you think? If Iran
> is financing terror, we're going to need the help of our allies, if we have
> any left, to deal with them. We're also going to need leaders a lot smarter
> and more honest than the one's we've got.
>
> Here's a thought -- it occurs to me that in fighting the Nazis, Communism,
> and now Terrorism that our real consistent enemy in all these is brutal
> authoritarianism, AKA totalitarianism: we don't cotton to anyone trying to
> violently force their beliefs upon everyone else. Well, wake up and smell
> the despots, gang, because in our blind terror of Islamic extremists, we're
> allowing the very thing we fight against to creep into our own government.
> And this is proven every time someone is accused of "appeasing the
> terrorists" because they oppose the "war" in Iraq.
>
> Look, once and for all -- NOBODY LIKES TERRORISTS, OK? Except other
> terrorists. But this doesn't mean we should continue to let insane people
> lead the charge against them.
>
> Love,
>
> Sarah
>
>
> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message news:450ca327@linux...
>> I recall a similar irony, if that's the right word, during the Danish
>> cartoon flap: Muslim fanatics using violence to protest the implication
>> that Islam is a violent religion. Is it possible they didn't realize they
>> were proving the validity of the cartoons? Hard to believe.
>>
>> Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden and others have much of the Muslim world
>> convinced that the US is engaged in a war on Islam. Even more
>> unfortunately, I think for some this actually is an unspoken motive in our
>> "war on terror."
>>
>> To paraphrase John Lennon: imagine . . . no religion.
>>
>> Sigh,
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>>
>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>> news:C131DB49.356D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>> I don't want to start another religious or political thread - I just found
>>> this ironic, at best:
>>>
>>> The Pope is under fire from the Islamic community because he quoted a
>>> Byzantine emperor's ancient writings in a talk rejecting religious
>>> motivation for violence. The emperor, in obscure writings hundreds of
>>> year
>>> old, characterized the teachings of Muhammad (Islam's founder) as "evil
>>> and
>>> inhuman" because if it's command to "spread by the sword the faith". The
>>> Pope made no such characterization - just quoted the old guy, and it
>>> isn't
>>> even clear if he quoted any of the "offensive" text.
>>>
>>> As a protest, two Catholic, two Anglican, and one Greek church in the
>>> West
>>> Bank were attacked by Palestinians using guns, firebombs and lighter
>>> fluid -
>>> charring the churches and riddling them with bullet holes.
>>>
>>> Umm...reality check: 2+2=4. The Earth still circles the Sun. And
>>> doesn't
>>> reacting with violence just prove the Emperor's assessment, and then
>>> some?
>>> Yet the press and the Islamic world seem to have missed the irony of this
>>> response, or at least are reluctant to admit it.
>>>
>>> The Pope's comment is getting more press than the fact that violence was
>>> actually perpetrated when the churches were torched. To note, this was a
>>> response, not a crime.
>>>
>>> Why are we (the world culture) so quick to defend Islam and work so hard
>>> to
>>> avoid offending Muslims, regardless of the cost - even if it means
>>> rewriting
>>> the definitions of peace and violence? Just something to think about....
>>>
>>> Ignorance isn't bliss, it's the last step one takes before falling off of
>>> a
>>> cliff.
>>>
>>> Back to music...
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72563 is a reply to message #72534] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 08:40 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
To find the crassest of the villains, follow the money.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
gene Lennon wrote:
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>> Gene,
>>
>> If I actually believed this, I might agree with you. We've certainly
>> disagreed on a number of issues like this but I respect your opinion. I'm
>> sincerely interested to know if this is for real. I've got no problem with
>> people practicing their faith but I do believe that faith in something (like
>> armageddon) can definitely bring it about. I've read a number of articles
>> discussing thes things you bring up here, but the sources were easily as
>> fanatical as they purported Bush to be.
>>
>> I agree that we may be living in the most dangerous time in the history
> of
>> the human race, but I don't see the same villian that you do.
>>
>> Deej
>>
>
>
> There is not just one villain, there are plenty of villains. Saddam Hussein,
> sure, Kim Il-sung, absolutely. The Janjaweed – yep, Taliban, OK.
>
> I don’t want to be on this list!
>
> As a US citizen, I feel like I have been put on the list by the unconscionable
> actions of our government.
>
> Torture, sure…start wars without cause, OK, cause the deaths of tens of thousands
> if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the name of bringing them
> freedom, no problem. Open everyone’s mail, have trials and find people guilty
> and put them to death without ever showing any evidence, why not.
>
> Well I do have a problem. It is NOT OK.
>
> I want my country back.
>
> It was never perfect. No country ever was, but we stood for something great,
> even if we sometimes had less than stellar moments. I know in my heart that
> if the Founding Fathers of the United States were alive today they would
> be calling for impeachment or revolution.
>
> I don’t care if the President prays. We have had many excellent and effective
> presidents that were deeply religions, but if he thinks that all the wars
> and problems we are having in the world are actually a good thing because
> they have ignited a resurgence in Christian Values, we are in deep shit.
> Gene
|
|
|
|
| Re: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72569 is a reply to message #72562] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 13:58 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Dedric,
No, you didn't say I had to support Bush to not support terrorists . . .
but that attitude is still out there, unfortunately, and some of the
responses to your original post reminded me of that. My initial response to
you was in complete agreement.
And I don't really disagree with anything you've said here except that I
don't think relativism is quite the threat you seem to see it as. Most
people don't take relativism to the extreme of justifying suicide bombers.
Also, rejecting ethnocentrism doesn't make one a cultural relativist,
speaking for myself. There is a middle ground there.
As for the sarcasm, sorry about that, but it helps me to diffuse my
anger about these issues.
Near the end of this post, you said, "But, eventually we will lose, and
lose badly, simply because we as a nation don't have an ideology that is
stronger, more grounded, and more committed than theirs." I think we do
have a stronger, more grounded, more committed ideology than theirs. It
involves concepts like unity, integrity, honesty, democracy, and, as we all
recited with hands on hearts in grade school, with liberty and justice for
all. These are sky high ideals that our country is found upon, and the
reason I get so angry and sarcastic is because it upsets me to see us drift
steadily away from those ideals.
Sarah
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:C132C3AB.35B0%dterry@keyofd.net...
> Hi Sarah,
>
> No one said you had to support Bush to not support terrorists, at least I
> never did. It really doesn't help your argument to use sarcasm though.
>
> I am referring to the ideology that has been growing in our country for
> many
> years - way before Bush 1, or Reagan for that matter. It has nothing to
> do
> with Bush 2. I was talking about the world's view of Islam in light of
> the
> Pope's comments, so the fact that he keeps coming up as the response,
> regardless of the original topic, just shows that we would rather blame
> Bush
> than address what is happening in the world and in our country's
> ideology -
> the people, not the government. The government has nothing to do with the
> belief systems and relativism that is pervading our culture, media,
> schools,
> streets, conversations - it's just a side topic for Monday morning water
> cooler talk by pale comparison - one that ebbs and flows in the tide of
> that
> ideology of the people.
>
> After Bush leaves office I believe we will see the greatest surge of
> relativistic and chaotic thinking in our history as a reaction of
> counter-instinct. It isn't about supporting Bush, and I'm not "blaming"
> the
> coming reaction on a lack of support for Bush - I couldn't care less if
> you
> like him - it's been coming regardless. I don't hate Bush, but I don't
> like
> him as a President either. I support our country though and want to see
> it
> become a great and revered nation solely for it's commitment to caring
> about
> and aiding people that can't help themselves, but that is probably wishful
> thinking.
>
> I can see past the political fears and ideology to understand that we were
> also in serious danger during Reagan's years (Russia), Bush 1, and Clinton
> too as terrorism worked on plans for 9/11 and more that we've since
> averted,
> simply because the FBI, CIA and other police are on the vigil more than
> before. We created the political climate we live with administration
> after
> administration - one of deals and compromise to keep the right people
> happy.
> It's better than many alternatives, but in way it just propagates a lack
> of
> significant positive change in exchange for subtly slow moral decay, since
> it in and of itself, and our competitive commerce driven society promotes
> a
> lack of integrity. Until people (everyone, not just leaders) are willing
> to
> risk money, careers, notoriety and stability to stand for something of
> more
> substance than sustaining the nice house, car and happy-go-lucky lifestyle
> we enjoy here, we will continue to cower to the whims of politics and the
> special interest flavor of the day instead.
>
> I do agree that there is more than one way to fight terrorism - yes, 3, 4
> 5,
> maybe 100,000,000. Waging "war" on Islam isn't the answer. But assuming
> this terror war is simply another political disagreement that can be
> diplomatically solved with embargos and slaps on the wrist by the UN is
> also
> overly optimistic - if only, really I wish it were. I'm not saying you
> think
> it is - just making a point.
>
> Truthfully, I don't believe we will ever "win" the war on terror, or
> rather
> the ideology that is behind it. We will just delay it for a few years
> here
> and there over the next 10, 20, maybe more if we are lucky. But,
> eventually
> we will lose, and lose badly, simply because we as a nation don't have an
> ideology that is stronger, more grounded, and more committed than theirs.
>
> Then again, we really are fighting the wrong war, and I'm not referring to
> Iraq.
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
|
|
|
|
| Re: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72571 is a reply to message #72569] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 15:01 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Sarah,
I'm probably being overly pessimistic due to lack of sleep. How ideology
plays out over the long term is a bit unknown (as in, I really don't know -
just gut feeling), but I hope you are right: that as a world community we
will diminish the threat from Al Quaeda, if not terrorism in general.
As to relativism - I probably do make it sound more prevalent than it is - I
can't claim to have a broad enough scope for that to be any more than
conjecture. I actually wasn't inferring that relativism does, or would ever
justify suicide bombers, and I don't know anyone in this country who does.
Relativism to me is more about the tide of overall softening of values for
the sake of redefining social acceptability. It really is mainly about
values and morals, rather than cultural change, though they could be
considered of the same family, or even one in the same from time to time.
There are a lot of great people in this country regardless of widely varying
beliefs, and you are right - we have a lot of fortitude and desire to
maintain the freedoms and quality of life we have here. That's the cool
aspect of this forum - even though we all disagree from time to time, we do
have that in common - we want our country to be a great place to live, work,
raise a family, play, etc, and that is an encouraging common theme in most
of these threads.
Regards,
Dedric
On 9/17/06 2:58 PM, in article 450db55a$1@linux, "Sarah"
<sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
> Hi Dedric,
>
> No, you didn't say I had to support Bush to not support terrorists . . .
> but that attitude is still out there, unfortunately, and some of the
> responses to your original post reminded me of that. My initial response to
> you was in complete agreement.
>
> And I don't really disagree with anything you've said here except that I
> don't think relativism is quite the threat you seem to see it as. Most
> people don't take relativism to the extreme of justifying suicide bombers.
> Also, rejecting ethnocentrism doesn't make one a cultural relativist,
> speaking for myself. There is a middle ground there.
>
> As for the sarcasm, sorry about that, but it helps me to diffuse my
> anger about these issues.
>
> Near the end of this post, you said, "But, eventually we will lose, and
> lose badly, simply because we as a nation don't have an ideology that is
> stronger, more grounded, and more committed than theirs." I think we do
> have a stronger, more grounded, more committed ideology than theirs. It
> involves concepts like unity, integrity, honesty, democracy, and, as we all
> recited with hands on hearts in grade school, with liberty and justice for
> all. These are sky high ideals that our country is found upon, and the
> reason I get so angry and sarcastic is because it upsets me to see us drift
> steadily away from those ideals.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> news:C132C3AB.35B0%dterry@keyofd.net...
>> Hi Sarah,
>>
>> No one said you had to support Bush to not support terrorists, at least I
>> never did. It really doesn't help your argument to use sarcasm though.
