Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72597 is a reply to message #72578] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 08:13   |
![dc[3] is currently offline](/theme/PARIS_Forum_Template/images/offline.png "dc[3] is currently offline")
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
Have a great Monday!
----------------------------------------
The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
By Andrew Walden
In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of
Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
in a God not bound by anything—including his own words. Benedict
further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists
who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
“Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and
jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point. The
reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only
objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’ to
their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
“Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s philosophy—hence
the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western “Left’
is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than
by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western “Left”
and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope to
apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
“calling a spade a spade”.
The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope
Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope’s
description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
“apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
“insult.”
One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
lost on them.
Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over
have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is
a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying
this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual’
jihad, but not your violent jihad.
The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
“spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists
are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
leader of Christendom to bow before them.
In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes:
“He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the Islamists,
the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
the Islamists represent their demented version of
God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united
by their self-worshipping world view.
It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any of
our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an insult.
Islam embraces this description. In offering this description of
Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
Theodore Khoury of Munster.
Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience’
becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
both are in decline.
Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their pact
with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
of the allied forces on the western front.
What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or
reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this great
logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
the dialogue of cultures.”
Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72599 is a reply to message #72597] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 09:26 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
What he said!
;o)
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:450eb7b2$1@linux...
>
> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
>
> Have a great Monday!
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
> By Andrew Walden
>
> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria's University of
> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
> in a God not bound by anything-including his own words. Benedict
> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists
> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>
> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
> Pope apologize. Benedict's speech is a work of enlightened
> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
>
> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
> II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
> to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
>
> Four days later, according to AP: "Pakistan's legislature
> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>
> "Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and
> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad."
>
> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope's
> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>
> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II's 600-year-old point. The
> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it's only
> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
> in God's image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any 'offense' to
> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
> 'morality' they have-the will to power.
>
> "Will to Power" is a key element of Nietzsche 's philosophy-hence
> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western "Left'
> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than
> by Marxist thought-hence the alliance between the Western "Left"
> and the Islamofascist 'Right.'
>
> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
> Manuel II said they would: "Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
> extolled Muslims to 'respond in a manner which forces the Pope to
> apologize.'" Note they intend to use "force" not reason.
>
> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
> "calling a spade a spade".
>
> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, "Pope
> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims.." This is false. The Pope's
> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
> secularists fear is the Pope's decision to choose to enter
> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
> "apologize" for being a Christian? That is the so-called
> "insult."
>
> One might "reasonably" ask when will Muslims "apologize" for
> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
> lost on them.
>
> Amazingly the Times continues: "Muslim leaders the world over
> have demanded apologies. For many Muslims, holy war - jihad - is
> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence." In saying
> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
> Christianity-and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
> The Times is saying to Islamists, 'we can join your 'spiritual'
> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>
> The Times editors are living in a fool's paradise. The
> "spiritual" non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>
> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists
> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>
> In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes:
> "He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology." The
> secularists too seek the Pope's submission. Like the Islamists,
> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
> the Islamists represent their demented version of
> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united
> by their self-worshipping world view.
>
> It should be noted that the carefully staged "anger' from the
> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict's characterization of
> Islam as a religion where God's "will is not bound up with any of
> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
> not bound even by his own word.." This is not seen as an insult.
> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description of
> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>
> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope's
> characterization of a secularist as: "(A) subject (who) then
> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective 'conscience'
> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical."
>
> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
> be no modern system of morality. He explains, "In this
> way.ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
> and become (instead) a completely personal matter."
>
> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
> both are in decline.
>
> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
> will meet in combat, just as Hitler's fascists broke their pact
> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
> of the allied forces on the western front.
>
> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
> reply to the Pope's key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
> Emperor: "'Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or
> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,'.. It is to this great
> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
> the dialogue of cultures."
>
> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72600 is a reply to message #72597] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 09:37 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly not for
Lutherans, and for good reason.
A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects, even
other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things have been
said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist Christians.
And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain extremist
Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps seem to
be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power hungry
ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite religious wars
for their own questionable ends.
It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or "secularists" or
even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I think a
whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants. It doesn't
matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here, too.
Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep does that
go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have been an
exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only very
recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church hung on
tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the universe while
denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes the
actual way the solar system works.
It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is only about
6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and clever
(at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries ago, and
in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the contrary.
The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches who,
feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting evidence of
evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing, and who
seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay big bucks
to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who push to
control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns blazing, our
soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who sometimes
hide behind Christianity to do so.
The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find ways to
pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in spreading
this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in power.
And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and the focus
on the use of force.
Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare victory. ;^)
Have a great week!
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DC wrote:
> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
>
> Have a great Monday!
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
> By Andrew Walden
>
> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of
> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
> in a God not bound by anything—including his own words. Benedict
> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists
> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>
> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
> Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
>
> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
> II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
> to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
>
> Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>
> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and
> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
>
> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>
> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point. The
> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only
> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’ to
> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
>
> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s philosophy—hence
> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western “Left’
> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than
> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western “Left”
> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
>
> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope to
> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
>
> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
> “calling a spade a spade”.
>
> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope
> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope’s
> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
> “insult.”
>
> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
> lost on them.
>
> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over
> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is
> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying
> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual’
> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>
> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>
> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists
> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>
> In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes:
> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the Islamists,
> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
> the Islamists represent their demented version of
> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united
> by their self-worshipping world view.
>
> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any of
> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an insult.
> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description of
> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>
> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience’
> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
>
> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
>
> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
> both are in decline.
>
> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their pact
> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
> of the allied forces on the western front.
>
> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or
> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this great
> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
> the dialogue of cultures.”
>
> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72603 is a reply to message #72599] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 10:50 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
This is awesome:
http://thelastoutpost.com/Portals/_TheLastOutpost/Video/medi aplayer/JapaneseSentToConcentrationCamps.wmv
just replace Japanese with Muslim
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:450ec91a@linux...
> What he said!
>
> ;o)
>
> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:450eb7b2$1@linux...
>>
>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
>>
>> Have a great Monday!
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
>> By Andrew Walden
>>
>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria's University of
>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
>> in a God not bound by anything-including his own words. Benedict
>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists
>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>>
>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
>> Pope apologize. Benedict's speech is a work of enlightened
>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
>>
>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
>> II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
>>
>> Four days later, according to AP: "Pakistan's legislature
>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>>
>> "Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and
>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad."
>>
>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope's
>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>>
>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II's 600-year-old point. The
>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it's only
>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
>> in God's image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any 'offense' to
>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
>> 'morality' they have-the will to power.
>>
>> "Will to Power" is a key element of Nietzsche 's philosophy-hence
>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western "Left'
>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than
>> by Marxist thought-hence the alliance between the Western "Left"
>> and the Islamofascist 'Right.'
>>
>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
>> Manuel II said they would: "Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
>> extolled Muslims to 'respond in a manner which forces the Pope to
>> apologize.'" Note they intend to use "force" not reason.
>>
>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
>> "calling a spade a spade".
>>
>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, "Pope
>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims.." This is false. The Pope's
>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
>> secularists fear is the Pope's decision to choose to enter
>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
>> "apologize" for being a Christian? That is the so-called
>> "insult."
>>
>> One might "reasonably" ask when will Muslims "apologize" for
>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
>> lost on them.
>>
>> Amazingly the Times continues: "Muslim leaders the world over
>> have demanded apologies. For many Muslims, holy war - jihad - is
>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence." In saying
>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
>> Christianity-and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
>> The Times is saying to Islamists, 'we can join your 'spiritual'
>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>>
>> The Times editors are living in a fool's paradise. The
>> "spiritual" non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>>
>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists
>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>>
>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes:
>> "He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology." The
>> secularists too seek the Pope's submission. Like the Islamists,
>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united
>> by their self-worshipping world view.
>>
>> It should be noted that the carefully staged "anger' from the
>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict's characterization of
>> Islam as a religion where God's "will is not bound up with any of
>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
>> not bound even by his own word.." This is not seen as an insult.
>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description of
>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>>
>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope's
>> characterization of a secularist as: "(A) subject (who) then
>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective 'conscience'
>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical."
>>
>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, "In this
>> way.ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter."
>>
>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
>> both are in decline.
>>
>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler's fascists broke their pact
>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
>> of the allied forces on the western front.
>>
>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
>> reply to the Pope's key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
>> Emperor: "'Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or
>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,'.. It is to this great
>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
>> the dialogue of cultures."
>>
>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72604 is a reply to message #72539] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 11:22 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Here, read this! The war with America started on 9/11.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060918/D8K7B5UO1.html
Now how do we stop them? Talk to them, apologize to them, convert to Islam?