>>
>> I am referring to the ideology that has been growing in our country for
>> many
>> years - way before Bush 1, or Reagan for that matter. It has nothing to
>> do
>> with Bush 2. I was talking about the world's view of Islam in light of
>> the
>> Pope's comments, so the fact that he keeps coming up as the response,
>> regardless of the original topic, just shows that we would rather blame
>> Bush
>> than address what is happening in the world and in our country's
>> ideology -
>> the people, not the government. The government has nothing to do with the
>> belief systems and relativism that is pervading our culture, media,
>> schools,
>> streets, conversations - it's just a side topic for Monday morning water
>> cooler talk by pale comparison - one that ebbs and flows in the tide of
>> that
>> ideology of the people.
>>
>> After Bush leaves office I believe we will see the greatest surge of
>> relativistic and chaotic thinking in our history as a reaction of
>> counter-instinct. It isn't about supporting Bush, and I'm not "blaming"
>> the
>> coming reaction on a lack of support for Bush - I couldn't care less if
>> you
>> like him - it's been coming regardless. I don't hate Bush, but I don't
>> like
>> him as a President either. I support our country though and want to see
>> it
>> become a great and revered nation solely for it's commitment to caring
>> about
>> and aiding people that can't help themselves, but that is probably wishful
>> thinking.
>>
>> I can see past the political fears and ideology to understand that we were
>> also in serious danger during Reagan's years (Russia), Bush 1, and Clinton
>> too as terrorism worked on plans for 9/11 and more that we've since
>> averted,
>> simply because the FBI, CIA and other police are on the vigil more than
>> before. We created the political climate we live with administration
>> after
>> administration - one of deals and compromise to keep the right people
>> happy.
>> It's better than many alternatives, but in way it just propagates a lack
>> of
>> significant positive change in exchange for subtly slow moral decay, since
>> it in and of itself, and our competitive commerce driven society promotes
>> a
>> lack of integrity. Until people (everyone, not just leaders) are willing
>> to
>> risk money, careers, notoriety and stability to stand for something of
>> more
>> substance than sustaining the nice house, car and happy-go-lucky lifestyle
>> we enjoy here, we will continue to cower to the whims of politics and the
>> special interest flavor of the day instead.
>>
>> I do agree that there is more than one way to fight terrorism - yes, 3, 4
>> 5,
>> maybe 100,000,000. Waging "war" on Islam isn't the answer. But assuming
>> this terror war is simply another political disagreement that can be
>> diplomatically solved with embargos and slaps on the wrist by the UN is
>> also
>> overly optimistic - if only, really I wish it were. I'm not saying you
>> think
>> it is - just making a point.
>>
>> Truthfully, I don't believe we will ever "win" the war on terror, or
>> rather
>> the ideology that is behind it. We will just delay it for a few years
>> here
>> and there over the next 10, 20, maybe more if we are lucky. But,
>> eventually
>> we will lose, and lose badly, simply because we as a nation don't have an
>> ideology that is stronger, more grounded, and more committed than theirs.
>>
>> Then again, we really are fighting the wrong war, and I'm not referring to
>> Iraq.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72575 is a reply to message #72511] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 17:09 |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The real irony here is that the head of the Catholic Church would dare to
criticize anybody, ever, for spreading religion with violence and brutality.
That is some serious irony right there.
Jimmy
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:C131DB49.356D%dterry@keyofd.net...
> I don't want to start another religious or political thread - I just found
> this ironic, at best:
>
> The Pope is under fire from the Islamic community because he quoted a
> Byzantine emperor's ancient writings in a talk rejecting religious
> motivation for violence. The emperor, in obscure writings hundreds of
year
> old, characterized the teachings of Muhammad (Islam's founder) as "evil
and
> inhuman" because if it's command to "spread by the sword the faith". The
> Pope made no such characterization - just quoted the old guy, and it isn't
> even clear if he quoted any of the "offensive" text.
>
> As a protest, two Catholic, two Anglican, and one Greek church in the West
> Bank were attacked by Palestinians using guns, firebombs and lighter
fluid -
> charring the churches and riddling them with bullet holes.
>
> Umm...reality check: 2+2=4. The Earth still circles the Sun. And
doesn't
> reacting with violence just prove the Emperor's assessment, and then some?
> Yet the press and the Islamic world seem to have missed the irony of this
> response, or at least are reluctant to admit it.
>
> The Pope's comment is getting more press than the fact that violence was
> actually perpetrated when the churches were torched. To note, this was a
> response, not a crime.
>
> Why are we (the world culture) so quick to defend Islam and work so hard
to
> avoid offending Muslims, regardless of the cost - even if it means
rewriting
> the definitions of peace and violence? Just something to think about....
>
> Ignorance isn't bliss, it's the last step one takes before falling off of
a
> cliff.
>
> Back to music...
> Dedric
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72578 is a reply to message #72535] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 18:12 |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The idea that one needs to believe in a god in order to have a strong morals
is absurd, I think.
Jimmy
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:C1325038.358D%dterry@keyofd.net...
> Gene -
>
> You probably didn't realize it (so no offense), but your response pretty
> much confirms my assertion that the tendency of our country and even the
> world society, is to place blame for religious conflict, violence and
> religiously motivated terrorism anywhere but with the single largest
> growing, and currently most violent religion in the world. We ignore car
> bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of tortured and
> murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming the
> administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made the Pope quote
a
> Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
>
> Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening, all-accepting religion
> our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western Muslims might
> be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything else in many of
the
> conservative Islamic countries of the world. I know, have talked to, and
> have heard missionaries to these countries speak - it's a different world
> from the free discussions and widely varying opinions we have here.
People
> die for converting to anything else, or their families do. At best, their
> families disown them and they sneak out of the country under threat of
> death. In fact it's the exact opposite of the "freedom" our country
> continually pushes the limits of. Odd that we would turn on our own
country
> in favor of supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to this kind of
> ideology, somehow believing that is the more politically correct thing to
> do.
>
> The problem I see isn't religion, but a lack of faith in God, and hence
any
> sense of direction and moral guidance. God gives us the choice to believe
> or not. Based on documents of their activities - in the name of Allah the
> 9/11 terrorists pretty much broke every one of the 10 commandments in 24
> hours. That may seem a trivial or even silly fact, but there is a sad,
and
> frightening irony there. Faith in God isn't what one should fear - it's
> believing in anything that conveniently appeases one's personal whims that
> is the true danger.... the terrorists proved that in one day. That also
> includes believing in nothing.
>
> As Blaise Pascal once said (paraphrased): if one believes in God and is
> wrong, at worst one has lived a good live and had some false hope as a
sense
> of comfort along the way; if one doesn't believe and is wrong, then at
> best, all is lost for eternity. This is the paradox that we should be
> considering, and yet the most fear-inducing thought is that the President
> might believe in something other than nothing. Is no belief really better
> than belief? What reference point for right and wrong accompanies
disbelief
> in anything higher than one's own decisions? What reference point for
> respect for other people's beliefs accompanies a lack of belief in any
> guideline for living life and having respect and compassion for others?
>
> It isn't the administration's fault that the Pope quoted a guy Islam
doesn't
> like just because he called like he saw it - something we do on this forum
> every single day, ironically. It also isn't Christianity's intent to take
> over the world, or the government. Far from it. The only goal is to give
> people a chance to decide. Yet, those that want to decide to not believe
> would rather take that right away and remove Christianity from public
view.
> The only way to force someone to remove their belief from public in a
> country that promotes the freedom to believe as one wishes, is to outlaw
it.
> Yet another paradox.
>
> Through our short sighted political glasses we want to see the world as a
> black and white, free-will, partisan vote where one's party always wins
and
> the decisions are always in our favor, but fail to see any validity in
> believing a God that gave us the very moral compass to maintain the
balance
> that kind of choice affords us. In essence we put our trust in the very
> thing we prove day in and day out to be one of the most fallible
> characteristics of humanity - political and relativistic ideology.
>
> I guess I ignored my own first comment....sorry about that.
>
> I should get back to mourning NI Battery 2's destruction of 10 hours of
work
> :-((....
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
> On 9/16/06 9:09 PM, in article 450cbc70$1@linux, "gene Lennon"
> <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
> >> I don't want to start another religious or political thread -...
> >
> >
> > These are frightening times. While the true neocons in the current
> > administration
> > have had a variety of political, financial and power-based reasons for
> > perusing
> > the war against Iraq, the president has had an even scarier motivation.
> >
> > Religion.
> >
> > If you missed it, this week Bush has announced the "Third Great
Awakening"
> > of the international religious struggle. This is a good thing as he sees
> > it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight against
terrorists
> > (Translation - Due to his good work in God's name). A war that he
depicts
> > as "a confrontation between good and evil."
> > In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a bit of trouble
(as
> > has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
> >
> > Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be headed?
> >
> > Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could easily go
down
> > hill from here.
> >
> > More on the "Third Awakening":
> >
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR2006091201
59
> > 4_pf.html
> >
> > Gene
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72582 is a reply to message #72578] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 20:10 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Jimmy,
No doubt one can be a good person without believing in God - there are tons
of great people with no faith, or very little. That in and of itself tells
me there must be a God so even non-believers would have a strong sense of
right and wrong on a societal and even global level.
To walk through some thoughts: with no God, or higher reference point, what
would be considered moral, or at least good? What would one use to decide
what is right and wrong?
Laws? Most would agree that we can't legislate morality now, so with no
basis for what morality is, why would we even bother with laws since
everyone would make their own choices anyway?
Intellect? That would simply depend on what one chose to accept as
"intelligent" thought, based completely on opinion.
Reasoning and Logic? Logic is determined by a hypothesis that has a proven
outcome in a given situation. Change the situation, and the reasoning or
logic behind the "right" or "wrong" could easily change.
Experience? What if one's experience is filled with hatred, abuse, anger
and violence, or worse? Then someone would have to decide whose experience
we would use as a reference point. There would be no guarantee that person
or persons had experiences that would be best for the good of the whole.
Survival instinct? If it were a reference point, then stealing, lying,
cheating and even killing would be perfectly justified as those can be means
of survival.
Why would right and wrong even exist? I would think that the differences
between societies' definitions of right and wrong, assuming societies even
existed, would be so drastic we would never have ventured into any form of
inter-cultural/inter-geographic interaction, much less relationships,
diplomacy, collaboration, trade, and open travel.
As long as "morals" are only relative to each individual, they aren't
absolute morals that would last longer than the time it takes to make the
choice. We would just have 6.5 billion opinions. There would only be an
ever changing perspective on what seems to "make sense" at the time, and
based on this premise, even "making sense" would vary from person to person,
day to day, minute to minute. In that case, our prisons would either be
filled with innocent people simply judged "wrong" at the time because their
choices didn't match the preferences of the majority; or we wouldn't have
prisons, or likely even organized societies.
But is the majority always right? How would we know if there were no
absolutes that supercede the majority in some form?
If there were no right and wrong, there would be no consequences of either,
or at least we wouldn't view the outcome as a good or bad consequence - it
would just be another event in time.
But by grace and as a gift of freedom, God gave us a choice, both in whether
to believe in Him and whether to make right or wrong decisions. With moral
absolutes (God's word) as a reference we have a way to evaluate drastically
differing situations on an equivalent basis; with consistency in reasoning
and compassion; by choice and instinct rather than puppetry. Even when we
choose to do wrong, He is willing to forgive us. Without that option to
choose, balanced by God's grace and forgiveness, there would be no power in
choosing to believe in Him. That's what makes God a personal and loving God
rather than a dictator or puppet master.
Odd as it may seem to anyone who doesn't believe, I can see God in the way
that 1) we as a group of intelligent people on this forum can discuss
completely opposing opinions and still care enough to consider insulting,
belittling, slandering and hating one another an intolerable concept; and 2)
in all likelihood agree that peace and compassion completely trump greed and
power in importance to life and survival together on this planet.