Do you want to convert to Islam?
"gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>"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: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72605 is a reply to message #72600] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 11:26 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom line is that
it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450ec970@linux...
>
> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly not for
> Lutherans, and for good reason.
>
> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects, even
> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things have been
> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist Christians.
> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain extremist
> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps seem to
> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power hungry
> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite religious wars
> for their own questionable ends.
>
> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or "secularists" or
> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I think a
> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants. It doesn't
> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here, too.
> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep does that
> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have been an
> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
>
> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only very
> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church hung on
> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the universe while
> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes the
> actual way the solar system works.
>
> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is only about
> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and clever
> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries ago, and
> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the contrary.
>
> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches who,
> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting evidence of
> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing, and who
> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
>
> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay big bucks
> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who push to
> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns blazing, our
> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who sometimes
> hide behind Christianity to do so.
>
> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find ways to
> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in spreading
> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in power.
> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and the focus
> on the use of force.
>
> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare victory. ;^)
>
> Have a great week!
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DC wrote:
> > I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
> >
> > Have a great Monday!
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> >
> > The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
> > By Andrew Walden
> >
> > In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
> > speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of
> > Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
> > whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
> > non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
> > in a God not bound by anything—including his own words. Benedict
> > further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists
> > who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
> >
> > In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
> > Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
> > genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
> > Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
> > of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
> > analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
> > between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
> >
> > Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
> > Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
> > II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
> > you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
> > to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
> >
> > Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
> > unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
> > cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
> > likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
> > reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
> >
> > “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and
> > jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
> > many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
> > followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
> >
> > Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
> > safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
> >
> > The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point. The
> > reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
> > the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
> > internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only
> > objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
> > transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
> > in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
> > anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
> > Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’ to
> > their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
> > ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
> >
> > “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s philosophy—hence
> > the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western “Left’
> > is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than
> > by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western “Left”
> > and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
> >
> > Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
> > Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
> > of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
> > extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope to
> > apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
> >
> > Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
> > “calling a spade a spade”.
> >
> > The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope
> > Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope’s
> > description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
> > an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
> > secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
> > dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
> > “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
> > “insult.”
> >
> > One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
> > being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
> > lost on them.
> >
> > Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over
> > have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is
> > a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying
> > this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
> > propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
> > Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
> > The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual’
> > jihad, but not your violent jihad.
> >
> > The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
> > “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
> > side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
> > the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
> >
> > With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists
> > are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
> > to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
> > semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
> > leader of Christendom to bow before them.
> >
> > In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
> > mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes:
> > “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
> > secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the Islamists,
> > the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
> > the Islamists represent their demented version of
> > God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
> > demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united
> > by their self-worshipping world view.
> >
> > It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
> > Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
> > Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any of
> > our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
> > not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an insult.
> > Islam embraces this description. In offering this description of
> > Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
> > Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
> > Theodore Khoury of Munster.
> >
> > Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
> > characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
> > decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
> > tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience’
> > becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
> >
> > Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
> > be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
> > way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
> > and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
> >
> > Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
> > Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
> > absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
> > carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
> > both are in decline.
> >
> > Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
> > will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their pact
> > with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
> > of the allied forces on the western front.
> >
> > What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
> > reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
> > Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or
> > reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this great
> > logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
> > the dialogue of cultures.”
> >
> > Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72606 is a reply to message #72605] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 11:40 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
or even emotion vs emotion at the animal level?
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:450ee547@linux...
> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom line is
> that
> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450ec970@linux...
>>
>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly not for
>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
>>
>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects, even
>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things have been
>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist Christians.
>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain extremist
>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps seem to
>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power hungry
>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite religious wars
>> for their own questionable ends.
>>
>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or "secularists" or
>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I think a
>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants. It doesn't
>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here, too.
>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep does that
>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have been an
>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
>>
>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only very
>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church hung on
>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the universe while
>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes the
>> actual way the solar system works.
>>
>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is only about
>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and clever
>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries ago, and
>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the contrary.
>>
>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches who,
>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting evidence of
>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing, and who
>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
>>
>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay big bucks
>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who push to
>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns blazing, our
>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who sometimes
>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
>>
>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find ways to
>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in spreading
>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in power.
>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and the focus
>> on the use of force.
>>
>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare victory. ;^)
>>
>> Have a great week!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DC wrote:
>> > I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
>> >
>> > Have a great Monday!