Regards,
Dedric
On 9/17/06 7:12 PM, in article 450df091@linux, "Uptown Jimmy"
<johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The idea that one needs to believe in a god in order to have a strong morals
> is absurd, I think.
>
> Jimmy
>
>
> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> news:C1325038.358D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>> Gene -
>>
>> You probably didn't realize it (so no offense), but your response pretty
>> much confirms my assertion that the tendency of our country and even the
>> world society, is to place blame for religious conflict, violence and
>> religiously motivated terrorism anywhere but with the single largest
>> growing, and currently most violent religion in the world. We ignore car
>> bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of tortured and
>> murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming the
>> administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made the Pope quote
> a
>> Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
>>
>> Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening, all-accepting religion
>> our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western Muslims might
>> be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything else in many of
> the
>> conservative Islamic countries of the world. I know, have talked to, and
>> have heard missionaries to these countries speak - it's a different world
>> from the free discussions and widely varying opinions we have here.
> People
>> die for converting to anything else, or their families do. At best, their
>> families disown them and they sneak out of the country under threat of
>> death. In fact it's the exact opposite of the "freedom" our country
>> continually pushes the limits of. Odd that we would turn on our own
> country
>> in favor of supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to this kind of
>> ideology, somehow believing that is the more politically correct thing to
>> do.
>>
>> The problem I see isn't religion, but a lack of faith in God, and hence
> any
>> sense of direction and moral guidance. God gives us the choice to believe
>> or not. Based on documents of their activities - in the name of Allah the
>> 9/11 terrorists pretty much broke every one of the 10 commandments in 24
>> hours. That may seem a trivial or even silly fact, but there is a sad,
> and
>> frightening irony there. Faith in God isn't what one should fear - it's
>> believing in anything that conveniently appeases one's personal whims that
>> is the true danger.... the terrorists proved that in one day. That also
>> includes believing in nothing.
>>
>> As Blaise Pascal once said (paraphrased): if one believes in God and is
>> wrong, at worst one has lived a good live and had some false hope as a
> sense
>> of comfort along the way; if one doesn't believe and is wrong, then at
>> best, all is lost for eternity. This is the paradox that we should be
>> considering, and yet the most fear-inducing thought is that the President
>> might believe in something other than nothing. Is no belief really better
>> than belief? What reference point for right and wrong accompanies
> disbelief
>> in anything higher than one's own decisions? What reference point for
>> respect for other people's beliefs accompanies a lack of belief in any
>> guideline for living life and having respect and compassion for others?
>>
>> It isn't the administration's fault that the Pope quoted a guy Islam
> doesn't
>> like just because he called like he saw it - something we do on this forum
>> every single day, ironically. It also isn't Christianity's intent to take
>> over the world, or the government. Far from it. The only goal is to give
>> people a chance to decide. Yet, those that want to decide to not believe
>> would rather take that right away and remove Christianity from public
> view.
>> The only way to force someone to remove their belief from public in a
>> country that promotes the freedom to believe as one wishes, is to outlaw
> it.
>> Yet another paradox.
>>
>> Through our short sighted political glasses we want to see the world as a
>> black and white, free-will, partisan vote where one's party always wins
> and
>> the decisions are always in our favor, but fail to see any validity in
>> believing a God that gave us the very moral compass to maintain the
> balance
>> that kind of choice affords us. In essence we put our trust in the very
>> thing we prove day in and day out to be one of the most fallible
>> characteristics of humanity - political and relativistic ideology.
>>
>> I guess I ignored my own first comment....sorry about that.
>>
>> I should get back to mourning NI Battery 2's destruction of 10 hours of
> work
>> :-((....
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 9/16/06 9:09 PM, in article 450cbc70$1@linux, "gene Lennon"
>> <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>> I don't want to start another religious or political thread -...
>>>
>>>
>>> These are frightening times. While the true neocons in the current
>>> administration
>>> have had a variety of political, financial and power-based reasons for
>>> perusing
>>> the war against Iraq, the president has had an even scarier motivation.
>>>
>>> Religion.
>>>
>>> If you missed it, this week Bush has announced the "Third Great
> Awakening"
>>> of the international religious struggle. This is a good thing as he sees
>>> it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight against
> terrorists
>>> (Translation - Due to his good work in God's name). A war that he
> depicts
>>> as "a confrontation between good and evil."
>>> In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a bit of trouble
> (as
>>> has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
>>>
>>> Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be headed?
>>>
>>> Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could easily go
> down
>>> hill from here.
>>>
>>> More on the "Third Awakening":
>>>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR2006091201
> 59
>>> 4_pf.html
>>>
>>> Gene
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72583 is a reply to message #72582] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 20:55 |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I have no desire to enter into a debate about gods and religion. I am not
interested in proving any given point, or in converting you to a state of
mind similar to my own.
Jimmy
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:C1336A39.35DE%dterry@keyofd.net...
> Hey Jimmy,
>
> No doubt one can be a good person without believing in God - there are
tons
> of great people with no faith, or very little. That in and of itself
tells
> me there must be a God so even non-believers would have a strong sense of
> right and wrong on a societal and even global level.
>
> To walk through some thoughts: with no God, or higher reference point,
what
> would be considered moral, or at least good? What would one use to decide
> what is right and wrong?
>
> Laws? Most would agree that we can't legislate morality now, so with no
> basis for what morality is, why would we even bother with laws since
> everyone would make their own choices anyway?
>
> Intellect? That would simply depend on what one chose to accept as
> "intelligent" thought, based completely on opinion.
>
> Reasoning and Logic? Logic is determined by a hypothesis that has a
proven
> outcome in a given situation. Change the situation, and the reasoning or
> logic behind the "right" or "wrong" could easily change.
>
> Experience? What if one's experience is filled with hatred, abuse, anger
> and violence, or worse? Then someone would have to decide whose
experience
> we would use as a reference point. There would be no guarantee that
person
> or persons had experiences that would be best for the good of the whole.
>
> Survival instinct? If it were a reference point, then stealing, lying,
> cheating and even killing would be perfectly justified as those can be
means
> of survival.
>
> Why would right and wrong even exist? I would think that the differences
> between societies' definitions of right and wrong, assuming societies even
> existed, would be so drastic we would never have ventured into any form of
> inter-cultural/inter-geographic interaction, much less relationships,
> diplomacy, collaboration, trade, and open travel.
>
> As long as "morals" are only relative to each individual, they aren't
> absolute morals that would last longer than the time it takes to make the
> choice. We would just have 6.5 billion opinions. There would only be an
> ever changing perspective on what seems to "make sense" at the time, and
> based on this premise, even "making sense" would vary from person to
person,
> day to day, minute to minute. In that case, our prisons would either be
> filled with innocent people simply judged "wrong" at the time because
their
> choices didn't match the preferences of the majority; or we wouldn't have
> prisons, or likely even organized societies.
>
> But is the majority always right? How would we know if there were no
> absolutes that supercede the majority in some form?
>
> If there were no right and wrong, there would be no consequences of
either,
> or at least we wouldn't view the outcome as a good or bad consequence - it
> would just be another event in time.
>
> But by grace and as a gift of freedom, God gave us a choice, both in
whether
> to believe in Him and whether to make right or wrong decisions. With
moral
> absolutes (God's word) as a reference we have a way to evaluate
drastically
> differing situations on an equivalent basis; with consistency in reasoning
> and compassion; by choice and instinct rather than puppetry. Even when we
> choose to do wrong, He is willing to forgive us. Without that option to
> choose, balanced by God's grace and forgiveness, there would be no power
in
> choosing to believe in Him. That's what makes God a personal and loving
God
> rather than a dictator or puppet master.
>
> Odd as it may seem to anyone who doesn't believe, I can see God in the way
> that 1) we as a group of intelligent people on this forum can discuss
> completely opposing opinions and still care enough to consider insulting,
> belittling, slandering and hating one another an intolerable concept; and
2)
> in all likelihood agree that peace and compassion completely trump greed
and
> power in importance to life and survival together on this planet.
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
> On 9/17/06 7:12 PM, in article 450df091@linux, "Uptown Jimmy"
> <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > The idea that one needs to believe in a god in order to have a strong
morals
> > is absurd, I think.
> >
> > Jimmy
> >
> >
> > "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> > news:C1325038.358D%dterry@keyofd.net...
> >> Gene -
> >>
> >> You probably didn't realize it (so no offense), but your response
pretty
> >> much confirms my assertion that the tendency of our country and even
the
> >> world society, is to place blame for religious conflict, violence and
> >> religiously motivated terrorism anywhere but with the single largest
> >> growing, and currently most violent religion in the world. We ignore
car
> >> bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of tortured and
> >> murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming the
> >> administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made the Pope
quote
> > a
> >> Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
> >>
> >> Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening, all-accepting
religion
> >> our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western Muslims
might
> >> be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything else in many
of
> > the
> >> conservative Islamic countries of the world. I know, have talked to,
and
> >> have heard missionaries to these countries speak - it's a different
world
> >> from the free discussions and widely varying opinions we have here.
> > People
> >> die for converting to anything else, or their families do. At best,
their
> >> families disown them and they sneak out of the country under threat of
> >> death. In fact it's the exact opposite of the "freedom" our country
> >> continually pushes the limits of. Odd that we would turn on our own
> > country
> >> in favor of supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to this kind of
> >> ideology, somehow believing that is the more politically correct thing
to
> >> do.
> >>
> >> The problem I see isn't religion, but a lack of faith in God, and hence
> > any
> >> sense of direction and moral guidance. God gives us the choice to
believe
> >> or not. Based on documents of their activities - in the name of Allah
the
> >> 9/11 terrorists pretty much broke every one of the 10 commandments in
24
> >> hours. That may seem a trivial or even silly fact, but there is a sad,
> > and
> >> frightening irony there. Faith in God isn't what one should fear -
it's
> >> believing in anything that conveniently appeases one's personal whims
that
> >> is the true danger.... the terrorists proved that in one day. That
also
> >> includes believing in nothing.
> >>
> >> As Blaise Pascal once said (paraphrased): if one believes in God and is
> >> wrong, at worst one has lived a good live and had some false hope as a
> > sense
> >> of comfort along the way; if one doesn't believe and is wrong, then at
> >> best, all is lost for eternity. This is the paradox that we should be
> >> considering, and yet the most fear-inducing thought is that the
President
> >> might believe in something other than nothing. Is no belief really
better
> >> than belief? What reference point for right and wrong accompanies
> > disbelief
> >> in anything higher than one's own decisions? What reference point for
> >> respect for other people's beliefs accompanies a lack of belief in any
> >> guideline for living life and having respect and compassion for others?
> >>
> >> It isn't the administration's fault that the Pope quoted a guy Islam
> > doesn't
> >> like just because he called like he saw it - something we do on this
forum
> >> every single day, ironically. It also isn't Christianity's intent to
take
> >> over the world, or the government. Far from it. The only goal is to
give
> >> people a chance to decide. Yet, those that want to decide to not
believe
> >> would rather take that right away and remove Christianity from public
> > view.
> >> The only way to force someone to remove their belief from public in a
> >> country that promotes the freedom to believe as one wishes, is to
outlaw
> > it.
> >> Yet another paradox.
> >>
> >> Through our short sighted political glasses we want to see the world as
a
> >> black and white, free-will, partisan vote where one's party always wins
> > and
> >> the decisions are always in our favor, but fail to see any validity in
> >> believing a God that gave us the very moral compass to maintain the
> > balance
> >> that kind of choice affords us. In essence we put our trust in the
very
> >> thing we prove day in and day out to be one of the most fallible
> >> characteristics of humanity - political and relativistic ideology.
> >>
> >> I guess I ignored my own first comment....sorry about that.
> >>
> >> I should get back to mourning NI Battery 2's destruction of 10 hours of
> > work
> >> :-((....
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Dedric
> >>
> >> On 9/16/06 9:09 PM, in article 450cbc70$1@linux, "gene Lennon"
> >> <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
> >>>> I don't want to start another religious or political thread -...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> These are frightening times. While the true neocons in the current
> >>> administration
> >>> have had a variety of political, financial and power-based reasons for
> >>> perusing
> >>> the war against Iraq, the president has had an even scarier
motivation.
> >>>
> >>> Religion.
> >>>
> >>> If you missed it, this week Bush has announced the "Third Great
> > Awakening"
> >>> of the international religious struggle. This is a good thing as he
sees
> >>> it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight against
> > terrorists
> >>> (Translation - Due to his good work in God's name). A war that he
> > depicts
> >>> as "a confrontation between good and evil."
> >>> In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a bit of trouble
> > (as
> >>> has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
> >>>
> >>> Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be headed?
> >>>
> >>> Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could easily go
> > down
> >>> hill from here.
> >>>
> >>> More on the "Third Awakening":
> >>>
> >
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR2006091201
> > 59
> >>> 4_pf.html
> >>>
> >>> Gene
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72584 is a reply to message #72582] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 22:14 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Faith is complete trust or confidence in something or someone. Religious
faith is one form of faith but not the only definition of "faith."
For example I have faith that if I drop a guitar pick it will find its
way to the floor based on the gravitational attraction it has to the
planet. I have faith that I'll breathe my next breath, that I'll see
tomorrow morning. I have faith that other people are put together much
like I am and that I can therefore relate to other folks.
Without faith, people would not invest money. Without faith people would
not vote. Without faith people would not start businesses, hire other
people, raise children. Without faith people would not ride trains, fly
in planes or drive cars. Without faith no one would investigate
scientific questions about reality.
While you can clearly have faith without religion, you cannot have
religion without faith. Religion depends on faith that one or more
deities (good and sometimes bad) exist, that their associated stories
actually occurred, and often, that there is some sort of afterlife.
However, religious people believe in a variety of different deities.
Even those who believe in the same deity disagree, sometimes violently,
about the nature of their deity. Religions sometimes even disagree about
the nature of reality. If you want to base morality strictly on
religion, and you look around, you'll notice that religion can be a
somewhat chaotic basis unless...
Ah, you might say, I want to base morality on MY religion. Well, you
just dissed the majority of religions. No problem because THEY ARE
WRONG. And people who believe in those religions may just be saying the
same thing about you and your religion. For those religions who are not
tolerant of other ideas, you may just have started a war.
So perhaps it's BETTER, in our time, to have a system of justice that is
NOT based on a religion. But one which guarantees everyone the right to
practice the religion of their choice, guarantees other freedoms such as
we in the USA do in our Bill of Rights, encourages honesty and
integrity, while enforcing some common sense limits such as no human
sacrifices, a minimum age for marriage, no incest, no slavery, no
murder, no rape, no stealing, those sorts of things.
What is viewed as morality beyond a fair justice system and common sense
rules of behavior can be left to each freely chosen religion to sort
out, like whether to restrict diet in some way, whether to wear a
certain type of clothing, how to pray, etc. But none of these additional
practices should be imposed on society as a whole.
The Golden Rule may also be of use as a basic moral foundation.
So yes, you can have a moral system, one that BTW protects the freedom
to practice religious beliefs (or not), without basing it on any one
religion. And it can protect all religions better than a system based on
any one religion (AKA a theocracy).
There are other issues surrounding religions, such as the many examples
of selfless dedication to helping others on the one hand, and hijacked
religions used to legitimize earthly power structures in other cases.
Dedric, I look forward to talking with you about the positives and
negatives of various religions, and where a moral culture ought to go
from here, whenever we next get together.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
Dedric Terry wrote:
> Hey Jimmy,
>
> No doubt one can be a good person without believing in God - there are tons
> of great people with no faith, or very little. That in and of itself tells
> me there must be a God so even non-believers would have a strong sense of
> right and wrong on a societal and even global level.
>
> To walk through some thoughts: with no God, or higher reference point, what
> would be considered moral, or at least good? What would one use to decide
> what is right and wrong?
>
> Laws? Most would agree that we can't legislate morality now, so with no
> basis for what morality is, why would we even bother with laws since
> everyone would make their own choices anyway?
>
> Intellect? That would simply depend on what one chose to accept as
> "intelligent" thought, based completely on opinion.
>
> Reasoning and Logic? Logic is determined by a hypothesis that has a proven
> outcome in a given situation. Change the situation, and the reasoning or
> logic behind the "right" or "wrong" could easily change.
>
> Experience? What if one's experience is filled with hatred, abuse, anger
> and violence, or worse? Then someone would have to decide whose experience
> we would use as a reference point. There would be no guarantee that person
> or persons had experiences that would be best for the good of the whole.
>
> Survival instinct? If it were a reference point, then stealing, lying,
> cheating and even killing would be perfectly justified as those can be means
> of survival.
>
> Why would right and wrong even exist? I would think that the differences
> between societies' definitions of right and wrong, assuming societies even
> existed, would be so drastic we would never have ventured into any form of
> inter-cultural/inter-geographic interaction, much less relationships,
> diplomacy, collaboration, trade, and open travel.
>
> As long as "morals" are only relative to each individual, they aren't
> absolute morals that would last longer than the time it takes to make the
> choice. We would just have 6.5 billion opinions. There would only be an
> ever changing perspective on what seems to "make sense" at the time, and
> based on this premise, even "making sense" would vary from person to person,
> day to day, minute to minute. In that case, our prisons would either be
> filled with innocent people simply judged "wrong" at the time because their
> choices didn't match the preferences of the majority; or we wouldn't have
> prisons, or likely even organized societies.
>
> But is the majority always right? How would we know if there were no
> absolutes that supercede the majority in some form?
>
> If there were no right and wrong, there would be no consequences of either,
> or at least we wouldn't view the outcome as a good or bad consequence - it
> would just be another event in time.
>
> But by grace and as a gift of freedom, God gave us a choice, both in whether
> to believe in Him and whether to make right or wrong decisions. With moral
> absolutes (God's word) as a reference we have a way to evaluate drastically
> differing situations on an equivalent basis; with consistency in reasoning
> and compassion; by choice and instinct rather than puppetry. Even when we
> choose to do wrong, He is willing to forgive us. Without that option to
> choose, balanced by God's grace and forgiveness, there would be no power in
> choosing to believe in Him. That's what makes God a personal and loving God
> rather than a dictator or puppet master.
>
> Odd as it may seem to anyone who doesn't believe, I can see God in the way
> that 1) we as a group of intelligent people on this forum can discuss
> completely opposing opinions and still care enough to consider insulting,
> belittling, slandering and hating one another an intolerable concept; and 2)
> in all likelihood agree that peace and compassion completely trump greed and
> power in importance to life and survival together on this planet.
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
> On 9/17/06 7:12 PM, in article 450df091@linux, "Uptown Jimmy"
> <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> The idea that one needs to believe in a god in order to have a strong morals
>> is absurd, I think.
>>
>> Jimmy
>>
>>
>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>> news:C1325038.358D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>> Gene -
>>>
>>> You probably didn't realize it (so no offense), but your response pretty
>>> much confirms my assertion that the tendency of our country and even the
>>> world society, is to place blame for religious conflict, violence and
>>> religiously motivated terrorism anywhere but with the single largest
>>> growing, and currently most violent religion in the world. We ignore car
>>> bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of tortured and
>>> murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming the
>>> administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made the Pope quote
>> a
>>> Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
>>>
>>> Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening, all-accepting religion
>>> our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western Muslims might
>>> be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything else in many of
>> the
>>> conservative Islamic countries of the world. I know, have talked to, and
>>> have heard missionaries to these countries speak - it's a different world
>>> from the free discussions and widely varying opinions we have here.
>> People
>>> die for converting to anything else, or their families do. At best, their
>>> families disown them and they sneak out of the country under threat of
>>> death. In fact it's the exact opposite of the "freedom" our country
>>> continually pushes the limits of. Odd that we would turn on our own
>> country
>>> in favor of supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to this kind of
>>> ideology, somehow believing that is the more politically correct thing to
>>> do.
>>>
>>> The problem I see isn't religion, but a lack of faith in God, and hence
>> any
>>> sense of direction and moral guidance. God gives us the choice to believe
>>> or not. Based on documents of their activities - in the name of Allah the
>>> 9/11 terrorists pretty much broke every one of the 10 commandments in 24
>>> hours. That may seem a trivial or even silly fact, but there is a sad,
>> and
>>> frightening irony there. Faith in God isn't what one should fear - it's
>>> believing in anything that conveniently appeases one's personal whims that
>>> is the true danger.... the terrorists proved that in one day. That also
>>> includes believing in nothing.
>>>
>>> As Blaise Pascal once said (paraphrased): if one believes in God and is
>>> wrong, at worst one has lived a good live and had some false hope as a
>> sense
>>> of comfort along the way; if one doesn't believe and is wrong, then at
>>> best, all is lost for eternity. This is the paradox that we should be
>>> considering, and yet the most fear-inducing thought is that the President
>>> might believe in something other than nothing. Is no belief really better
>>> than belief? What reference point for right and wrong accompanies
>> disbelief
>>> in anything higher than one's own decisions? What reference point for
>>> respect for other people's beliefs accompanies a lack of belief in any
>>> guideline for living life and having respect and compassion for others?
>>>
>>> It isn't the administration's fault that the Pope quoted a guy Islam
>> doesn't
>>> like just because he called like he saw it - something we do on this forum
>>> every single day, ironically. It also isn't Christianity's intent to take
>>> over the world, or the government. Far from it. The only goal is to give
>>> people a chance to decide. Yet, those that want to decide to not believe
>>> would rather take that right away and remove Christianity from public
>> view.
>>> The only way to force someone to remove their belief from public in a
>>> country that promotes the freedom to believe as one wishes, is to outlaw
>> it.
>>> Yet another paradox.
>>>
>>> Through our short sighted political glasses we want to see the world as a
>>> black and white, free-will, partisan vote where one's party always wins
>> and
>>> the decisions are always in our favor, but fail to see any validity in
>>> believing a God that gave us the very moral compass to maintain the
>> balance
>>> that kind of choice affords us. In essence we put our trust in the very
>>> thing we prove day in and day out to be one of the most fallible
>>> characteristics of humanity - political and relativistic ideology.
>>>
>>> I guess I ignored my own first comment....sorry about that.
>>>
>>> I should get back to mourning NI Battery 2's destruction of 10 hours of
>> work
>>> :-((....
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> On 9/16/06 9:09 PM, in article 450cbc70$1@linux, "gene Lennon"
>>> <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>> I don't want to start another religious or political thread -...
>>>>
>>>> These are frightening times. While the true neocons in the current
>>>> administration
>>>> have had a variety of political, financial and power-based reasons for
>>>> perusing
>>>> the war against Iraq, the president has had an even scarier motivation.
>>>>
>>>> Religion.
>>>>
>>>> If you missed it, this week Bush has announced the "Third Great
>> Awakening"
>>>> of the international religious struggle. This is a good thing as he sees
>>>> it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight against
>> terrorists
>>>> (Translation - Due to his good work in God's name). A war that he
>> depicts
>>>> as "a confrontation between good and evil."
>>>> In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a bit of trouble
>> (as
>>>> has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be headed?
>>>>
>>>> Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could easily go
>> down
>>>> hill from here.