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------
>> >
>> > The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
>> > By Andrew Walden
>> >
>> > In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
>> > speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria's University of
>> > Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
>> > whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
>> > non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
>> > in a God not bound by anything-including his own words. Benedict
>> > further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists
>> > who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>> >
>> > In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
>> > Pope apologize. Benedict's speech is a work of enlightened
>> > genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
>> > Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
>> > of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
>> > analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
>> > between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
>> >
>> > Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
>> > Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
>> > II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
>> > you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
>> > to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
>> >
>> > Four days later, according to AP: "Pakistan's legislature
>> > unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
>> > cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
>> > likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
>> > reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>> >
>> > "Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and
>> > jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
>> > many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
>> > followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad."
>> >
>> > Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope's
>> > safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>> >
>> > The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II's 600-year-old point. The
>> > reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
>> > the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
>> > internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it's only
>> > objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
>> > transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
>> > in God's image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
>> > anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
>> > Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any 'offense' to
>> > their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
>> > 'morality' they have-the will to power.
>> >
>> > "Will to Power" is a key element of Nietzsche 's philosophy-hence
>> > the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western "Left'
>> > is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than
>> > by Marxist thought-hence the alliance between the Western "Left"
>> > and the Islamofascist 'Right.'
>> >
>> > Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
>> > Manuel II said they would: "Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
>> > of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
>> > extolled Muslims to 'respond in a manner which forces the Pope to
>> > apologize.'" Note they intend to use "force" not reason.
>> >
>> > Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
>> > "calling a spade a spade".
>> >
>> > The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, "Pope
>> > Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims.." This is false. The Pope's
>> > description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
>> > an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
>> > secularists fear is the Pope's decision to choose to enter
>> > dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
>> > "apologize" for being a Christian? That is the so-called
>> > "insult."
>> >
>> > One might "reasonably" ask when will Muslims "apologize" for
>> > being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
>> > lost on them.
>> >
>> > Amazingly the Times continues: "Muslim leaders the world over
>> > have demanded apologies. For many Muslims, holy war - jihad - is
>> > a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence." In saying
>> > this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
>> > propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
>> > Christianity-and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
>> > The Times is saying to Islamists, 'we can join your 'spiritual'
>> > jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>> >
>> > The Times editors are living in a fool's paradise. The
>> > "spiritual" non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
>> > side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
>> > the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>> >
>> > With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists
>> > are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
>> > to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
>> > semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
>> > leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>> >
>> > In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
>> > mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes:
>> > "He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology." The
>> > secularists too seek the Pope's submission. Like the Islamists,
>> > the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
>> > the Islamists represent their demented version of
>> > God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
>> > demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united
>> > by their self-worshipping world view.
>> >
>> > It should be noted that the carefully staged "anger' from the
>> > Islamic world does not condemn Benedict's characterization of
>> > Islam as a religion where God's "will is not bound up with any of
>> > our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
>> > not bound even by his own word.." This is not seen as an insult.
>> > Islam embraces this description. In offering this description of
>> > Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
>> > Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
>> > Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>> >
>> > Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope's
>> > characterization of a secularist as: "(A) subject (who) then
>> > decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
>> > tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective 'conscience'
>> > becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical."
>> >
>> > Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
>> > be no modern system of morality. He explains, "In this
>> > way.ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
>> > and become (instead) a completely personal matter."
>> >
>> > Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
>> > Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
>> > absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
>> > carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
>> > both are in decline.
>> >
>> > Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
>> > will meet in combat, just as Hitler's fascists broke their pact
>> > with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
>> > of the allied forces on the western front.
>> >
>> > What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
>> > reply to the Pope's key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
>> > Emperor: "'Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or
>> > reason) is contrary to the nature of God,'.. It is to this great
>> > logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
>> > the dialogue of cultures."
>> >
>> > Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
>> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72607 is a reply to message #72605] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 11:47 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of our own.
There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom line is that
> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450ec970@linux...
>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly not for
>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
>>
>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects, even
>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things have been
>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist Christians.
>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain extremist
>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps seem to
>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power hungry
>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite religious wars
>> for their own questionable ends.
>>
>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or "secularists" or
>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I think a
>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants. It doesn't
>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here, too.
>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep does that
>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have been an
>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
>>
>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only very
>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church hung on
>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the universe while
>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes the
>> actual way the solar system works.