>>>>
>>>> More on the "Third Awakening":
>>>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR2006091201
>> 59
>>>> 4_pf.html
>>>>
>>>> Gene
>>>>
>>
>
`
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72586 is a reply to message #72584] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 23:38 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Jamie,
While those are certainly good examples of the common definition of faith,,
we shouldn't confuse faith in God with trust that event B will follow event
A. The latter can also easily be attributed to learned behavior. But not
all aspects of faith in God can be seen or experienced.
Hebrews 11:1
What is faith? It is the confident assurance that what we hope for is going
to happen. It is the evidence of things we cannot yet see.
And no doubt that can apply to a falling guitar pick, though I doubt you
hope that will happen during a gig. ;-)
How does one believe that there is life after death though, or that God is
sovereign even over devastating situations? That is where the faith I refer
to comes into play. And I would also propose that the same sense of faith
we use to start a business, or enter into marriage, or believe that we'll
see the next day, is part of the desire and drive that God has designed in
us to propel us forward, and draw us to Him as well. It is a part of being
human - a feeling, thinking, growing, individual.
The point was that moral absolutes aren't based on religion, and wouldn't be
moral absolutes if they were. The idea of God-defined absolutes excludes
the possibility that man could create or change that absolute.
By saying that man creates absolutes based on his religions says that his
religion is false (created by that man), and therefore, no belief has any
absolutes, and all beliefs are relative only to a single individual at a
single point in time. We could extrapolate that to whether murder, rape and
other acts we consider "hideous", but would have to conclude that all are
right and none are wrong. The reason being that we would only be viewing
them through our own created "right and wrong" and not anyone else's. That
would also extrapolate to terrorists that kill people believing that it is
Allah's will to destroy those that oppose them. But obviously we don't
believe that is "right" any more than we believe Charles Manson was "right"
to do what he did.
So where do we get the foundation for a "fair justice system" and "common
sense"? If we have no reference point, then we must have just made it up.
In that case, it's only relative to our perspective, and is neither right or
wrong to anyone else, and maybe not all of the time for us either. If we
created right and wrong, and we aren't perfect, then there is nothing
stopping us from changing the rules when it suits us individually,
regardless of the impact on others. Without that sense of governing
authority that outlasts our governments, what holds us to be by very nature
mostly "good", by most any definition?
What makes all of our choices seem to follow a similar core value system?
If we have no common thread of belief in what is right and wrong, then why
do most people (and likely all, even extremist terrorists) prefer peace to
war; love instead of hate; fairness instead of injustice; truth instead of
deceit? If there is nothing connecting us and superceding our own locally
relative decision process, then how could we have any sense of "common
sense", much less right and wrong?
We see the evidence of these everyday. We easily agree as a world culture
for the most part (excepting obvious deviations), that murder is wrong;
stealing is wrong; laws should be obeyed, not abolished; etc. That is the
evidence of unseen, never globally written in stone, but always pervasive
moral absolutes. So in reality we all have faith that moral absolutes do
exist, and if no individual created them (by the hypothesis that relativism
would make them irrelevant), and all mankind just happen to adopt and hear
about them without actual communication to propagate those beliefs, where
did they come from if not from God?
Regards,
Dedric
On 9/17/06 11:14 PM, in article 450e2955@linux, "Jamie K"
<Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
> Faith is complete trust or confidence in something or someone. Religious
> faith is one form of faith but not the only definition of "faith."
>
> For example I have faith that if I drop a guitar pick it will find its
> way to the floor based on the gravitational attraction it has to the
> planet. I have faith that I'll breathe my next breath, that I'll see
> tomorrow morning. I have faith that other people are put together much
> like I am and that I can therefore relate to other folks.
>
> Without faith, people would not invest money. Without faith people would
> not vote. Without faith people would not start businesses, hire other
> people, raise children. Without faith people would not ride trains, fly
> in planes or drive cars. Without faith no one would investigate
> scientific questions about reality.
>
> While you can clearly have faith without religion, you cannot have
> religion without faith. Religion depends on faith that one or more
> deities (good and sometimes bad) exist, that their associated stories
> actually occurred, and often, that there is some sort of afterlife.
>
> However, religious people believe in a variety of different deities.
> Even those who believe in the same deity disagree, sometimes violently,
> about the nature of their deity. Religions sometimes even disagree about
> the nature of reality. If you want to base morality strictly on
> religion, and you look around, you'll notice that religion can be a
> somewhat chaotic basis unless...
>
> Ah, you might say, I want to base morality on MY religion. Well, you
> just dissed the majority of religions. No problem because THEY ARE
> WRONG. And people who believe in those religions may just be saying the
> same thing about you and your religion. For those religions who are not
> tolerant of other ideas, you may just have started a war.
>
> So perhaps it's BETTER, in our time, to have a system of justice that is
> NOT based on a religion. But one which guarantees everyone the right to
> practice the religion of their choice, guarantees other freedoms such as
> we in the USA do in our Bill of Rights, encourages honesty and
> integrity, while enforcing some common sense limits such as no human
> sacrifices, a minimum age for marriage, no incest, no slavery, no
> murder, no rape, no stealing, those sorts of things.
>
> What is viewed as morality beyond a fair justice system and common sense
> rules of behavior can be left to each freely chosen religion to sort
> out, like whether to restrict diet in some way, whether to wear a
> certain type of clothing, how to pray, etc. But none of these additional
> practices should be imposed on society as a whole.
>
> The Golden Rule may also be of use as a basic moral foundation.
>
> So yes, you can have a moral system, one that BTW protects the freedom
> to practice religious beliefs (or not), without basing it on any one
> religion. And it can protect all religions better than a system based on
> any one religion (AKA a theocracy).
>
> There are other issues surrounding religions, such as the many examples
> of selfless dedication to helping others on the one hand, and hijacked
> religions used to legitimize earthly power structures in other cases.
> Dedric, I look forward to talking with you about the positives and
> negatives of various religions, and where a moral culture ought to go
> from here, whenever we next get together.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> Dedric Terry wrote:
>> Hey Jimmy,
>>
>> No doubt one can be a good person without believing in God - there are tons
>> of great people with no faith, or very little. That in and of itself tells
>> me there must be a God so even non-believers would have a strong sense of
>> right and wrong on a societal and even global level.
>>
>> To walk through some thoughts: with no God, or higher reference point, what
>> would be considered moral, or at least good? What would one use to decide
>> what is right and wrong?
>>
>> Laws? Most would agree that we can't legislate morality now, so with no
>> basis for what morality is, why would we even bother with laws since
>> everyone would make their own choices anyway?
>>
>> Intellect? That would simply depend on what one chose to accept as
>> "intelligent" thought, based completely on opinion.
>>
>> Reasoning and Logic? Logic is determined by a hypothesis that has a proven
>> outcome in a given situation. Change the situation, and the reasoning or
>> logic behind the "right" or "wrong" could easily change.
>>
>> Experience? What if one's experience is filled with hatred, abuse, anger
>> and violence, or worse? Then someone would have to decide whose experience
>> we would use as a reference point. There would be no guarantee that person
>> or persons had experiences that would be best for the good of the whole.
>>
>> Survival instinct? If it were a reference point, then stealing, lying,
>> cheating and even killing would be perfectly justified as those can be means
>> of survival.
>>
>> Why would right and wrong even exist? I would think that the differences
>> between societies' definitions of right and wrong, assuming societies even
>> existed, would be so drastic we would never have ventured into any form of
>> inter-cultural/inter-geographic interaction, much less relationships,
>> diplomacy, collaboration, trade, and open travel.
>>
>> As long as "morals" are only relative to each individual, they aren't
>> absolute morals that would last longer than the time it takes to make the
>> choice. We would just have 6.5 billion opinions. There would only be an
>> ever changing perspective on what seems to "make sense" at the time, and
>> based on this premise, even "making sense" would vary from person to person,
>> day to day, minute to minute. In that case, our prisons would either be
>> filled with innocent people simply judged "wrong" at the time because their
>> choices didn't match the preferences of the majority; or we wouldn't have
>> prisons, or likely even organized societies.
>>
>> But is the majority always right? How would we know if there were no
>> absolutes that supercede the majority in some form?
>>
>> If there were no right and wrong, there would be no consequences of either,
>> or at least we wouldn't view the outcome as a good or bad consequence - it
>> would just be another event in time.
>>
>> But by grace and as a gift of freedom, God gave us a choice, both in whether
>> to believe in Him and whether to make right or wrong decisions. With moral
>> absolutes (God's word) as a reference we have a way to evaluate drastically
>> differing situations on an equivalent basis; with consistency in reasoning
>> and compassion; by choice and instinct rather than puppetry. Even when we
>> choose to do wrong, He is willing to forgive us. Without that option to
>> choose, balanced by God's grace and forgiveness, there would be no power in
>> choosing to believe in Him. That's what makes God a personal and loving God
>> rather than a dictator or puppet master.
>>
>> Odd as it may seem to anyone who doesn't believe, I can see God in the way
>> that 1) we as a group of intelligent people on this forum can discuss
>> completely opposing opinions and still care enough to consider insulting,
>> belittling, slandering and hating one another an intolerable concept; and 2)
>> in all likelihood agree that peace and compassion completely trump greed and
>> power in importance to life and survival together on this planet.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 9/17/06 7:12 PM, in article 450df091@linux, "Uptown Jimmy"
>> <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The idea that one needs to believe in a god in order to have a strong morals
>>> is absurd, I think.
>>>
>>> Jimmy
>>>
>>>
>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>> news:C1325038.358D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>> Gene -
>>>>
>>>> You probably didn't realize it (so no offense), but your response pretty
>>>> much confirms my assertion that the tendency of our country and even the
>>>> world society, is to place blame for religious conflict, violence and
>>>> religiously motivated terrorism anywhere but with the single largest
>>>> growing, and currently most violent religion in the world. We ignore car
>>>> bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of tortured and
>>>> murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming the
>>>> administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made the Pope quote
>>> a
>>>> Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
>>>>
>>>> Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening, all-accepting religion
>>>> our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western Muslims might
>>>> be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything else in many of
>>> the
>>>> conservative Islamic countries of the world. I know, have talked to, and
>>>> have heard missionaries to these countries speak - it's a different world
>>>> from the free discussions and widely varying opinions we have here.
>>> People
>>>> die for converting to anything else, or their families do. At best, their
>>>> families disown them and they sneak out of the country under threat of
>>>> death. In fact it's the exact opposite of the "freedom" our country
>>>> continually pushes the limits of. Odd that we would turn on our own
>>> country
>>>> in favor of supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to this kind of
>>>> ideology, somehow believing that is the more politically correct thing to
>>>> do.
>>>>
>>>> The problem I see isn't religion, but a lack of faith in God, and hence
>>> any
>>>> sense of direction and moral guidance. God gives us the choice to believe
>>>> or not. Based on documents of their activities - in the name of Allah the
>>>> 9/11 terrorists pretty much broke every one of the 10 commandments in 24
>>>> hours. That may seem a trivial or even silly fact, but there is a sad,
>>> and
>>>> frightening irony there. Faith in God isn't what one should fear - it's
>>>> believing in anything that conveniently appeases one's personal whims that
>>>> is the true danger.... the terrorists proved that in one day. That also
>>>> includes believing in nothing.
>>>>
>>>> As Blaise Pascal once said (paraphrased): if one believes in God and is
>>>> wrong, at worst one has lived a good live and had some false hope as a
>>> sense
>>>> of comfort along the way; if one doesn't believe and is wrong, then at
>>>> best, all is lost for eternity. This is the paradox that we should be
>>>> considering, and yet the most fear-inducing thought is that the President
>>>> might believe in something other than nothing. Is no belief really better
>>>> than belief? What reference point for right and wrong accompanies
>>> disbelief
>>>> in anything higher than one's own decisions? What reference point for
>>>> respect for other people's beliefs accompanies a lack of belief in any
>>>> guideline for living life and having respect and compassion for others?