>>
>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is only about
>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and clever
>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries ago, and
>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the contrary.
>>
>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches who,
>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting evidence of
>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing, and who
>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
>>
>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay big bucks
>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who push to
>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns blazing, our
>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who sometimes
>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
>>
>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find ways to
>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in spreading
>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in power.
>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and the focus
>> on the use of force.
>>
>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare victory. ;^)
>>
>> Have a great week!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DC wrote:
>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
>>>
>>> Have a great Monday!
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>
>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
>>> By Andrew Walden
>>>
>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of
>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
>>> in a God not bound by anything—including his own words. Benedict
>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists
>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>>>
>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
>>> Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
>>>
>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
>>> II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
>>>
>>> Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>>>
>>> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and
>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
>>>
>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>>>
>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point. The
>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only
>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
>>> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’ to
>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
>>> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
>>>
>>> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s philosophy—hence
>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western “Left’
>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than
>>> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western “Left”
>>> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
>>>
>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
>>> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
>>> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope to
>>> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
>>>
>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
>>> “calling a spade a spade”.
>>>
>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope
>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope’s
>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
>>> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
>>> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
>>> “insult.”
>>>
>>> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
>>> lost on them.
>>>
>>> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over
>>> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is
>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying
>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
>>> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual’
>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>>>
>>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
>>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>>>
>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists
>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>>>
>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes:
>>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
>>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the Islamists,
>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united
>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
>>>
>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
>>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any of
>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
>>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an insult.
>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description of
>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>>>
>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
>>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience’
>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
>>>
>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
>>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
>>>
>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
>>> both are in decline.
>>>
>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their pact
>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
>>>
>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
>>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
>>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or
>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this great
>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
>>> the dialogue of cultures.”
>>>
>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72610 is a reply to message #72584] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 12:49 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You're confusing 'faith' with 'a willingness to take risks.' Animals take
risks, to get food, create more animals, etc., but I doubt they have faith.
One needs no faith to start businesses, invest money, get married, etc.
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 #72611 is a reply to message #72607] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 12:50 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet. Al Quaeda just
came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now and the west
will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert to Islam. So
where to you draw the line between irrationality and self defense?
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450ee7ef@linux...
>
> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of our own.
> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DJ wrote:
> > It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom line is
that
> > it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
> >
> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450ec970@linux...
> >> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly not for
> >> Lutherans, and for good reason.
> >>
> >> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects, even
> >> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things have
been
> >> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist Christians.
> >> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain extremist
> >> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps seem to
> >> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power hungry
> >> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite religious wars
> >> for their own questionable ends.
> >>
> >> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or "secularists" or
> >> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I think a
> >> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants. It
doesn't
> >> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
> >> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here, too.
> >> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep does that
> >> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have been an
> >> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
> >>
> >> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only very
> >> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church hung on
> >> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the universe
while
> >> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes the
> >> actual way the solar system works.
> >>
> >> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
> >> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is only about
> >> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and clever
> >> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries ago,
and
> >> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the contrary.
> >>
> >> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches who,
> >> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting evidence
of
> >> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing, and who
> >> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
> >>
> >> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay big bucks
> >> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who push to
> >> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns blazing, our
> >> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who sometimes
> >> hide behind Christianity to do so.
> >>
> >> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find ways to
> >> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in
spreading
> >> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in power.
> >> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and the
focus
> >> on the use of force.
> >>
> >> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare victory.
;^)
> >>
> >> Have a great week!
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -Jamie
> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>
> >>
> >> DC wrote:
> >>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
> >>>
> >>> Have a great Monday!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
> >>> By Andrew Walden
> >>>
> >>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
> >>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of
> >>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
> >>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
> >>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
> >>> in a God not bound by anything—including his own words. Benedict
> >>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists
> >>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
> >>>
> >>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
> >>> Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
> >>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
> >>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
> >>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
> >>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
> >>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
> >>>
> >>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
> >>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
> >>> II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
> >>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
> >>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
> >>>
> >>> Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
> >>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
> >>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
> >>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
> >>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
> >>>
> >>> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and
> >>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
> >>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
> >>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
> >>>
> >>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
> >>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
> >>>
> >>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point. The
> >>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
> >>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
> >>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only
> >>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
> >>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
> >>> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
> >>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
> >>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’ to
> >>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
> >>> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
> >>>
> >>> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s philosophy—hence
> >>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western “Left’
> >>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than
> >>> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western “Left”
> >>> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
> >>>
> >>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
> >>> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
> >>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
> >>> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope to
> >>> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
> >>>
> >>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
> >>> “calling a spade a spade”.
> >>>
> >>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope
> >>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope’s
> >>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
> >>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
> >>> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
> >>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
> >>> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
> >>> “insult.”
> >>>
> >>> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
> >>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
> >>> lost on them.
> >>>
> >>> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over
> >>> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is
> >>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying
> >>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
> >>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
> >>> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
> >>> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual’
> >>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
> >>>
> >>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
> >>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
> >>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
> >>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
> >>>
> >>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists
> >>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
> >>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
> >>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
> >>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
> >>>
> >>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
> >>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes:
> >>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
> >>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the Islamists,
> >>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
> >>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
> >>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
> >>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united
> >>> by their self-worshipping world view.
> >>>
> >>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
> >>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
> >>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any of
> >>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
> >>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an insult.
> >>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description of
> >>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
> >>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
> >>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
> >>>
> >>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
> >>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
> >>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
> >>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience’
> >>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
> >>>
> >>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
> >>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
> >>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
> >>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
> >>>
> >>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
> >>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
> >>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
> >>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
> >>> both are in decline.
> >>>
> >>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
> >>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their pact
> >>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
> >>> of the allied forces on the western front.
> >>>
> >>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
> >>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
> >>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or
> >>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this great
> >>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
> >>> the dialogue of cultures.”
> >>>
> >>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
> >>>
> >
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72612 is a reply to message #72582] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 13:17 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Dedric,
Don't take my comments as an indication that I have no "faith" in a higher
power, but couldn't our ability to feel empathy be one possible reason that
the majority of people might have similar morals. I don't think an atheist
knows murder is wrong just because god said "thou shalt not kill". I think
the golden rule has a lot to do with it. Over time, we have learned as
empathetic beings what is ultimately right and wrong. At least in the very
broad sense. Now, how we got to the point where we feel such a vast number
of emotions and are able to apply them to how we treat others is something
else to ponder.
Tony
"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 #72613 is a reply to message #72608] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 13:18 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSP.com> wrote:
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Here, read this! The war with America started on 9/11.
>>
>>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060918/D8K7B5UO1.html
>>
>>Now how do we stop them? Talk to them, apologize to them, convert to Islam?
>> Do you want to convert to Islam?
>>
>
>
>
>“An al-Qaida-linked extremist group...”
>
>The key word is group.
>
>
>A group of neo-Nazis won seats in this weeks elections in Germany.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/world/europe/17cnd-germany .html?_r=1&hp&ex=1158552000&en=ae34ff540e2ea150& amp;ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin
>
>This group does not speak for all Germans.
>
>A recent NYT article talks about the infiltration of the US Army with skinheads.
>People who kill you in a second if they don’t like what you say, or the
color
>of your skin.
>
> http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50713FE3B54 0C748CDDAE0894DE404482&showabstract=1
>
>This group does not speak for all members of the Armed Services or all Americans.
>
>The world is filled with small groups of extremists, even here in the USA.
>The trick when dealing with them is to stop them without turning them into
>figureheads or martyrs. Our blundering has had the opposite effect.
>
>On 9/11 a small group of extremists who were basically seen as outcasts
by
>the majority of the Muslim world attacked our country. Our actions since
>have doubled and doubled again the scope and severity of this problem.
>
>I am afraid you are right, if we continue on our current course we will
turn
>this into a world war.
>
>Gene
>
I don't think we are going to have a choice. WHEN they take out a couple
of American cities, will you still believe in talk? Will you care what the
rest of the world thinks of us?
We should have crossed the border in to Pakistan and got Bin laden, now what?
Their not going to stop. The people or countries that harbor al-Qaida are
the enemies of the US. The head of the CIA said that they have a "vary excellent
idea of where Osama Bin laden is", but for political reasons they can't go
get him. So who do you think is protecting him?
There is a lot more I could say, but the bottom line is we don't have the
guts to do what is necessary. There are too many people in our country that
are weak minded and weak willed. They know they can destroy us because our
people are weak and divided.
Think about who has been against us the whole way. There is a much bigger
picture.
James
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72614 is a reply to message #72611] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 13:30 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
They didn't really mean it DJ. If we just ask them nicely not to kill us,
they'll leave us alone. ;>)
Tony
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:450ef92a@linux...