>>>>
>>>> It isn't the administration's fault that the Pope quoted a guy Islam
>>> doesn't
>>>> like just because he called like he saw it - something we do on this forum
>>>> every single day, ironically. It also isn't Christianity's intent to take
>>>> over the world, or the government. Far from it. The only goal is to give
>>>> people a chance to decide. Yet, those that want to decide to not believe
>>>> would rather take that right away and remove Christianity from public
>>> view.
>>>> The only way to force someone to remove their belief from public in a
>>>> country that promotes the freedom to believe as one wishes, is to outlaw
>>> it.
>>>> Yet another paradox.
>>>>
>>>> Through our short sighted political glasses we want to see the world as a
>>>> black and white, free-will, partisan vote where one's party always wins
>>> and
>>>> the decisions are always in our favor, but fail to see any validity in
>>>> believing a God that gave us the very moral compass to maintain the
>>> balance
>>>> that kind of choice affords us. In essence we put our trust in the very
>>>> thing we prove day in and day out to be one of the most fallible
>>>> characteristics of humanity - political and relativistic ideology.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I ignored my own first comment....sorry about that.
>>>>
>>>> I should get back to mourning NI Battery 2's destruction of 10 hours of
>>> work
>>>> :-((....
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>> On 9/16/06 9:09 PM, in article 450cbc70$1@linux, "gene Lennon"
>>>> <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I don't want to start another religious or political thread -...
>>>>>
>>>>> These are frightening times. While the true neocons in the current
>>>>> administration
>>>>> have had a variety of political, financial and power-based reasons for
>>>>> perusing
>>>>> the war against Iraq, the president has had an even scarier motivation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Religion.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you missed it, this week Bush has announced the "Third Great
>>> Awakening"
>>>>> of the international religious struggle. This is a good thing as he sees
>>>>> it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight against
>>> terrorists
>>>>> (Translation - Due to his good work in God's name). A war that he
>>> depicts
>>>>> as "a confrontation between good and evil."
>>>>> In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a bit of trouble
>>> (as
>>>>> has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be headed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could easily go
>>> down
>>>>> hill from here.
>>>>>
>>>>> More on the "Third Awakening":
>>>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR2006091201
>>> 59
>>>>> 4_pf.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Gene
>>>>>
>>>
>>
> `
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72588 is a reply to message #72586] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 00:40 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
My point is that faith is necessary for life, with or without religion.
Faith in a deity, faith in an afterlife, these are certainly examples of
faith. My point is that faith is not exclusive to religion.
Nor is a moral basis, a system of justice - these are necessary for
civilization, again with or without religion. Religion is fairly useful
in construction such a system, to the point that religions have been
invented to help cement power and define social organization. But that
doesn't mean a religion, or a universally acknowledged deity, is
required for that role.
It may be that you are having trouble groking the idea of morality
without a deity because you have so tightly associated the two in your
life, which is totally understandable. But what you propose is begging
the question. Others can make the distinction, and maybe it's worth the
effort to understand why.
There are many perspectives. For example a social libertarian
perspective. You own yourself. What you do with yourself is your choice
until and unless it interferes with someone else's ownership of their
own person. You can derive the rest from there. This is a pretty strong
start which certainly can allow for a law-based free society, including
religious freedom.
We are into a deep subject which is better discussed in person when
people are willing to both talk and listen, as I have faith we are. :^)
I may be missing some of your intended points and I suspect we may be
talking past each other somewhat in email. So since we don't live all
that far apart, let's get together soon, explore the topic over a beer,
and see what we come up with.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
Dedric Terry wrote:
> Hi Jamie,
>
> While those are certainly good examples of the common definition of faith,,
> we shouldn't confuse faith in God with trust that event B will follow event
> A. The latter can also easily be attributed to learned behavior. But not
> all aspects of faith in God can be seen or experienced.
>
> Hebrews 11:1
> What is faith? It is the confident assurance that what we hope for is going
> to happen. It is the evidence of things we cannot yet see.
>
> And no doubt that can apply to a falling guitar pick, though I doubt you
> hope that will happen during a gig. ;-)
>
> How does one believe that there is life after death though, or that God is
> sovereign even over devastating situations? That is where the faith I refer
> to comes into play. And I would also propose that the same sense of faith
> we use to start a business, or enter into marriage, or believe that we'll
> see the next day, is part of the desire and drive that God has designed in
> us to propel us forward, and draw us to Him as well. It is a part of being
> human - a feeling, thinking, growing, individual.
>
> The point was that moral absolutes aren't based on religion, and wouldn't be
> moral absolutes if they were. The idea of God-defined absolutes excludes
> the possibility that man could create or change that absolute.
>
> By saying that man creates absolutes based on his religions says that his
> religion is false (created by that man), and therefore, no belief has any
> absolutes, and all beliefs are relative only to a single individual at a
> single point in time. We could extrapolate that to whether murder, rape and
> other acts we consider "hideous", but would have to conclude that all are
> right and none are wrong. The reason being that we would only be viewing
> them through our own created "right and wrong" and not anyone else's. That
> would also extrapolate to terrorists that kill people believing that it is
> Allah's will to destroy those that oppose them. But obviously we don't
> believe that is "right" any more than we believe Charles Manson was "right"
> to do what he did.
>
> So where do we get the foundation for a "fair justice system" and "common
> sense"? If we have no reference point, then we must have just made it up.
> In that case, it's only relative to our perspective, and is neither right or
> wrong to anyone else, and maybe not all of the time for us either. If we
> created right and wrong, and we aren't perfect, then there is nothing
> stopping us from changing the rules when it suits us individually,
> regardless of the impact on others. Without that sense of governing
> authority that outlasts our governments, what holds us to be by very nature
> mostly "good", by most any definition?
>
> What makes all of our choices seem to follow a similar core value system?
> If we have no common thread of belief in what is right and wrong, then why
> do most people (and likely all, even extremist terrorists) prefer peace to
> war; love instead of hate; fairness instead of injustice; truth instead of
> deceit? If there is nothing connecting us and superceding our own locally
> relative decision process, then how could we have any sense of "common
> sense", much less right and wrong?
>
> We see the evidence of these everyday. We easily agree as a world culture
> for the most part (excepting obvious deviations), that murder is wrong;
> stealing is wrong; laws should be obeyed, not abolished; etc. That is the
> evidence of unseen, never globally written in stone, but always pervasive
> moral absolutes. So in reality we all have faith that moral absolutes do
> exist, and if no individual created them (by the hypothesis that relativism
> would make them irrelevant), and all mankind just happen to adopt and hear
> about them without actual communication to propagate those beliefs, where
> did they come from if not from God?
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
> On 9/17/06 11:14 PM, in article 450e2955@linux, "Jamie K"
> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>> Faith is complete trust or confidence in something or someone. Religious
>> faith is one form of faith but not the only definition of "faith."
>>
>> For example I have faith that if I drop a guitar pick it will find its
>> way to the floor based on the gravitational attraction it has to the
>> planet. I have faith that I'll breathe my next breath, that I'll see
>> tomorrow morning. I have faith that other people are put together much
>> like I am and that I can therefore relate to other folks.
>>
>> Without faith, people would not invest money. Without faith people would
>> not vote. Without faith people would not start businesses, hire other
>> people, raise children. Without faith people would not ride trains, fly
>> in planes or drive cars. Without faith no one would investigate
>> scientific questions about reality.
>>
>> While you can clearly have faith without religion, you cannot have
>> religion without faith. Religion depends on faith that one or more
>> deities (good and sometimes bad) exist, that their associated stories
>> actually occurred, and often, that there is some sort of afterlife.
>>
>> However, religious people believe in a variety of different deities.
>> Even those who believe in the same deity disagree, sometimes violently,
>> about the nature of their deity. Religions sometimes even disagree about
>> the nature of reality. If you want to base morality strictly on
>> religion, and you look around, you'll notice that religion can be a
>> somewhat chaotic basis unless...
>>
>> Ah, you might say, I want to base morality on MY religion. Well, you
>> just dissed the majority of religions. No problem because THEY ARE
>> WRONG. And people who believe in those religions may just be saying the
>> same thing about you and your religion. For those religions who are not
>> tolerant of other ideas, you may just have started a war.
>>
>> So perhaps it's BETTER, in our time, to have a system of justice that is
>> NOT based on a religion. But one which guarantees everyone the right to
>> practice the religion of their choice, guarantees other freedoms such as
>> we in the USA do in our Bill of Rights, encourages honesty and
>> integrity, while enforcing some common sense limits such as no human
>> sacrifices, a minimum age for marriage, no incest, no slavery, no
>> murder, no rape, no stealing, those sorts of things.
>>
>> What is viewed as morality beyond a fair justice system and common sense
>> rules of behavior can be left to each freely chosen religion to sort
>> out, like whether to restrict diet in some way, whether to wear a
>> certain type of clothing, how to pray, etc. But none of these additional
>> practices should be imposed on society as a whole.
>>
>> The Golden Rule may also be of use as a basic moral foundation.
>>
>> So yes, you can have a moral system, one that BTW protects the freedom
>> to practice religious beliefs (or not), without basing it on any one
>> religion. And it can protect all religions better than a system based on
>> any one religion (AKA a theocracy).
>>
>> There are other issues surrounding religions, such as the many examples
>> of selfless dedication to helping others on the one hand, and hijacked
>> religions used to legitimize earthly power structures in other cases.
>> Dedric, I look forward to talking with you about the positives and
>> negatives of various religions, and where a moral culture ought to go
>> from here, whenever we next get together.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>> Hey Jimmy,
>>>
>>> No doubt one can be a good person without believing in God - there are tons
>>> of great people with no faith, or very little. That in and of itself tells
>>> me there must be a God so even non-believers would have a strong sense of
>>> right and wrong on a societal and even global level.
>>>
>>> To walk through some thoughts: with no God, or higher reference point, what
>>> would be considered moral, or at least good? What would one use to decide
>>> what is right and wrong?
>>>
>>> Laws? Most would agree that we can't legislate morality now, so with no
>>> basis for what morality is, why would we even bother with laws since
>>> everyone would make their own choices anyway?
>>>
>>> Intellect? That would simply depend on what one chose to accept as
>>> "intelligent" thought, based completely on opinion.
>>>
>>> Reasoning and Logic? Logic is determined by a hypothesis that has a proven
>>> outcome in a given situation. Change the situation, and the reasoning or
>>> logic behind the "right" or "wrong" could easily change.
>>>
>>> Experience? What if one's experience is filled with hatred, abuse, anger
>>> and violence, or worse? Then someone would have to decide whose experience
>>> we would use as a reference point. There would be no guarantee that person
>>> or persons had experiences that would be best for the good of the whole.
>>>
>>> Survival instinct? If it were a reference point, then stealing, lying,
>>> cheating and even killing would be perfectly justified as those can be means
>>> of survival.
>>>
>>> Why would right and wrong even exist? I would think that the differences
>>> between societies' definitions of right and wrong, assuming societies even
>>> existed, would be so drastic we would never have ventured into any form of
>>> inter-cultural/inter-geographic interaction, much less relationships,
>>> diplomacy, collaboration, trade, and open travel.
>>>
>>> As long as "morals" are only relative to each individual, they aren't
>>> absolute morals that would last longer than the time it takes to make the
>>> choice. We would just have 6.5 billion opinions. There would only be an
>>> ever changing perspective on what seems to "make sense" at the time, and
>>> based on this premise, even "making sense" would vary from person to person,
>>> day to day, minute to minute. In that case, our prisons would either be
>>> filled with innocent people simply judged "wrong" at the time because their
>>> choices didn't match the preferences of the majority; or we wouldn't have
>>> prisons, or likely even organized societies.
>>>
>>> But is the majority always right? How would we know if there were no
>>> absolutes that supercede the majority in some form?
>>>
>>> If there were no right and wrong, there would be no consequences of either,
>>> or at least we wouldn't view the outcome as a good or bad consequence - it
>>> would just be another event in time.
>>>
>>> But by grace and as a gift of freedom, God gave us a choice, both in whether
>>> to believe in Him and whether to make right or wrong decisions. With moral
>>> absolutes (God's word) as a reference we have a way to evaluate drastically
>>> differing situations on an equivalent basis; with consistency in reasoning
>>> and compassion; by choice and instinct rather than puppetry. Even when we
>>> choose to do wrong, He is willing to forgive us. Without that option to
>>> choose, balanced by God's grace and forgiveness, there would be no power in
>>> choosing to believe in Him. That's what makes God a personal and loving God
>>> rather than a dictator or puppet master.
>>>
>>> Odd as it may seem to anyone who doesn't believe, I can see God in the way
>>> that 1) we as a group of intelligent people on this forum can discuss
>>> completely opposing opinions and still care enough to consider insulting,
>>> belittling, slandering and hating one another an intolerable concept; and 2)
>>> in all likelihood agree that peace and compassion completely trump greed and
>>> power in importance to life and survival together on this planet.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> On 9/17/06 7:12 PM, in article 450df091@linux, "Uptown Jimmy"
>>> <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The idea that one needs to believe in a god in order to have a strong morals
>>>> is absurd, I think.
>>>>
>>>> Jimmy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:C1325038.358D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>>> Gene -
>>>>>
>>>>> You probably didn't realize it (so no offense), but your response pretty
>>>>> much confirms my assertion that the tendency of our country and even the
>>>>> world society, is to place blame for religious conflict, violence and
>>>>> religiously motivated terrorism anywhere but with the single largest
>>>>> growing, and currently most violent religion in the world. We ignore car
>>>>> bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of tortured and
>>>>> murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming the
>>>>> administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made the Pope quote
>>>> a
>>>>> Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>> Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening, all-accepting religion
>>>>> our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western Muslims might
>>>>> be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything else in many of
>>>> the
>>>>> conservative Islamic countries of the world. I know, have talked to, and
>>>>> have heard missionaries to these countries speak - it's a different world
>>>>> from the free discussions and widely varying opinions we have here.
>>>> People
>>>>> die for converting to anything else, or their families do. At best, their
>>>>> families disown them and they sneak out of the country under threat of
>>>>> death. In fact it's the exact opposite of the "freedom" our country
>>>>> continually pushes the limits of. Odd that we would turn on our own
>>>> country
>>>>> in favor of supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to this kind of
>>>>> ideology, somehow believing that is the more politically correct thing to
>>>>> do.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem I see isn't religion, but a lack of faith in God, and hence
>>>> any
>>>>> sense of direction and moral guidance. God gives us the choice to believe
>>>>> or not. Based on documents of their activities - in the name of Allah the
>>>>> 9/11 terrorists pretty much broke every one of the 10 commandments in 24
>>>>> hours. That may seem a trivial or even silly fact, but there is a sad,
>>>> and
>>>>> frightening irony there. Faith in God isn't what one should fear - it's
>>>>> believing in anything that conveniently appeases one's personal whims that
>>>>> is the true danger.... the terrorists proved that in one day. That also
>>>>> includes believing in nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Blaise Pascal once said (paraphrased): if one believes in God and is
>>>>> wrong, at worst one has lived a good live and had some false hope as a
>>>> sense
>>>>> of comfort along the way; if one doesn't believe and is wrong, then at
>>>>> best, all is lost for eternity. This is the paradox that we should be
>>>>> considering, and yet the most fear-inducing thought is that the President
>>>>> might believe in something other than nothing. Is no belief really better
>>>>> than belief? What reference point for right and wrong accompanies
>>>> disbelief
>>>>> in anything higher than one's own decisions? What reference point for
>>>>> respect for other people's beliefs accompanies a lack of belief in any
>>>>> guideline for living life and having respect and compassion for others?
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't the administration's fault that the Pope quoted a guy Islam
>>>> doesn't
>>>>> like just because he called like he saw it - something we do on this forum
>>>>> every single day, ironically. It also isn't Christianity's intent to take
>>>>> over the world, or the government. Far from it. The only goal is to give
>>>>> people a chance to decide. Yet, those that want to decide to not believe
>>>>> would rather take that right away and remove Christianity from public
>>>> view.
>>>>> The only way to force someone to remove their belief from public in a
>>>>> country that promotes the freedom to believe as one wishes, is to outlaw
>>>> it.
>>>>> Yet another paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>> Through our short sighted political glasses we want to see the world as a
>>>>> black and white, free-will, partisan vote where one's party always wins
>>>> and
>>>>> the decisions are always in our favor, but fail to see any validity in
>>>>> believing a God that gave us the very moral compass to maintain the
>>>> balance
>>>>> that kind of choice affords us. In essence we put our trust in the very
>>>>> thing we prove day in and day out to be one of the most fallible
>>>>> characteristics of humanity - political and relativistic ideology.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I ignored my own first comment....sorry about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I should get back to mourning NI Battery 2's destruction of 10 hours of
>>>> work
>>>>> :-((....
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/16/06 9:09 PM, in article 450cbc70$1@linux, "gene Lennon"
>>>>> <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> I don't want to start another religious or political thread -...
>>>>>> These are frightening times. While the true neocons in the current
>>>>>> administration
>>>>>> have had a variety of political, financial and power-based reasons for
>>>>>> perusing
>>>>>> the war against Iraq, the president has had an even scarier motivation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you missed it, this week Bush has announced the "Third Great
>>>> Awakening"
>>>>>> of the international religious struggle. This is a good thing as he sees
>>>>>> it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight against
>>>> terrorists
>>>>>> (Translation - Due to his good work in God's name). A war that he
>>>> depicts
>>>>>> as "a confrontation between good and evil."
>>>>>> In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a bit of trouble
>>>> (as
>>>>>> has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be headed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could easily go
>>>> down
>>>>>> hill from here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More on the "Third Awakening":
>>>>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR2006091201
>>>> 59
>>>>>> 4_pf.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>
>> `
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72591 is a reply to message #72586] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 02:35 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Dedric,
I think I can answer your last question (i.e., where did our "moral
absolutes" come from if not from God?). I don't murder because I don't want
to be murdered. I don't steal because I don't want to be stolen from. I
don't lie because I don't want to be lied to. And so on. I have faith that
most human beings have an inate sense of "goodness," but I believe in laws
just so a society has written agreement on what behaviour is unacceptable.
That way, we're protected against those who may be out of touch with their
own personal "sense of goodness." I do believe, though, that the worst
among us are basically good underneath their rage and pain.
I watched an HBO documentary the other night called, "The Iceman and the
Psychiatrist," about imprisoned serial killer/hit man Richard Kuklinski and
his attempt to better understand his nature with the help of a shrink. What
really struck me as I watched and listened to this terrifying man is that I
still felt that inside the monster was still a flicker of that distant
"inate goodness."
It seems as though what I think of as inate goodness is what you call
God, and that works for me. I think it's possible, though, that the "inate
goodness" came from millennia of learning the hard way how not to live
together with other humans. Even at that, though, one could argue that it
was our "God-given" intelligence which allowed that moral evolution.
The only problem I have with using the word "God" in any discussion of
morals, reality, etc., is that there are too many different ideas of who,
what, or if God is. Thus "God" becomes kind of a short cut, a metaphor for
pretty much anything that transcends human understanding.
Perhaps as a courtesy to others involved in a discussion, if one is
going to use the word "God," one should include a definition of the term.
For example, if by "God" you mean the inate awareness of good that connects
all of us spiritually, I'm down wit dat. If by "God" you mean a Big Guy in
the Sky who fries his own "children" in a lake of fire, I'm probably going
to ask questions, like, "Well, um . . . does he have a penis?"
"The stars up above are runnin' on love." - Captain Beefheart
Love,
Sarah
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:C1339AF3.35E7%dterry@keyofd.net...
> Hi Jamie,
>
> While those are certainly good examples of the common definition of
> faith,,
> we shouldn't confuse faith in God with trust that event B will follow
> event
> A. The latter can also easily be attributed to learned behavior. But not
> all aspects of faith in God can be seen or experienced.
>
> Hebrews 11:1
> What is faith? It is the confident assurance that what we hope for is
> going
> to happen. It is the evidence of things we cannot yet see.
>
> And no doubt that can apply to a falling guitar pick, though I doubt you
> hope that will happen during a gig. ;-)
>
> How does one believe that there is life after death though, or that God is
> sovereign even over devastating situations? That is where the faith I
> refer
> to comes into play. And I would also propose that the same sense of faith
> we use to start a business, or enter into marriage, or believe that we'll
> see the next day, is part of the desire and drive that God has designed in
> us to propel us forward, and draw us to Him as well. It is a part of
> being
> human - a feeling, thinking, growing, individual.
>
> The point was that moral absolutes aren't based on religion, and wouldn't
> be
> moral absolutes if they were. The idea of God-defined absolutes excludes
> the possibility that man could create or change that absolute.
>
> By saying that man creates absolutes based on his religions says that his
> religion is false (created by that man), and therefore, no belief has any
> absolutes, and all beliefs are relative only to a single individual at a
> single point in time. We could extrapolate that to whether murder, rape
> and
> other acts we consider "hideous", but would have to conclude that all are
> right and none are wrong. The reason being that we would only be viewing
> them through our own created "right and wrong" and not anyone else's. That
> would also extrapolate to terrorists that kill people believing that it is
> Allah's will to destroy those that oppose them. But obviously we don't
> believe that is "right" any more than we believe Charles Manson was
> "right"
> to do what he did.
>
> So where do we get the foundation for a "fair justice system" and "common
> sense"? If we have no reference point, then we must have just made it up.
> In that case, it's only relative to our perspective, and is neither right
> or
> wrong to anyone else, and maybe not all of the time for us either. If we
> created right and wrong, and we aren't perfect, then there is nothing
> stopping us from changing the rules when it suits us individually,
> regardless of the impact on others. Without that sense of governing
> authority that outlasts our governments, what holds us to be by very
> nature
> mostly "good", by most any definition?
>
> What makes all of our choices seem to follow a similar core value system?
> If we have no common thread of belief in what is right and wrong, then why
> do most people (and likely all, even extremist terrorists) prefer peace to
> war; love instead of hate; fairness instead of injustice; truth instead of
> deceit? If there is nothing connecting us and superceding our own locally
> relative decision process, then how could we have any sense of "common
> sense", much less right and wrong?
>
> We see the evidence of these everyday. We easily agree as a world culture
> for the most part (excepting obvious deviations), that murder is wrong;
> stealing is wrong; laws should be obeyed, not abolished; etc. That is the
> evidence of unseen, never globally written in stone, but always pervasive
> moral absolutes. So in reality we all have faith that moral absolutes do
> exist, and if no individual created them (by the hypothesis that
> relativism
> would make them irrelevant), and all mankind just happen to adopt and hear
> about them without actual communication to propagate those beliefs, where
> did they come from if not from God?
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
> On 9/17/06 11:14 PM, in article 450e2955@linux, "Jamie K"
> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Faith is complete trust or confidence in something or someone. Religious
>> faith is one form of faith but not the only definition of "faith."
>>
>> For example I have faith that if I drop a guitar pick it will find its
>> way to the floor based on the gravitational attraction it has to the
>> planet. I have faith that I'll breathe my next breath, that I'll see
>> tomorrow morning. I have faith that other people are put together much
>> like I am and that I can therefore relate to other folks.
>>
>> Without faith, people would not invest money. Without faith people would
>> not vote. Without faith people would not start businesses, hire other
>> people, raise children. Without faith people would not ride trains, fly
>> in planes or drive cars. Without faith no one would investigate
>> scientific questions about reality.
>>
>> While you can clearly have faith without religion, you cannot have
>> religion without faith. Religion depends on faith that one or more
>> deities (good and sometimes bad) exist, that their associated stories
>> actually occurred, and often, that there is some sort of afterlife.
>>
>> However, religious people believe in a variety of different deities.
>> Even those who believe in the same deity disagree, sometimes violently,
>> about the nature of their deity. Religions sometimes even disagree about
>> the nature of reality. If you want to base morality strictly on
>> religion, and you look around, you'll notice that religion can be a
>> somewhat chaotic basis unless...
>>
>> Ah, you might say, I want to base morality on MY religion. Well, you
>> just dissed the majority of religions. No problem because THEY ARE
>> WRONG. And people who believe in those religions may just be saying the
>> same thing about you and your religion. For those religions who are not
>> tolerant of other ideas, you may just have started a war.
>>
>> So perhaps it's BETTER, in our time, to have a system of justice that is
>> NOT based on a religion. But one which guarantees everyone the right to
>> practice the religion of their choice, guarantees other freedoms such as
>> we in the USA do in our Bill of Rights, encourages honesty and
>> integrity, while enforcing some common sense limits such as no human
>> sacrifices, a minimum age for marriage, no incest, no slavery, no
>> murder, no rape, no stealing, those sorts of things.
>>
>> What is viewed as morality beyond a fair justice system and common sense
>> rules of behavior can be left to each freely chosen religion to sort
>> out, like whether to restrict diet in some way, whether to wear a
>> certain type of clothing, how to pray, etc. But none of these additional
>> practices should be imposed on society as a whole.
>>
>> The Golden Rule may also be of use as a basic moral foundation.
>>
>> So yes, you can have a moral system, one that BTW protects the freedom
>> to practice religious beliefs (or not), without basing it on any one
>> religion. And it can protect all religions better than a system based on
>> any one religion (AKA a theocracy).
>>
>> There are other issues surrounding religions, such as the many examples
>> of selfless dedication to helping others on the one hand, and hijacked
>> religions used to legitimize earthly power structures in other cases.
>> Dedric, I look forward to talking with you about the positives and
>> negatives of various religions, and where a moral culture ought to go
>> from here, whenever we next get together.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>> Hey Jimmy,
>>>
>>> No doubt one can be a good person without believing in God - there are
>>> tons
>>> of great people with no faith, or very little. That in and of itself
>>> tells
>>> me there must be a God so even non-believers would have a strong sense
>>> of
>>> right and wrong on a societal and even global level.
>>>
>>> To walk through some thoughts: with no God, or higher reference point,
>>> what
>>> would be considered moral, or at least good? What would one use to
>>> decide
>>> what is right and wrong?
>>>
>>> Laws? Most would agree that we can't legislate morality now, so with no
>>> basis for what morality is, why would we even bother with laws since
>>> everyone would make their own choices anyway?
>>>
>>> Intellect? That would simply depend on what one chose to accept as
>>> "intelligent" thought, based completely on opinion.
>>>
>>> Reasoning and Logic? Logic is determined by a hypothesis that has a
>>> proven
>>> outcome in a given situation. Change the situation, and the reasoning
>>> or
>>> logic behind the "right" or "wrong" could easily change.
>>>
>>> Experience? What if one's experience is filled with hatred, abuse,
>>> anger
>>> and violence, or worse? Then someone would have to decide whose
>>> experience
>>> we would use as a reference point. There would be no guarantee that
>>> person
>>> or persons had experiences that would be best for the good of the whole.
>>>
>>> Survival instinct? If it were a reference point, then stealing, lying,
>>> cheating and even killing would be perfectly justified as those can be
>>> means
>>> of survival.
>>>
>>> Why would right and wrong even exist? I would think that the
>>> differences
>>> between societies' definitions of right and wrong, assuming societies
>>> even
>>> existed, would be so drastic we would never have ventured into any form
>>> of
>>> inter-cultural/inter-geographic interaction, much less relationships,
>>> diplomacy, collaboration, trade, and open travel.
>>>
>>> As long as "morals" are only relative to each individual, they aren't
>>> absolute morals that would last longer than the time it takes to make
>>> the
>>> choice. We would just have 6.5 billion opinions. There would only be
>>> an
>>> ever changing perspective on what seems to "make sense" at the time, and
>>> based on this premise, even "making sense" would vary from person to
>>> person,
>>> day to day, minute to minute. In that case, our prisons would either be
>>> filled with innocent people simply judged "wrong" at the time because
>>> their
>>> choices didn't match the preferences of the majority; or we wouldn't
>>> have
>>> prisons, or likely even organized societies.
>>>
>>> But is the majority always right? How would we know if there were no
>>> absolutes that supercede the majority in some form?
>>>
>>> If there were no right and wrong, there would be no consequences of
>>> either,
>>> or at least we wouldn't view the outcome as a good or bad consequence -
>>> it
>>> would just be another event in time.
>>>
>>> But by grace and as a gift of freedom, God gave us a choice, both in
>>> whether
>>> to believe in Him and whether to make right or wrong decisions. With
>>> moral
>>> absolutes (God's word) as a reference we have a way to evaluate
>>> drastically
>>> differing situations on an equivalent basis; with consistency in
>>> reasoning
>>> and compassion; by choice and instinct rather than puppetry. Even when
>>> we
>>> choose to do wrong, He is willing to forgive us. Without that option to
>>> choose, balanced by God's grace and forgiveness, there would be no power
>>> in
>>> choosing to believe in Him. That's what makes God a personal and loving
>>> God
>>> rather than a dictator or puppet master.
>>>
>>> Odd as it may seem to anyone who doesn't believe, I can see God in the
>>> way
>>> that 1) we as a group of intelligent people on this forum can discuss
>>> completely opposing opinions and still care enough to consider
>>> insulting,
>>> belittling, slandering and hating one another an intolerable concept;
>>> and 2)
>>> in all likelihood agree that peace and compassion completely trump greed
>>> and
>>> power in importance to life and survival together on this planet.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> On 9/17/06 7:12 PM, in article 450df091@linux, "Uptown Jimmy"
>>> <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The idea that one needs to believe in a god in order to have a strong
>>>> morals
>>>> is absurd, I think.
>>>>
>>>> Jimmy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:C1325038.358D%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>>> Gene -
>>>>>
>>>>> You probably didn't realize it (so no offense), but your response
>>>>> pretty
>>>>> much confirms my assertion that the tendency of our country and even
>>>>> the
>>>>> world society, is to place blame for religious conflict, violence and
>>>>> religiously motivated terrorism anywhere but with the single largest
>>>>> growing, and currently most violent religion in the world. We ignore
>>>>> car
>>>>> bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of tortured and
>>>>> murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming the
>>>>> administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made the Pope
>>>>> quote
>>>> a
>>>>> Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>> Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening, all-accepting
>>>>> religion
>>>>> our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western Muslims
>>>>> might
>>>>> be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything else in many
>>>>> of
>>>> the
>>>>> conservative Islamic countries of the world. I know, have talked to,
>>>>> and
>>>>> have heard missionaries to these countries speak - it's a different
>>>>> world
>>>>> from the free discussions and widely varying opinions we have here.
>>>> People
>>>>> die for converting to anything else, or their families do. At best,
>>>>> their
>>>>> families disown them and they sneak out of the country under threat of
>>>>> death. In fact it's the exact opposite of the "freedom" our country
>>>>> continually pushes the limits of. Odd that we would turn on our own
>>>> country
>>>>> in favor of supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to this kind
>>>>> of
>>>>> ideology, somehow believing that is the more politically correct thing
>>>>> to
>>>>> do.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem I see isn't religion, but a lack of faith in God, and
>>>>> hence
>>>> any
>>>>> sense of direction and moral guidance. God gives us the choice to
>>>>> believe
>>>>> or not. Based on documents of their activities - in the name of Allah
>>>>> the
>>>>> 9/11 terrorists pretty much broke every one of the 10 commandments in
>>>>> 24
>>>>> hours. That may seem a trivial or even silly fact, but there is a
>>>>> sad,
>>>> and
>>>>> frightening irony there. Faith in God isn't what one should fear -
>>>>> it's
>>>>> believing in anything that conveniently appeases one's personal whims
>>>>> that
>>>>> is the true danger.... the terrorists proved that in one day. That
>>>>> also
>>>>> includes believing in nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Blaise Pascal once said (paraphrased): if one believes in God and
>>>>> is
>>>>> wrong, at worst one has lived a good live and had some false hope as a
>>>> sense
>>>>> of comfort along the way; if one doesn't believe and is wrong, then
>>>>> at
>>>>> best, all is lost for eternity. This is the paradox that we should be
>>>>> considering, and yet the most fear-inducing thought is that the
>>>>> President
>>>>> might believe in something other than nothing. Is no belief really
>>>>> better
>>>>> than belief? What reference point for right and wrong accompanies
>>>> disbelief
>>>>> in anything higher than one's own decisions? What reference point for
>>>>> respect for other people's beliefs accompanies a lack of belief in any
>>>>> guideline for living life and having respect and compassion for
>>>>> others?
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't the administration's fault that the Pope quoted a guy Islam
>>>> doesn't
>>>>> like just because he called like he saw it - something we do on this
>>>>> forum
>>>>> every single day, ironically. It also isn't Christianity's intent to
>>>>> take
>>>>> over the world, or the government. Far from it. The only goal is to
>>>>> give
>>>>> people a chance to decide. Yet, those that want to decide to not
>>>>> believe
>>>>> would rather take that right away and remove Christianity from public
>>>> view.
>>>>> The only way to force someone to remove their belief from public in a
>>>>> country that promotes the freedom to believe as one wishes, is to
>>>>> outlaw
>>>> it.
>>>>> Yet another paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>> Through our short sighted political glasses we want to see the world
>>>>> as a
>>>>> black and white, free-will, partisan vote where one's party always
>>>>> wins
>>>> and
>>>>> the decisions are always in our favor, but fail to see any validity in
>>>>> believing a God that gave us the very moral compass to maintain the
>>>> balance
>>>>> that kind of choice affords us. In essence we put our trust in the
>>>>> very
>>>>> thing we prove day in and day out to be one of the most fallible
>>>>> characteristics of humanity - political and relativistic ideology.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I ignored my own first comment....sorry about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I should get back to mourning NI Battery 2's destruction of 10 hours
>>>>> of
>>>> work
>>>>> :-((....
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/16/06 9:09 PM, in article 450cbc70$1@linux, "gene Lennon"
>>>>> <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> I don't want to start another religious or political thread -...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are frightening times. While the true neocons in the current
>>>>>> administration
>>>>>> have had a variety of political, financial and power-based reasons
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> perusing
>>>>>> the war against Iraq, the president has had an even scarier
>>>>>> motivation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you missed it, this week Bush has announced the "Third Great
>>>> Awakening"
>>>>>> of the international religious struggle. This is a good thing as he
>>>>>> sees
>>>>>> it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight against
>>>> terrorists
>>>>>> (Translation - Due to his good work in God's name). A war that he
>>>> depicts
>>>>>> as "a confrontation between good and evil."
>>>>>> In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a bit of
>>>>>> trouble
>>>> (as
>>>>>> has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be headed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could easily go
>>>> down
>>>>>> hill from here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More on the "Third Awakening":
>>>>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR2006091201
>>>> 59
>>>>>> 4_pf.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> `
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Dec 21 02:44:14 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02280 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