>I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet. Al Quaeda just
> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now and the west
> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert to Islam.
> So
> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self defense?
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450ee7ef@linux...
>>
>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of our own.
>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>> > It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom line is
> that
>> > it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
>> >
>> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> > news:450ec970@linux...
>> >> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly not for
>> >> Lutherans, and for good reason.
>> >>
>> >> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects, even
>> >> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things have
> been
>> >> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist Christians.
>> >> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain extremist
>> >> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps seem to
>> >> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power hungry
>> >> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite religious wars
>> >> for their own questionable ends.
>> >>
>> >> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or "secularists" or
>> >> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I think a
>> >> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants. It
> doesn't
>> >> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
>> >> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here, too.
>> >> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep does
>> >> that
>> >> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have been an
>> >> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
>> >>
>> >> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only very
>> >> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church hung on
>> >> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the universe
> while
>> >> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes the
>> >> actual way the solar system works.
>> >>
>> >> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
>> >> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is only about
>> >> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and clever
>> >> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries ago,
> and
>> >> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the contrary.
>> >>
>> >> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches who,
>> >> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting evidence
> of
>> >> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing, and
>> >> who
>> >> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
>> >>
>> >> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay big
>> >> bucks
>> >> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who push to
>> >> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns blazing, our
>> >> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who sometimes
>> >> hide behind Christianity to do so.
>> >>
>> >> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find ways to
>> >> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in
> spreading
>> >> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in power.
>> >> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and the
> focus
>> >> on the use of force.
>> >>
>> >> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare victory.
> ;^)
>> >>
>> >> Have a great week!
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> -Jamie
>> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> DC wrote:
>> >>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
>> >>>
>> >>> Have a great Monday!
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ----------------------------------------
>> >>>
>> >>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
>> >>> By Andrew Walden
>> >>>
>> >>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
>> >>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria's University of
>> >>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
>> >>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
>> >>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
>> >>> in a God not bound by anything-including his own words. Benedict
>> >>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists
>> >>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>> >>>
>> >>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
>> >>> Pope apologize. Benedict's speech is a work of enlightened
>> >>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
>> >>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
>> >>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
>> >>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
>> >>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
>> >>>
>> >>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
>> >>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
>> >>> II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
>> >>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
>> >>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
>> >>>
>> >>> Four days later, according to AP: "Pakistan's legislature
>> >>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
>> >>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
>> >>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
>> >>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>> >>>
>> >>> "Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and
>> >>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
>> >>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
>> >>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad."
>> >>>
>> >>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope's
>> >>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>> >>>
>> >>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II's 600-year-old point. The
>> >>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
>> >>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
>> >>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it's only
>> >>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
>> >>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
>> >>> in God's image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
>> >>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
>> >>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any 'offense' to
>> >>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
>> >>> 'morality' they have-the will to power.
>> >>>
>> >>> "Will to Power" is a key element of Nietzsche 's philosophy-hence
>> >>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western "Left'
>> >>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than
>> >>> by Marxist thought-hence the alliance between the Western "Left"
>> >>> and the Islamofascist 'Right.'
>> >>>
>> >>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
>> >>> Manuel II said they would: "Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
>> >>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
>> >>> extolled Muslims to 'respond in a manner which forces the Pope to
>> >>> apologize.'" Note they intend to use "force" not reason.
>> >>>
>> >>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
>> >>> "calling a spade a spade".
>> >>>
>> >>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, "Pope
>> >>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims.." This is false. The Pope's
>> >>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
>> >>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
>> >>> secularists fear is the Pope's decision to choose to enter
>> >>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
>> >>> "apologize" for being a Christian? That is the so-called
>> >>> "insult."
>> >>>
>> >>> One might "reasonably" ask when will Muslims "apologize" for
>> >>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
>> >>> lost on them.
>> >>>
>> >>> Amazingly the Times continues: "Muslim leaders the world over
>> >>> have demanded apologies. For many Muslims, holy war - jihad - is
>> >>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence." In saying
>> >>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
>> >>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
>> >>> Christianity-and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
>> >>> The Times is saying to Islamists, 'we can join your 'spiritual'
>> >>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>> >>>
>> >>> The Times editors are living in a fool's paradise. The
>> >>> "spiritual" non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
>> >>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
>> >>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>> >>>
>> >>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists
>> >>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
>> >>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
>> >>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
>> >>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>> >>>
>> >>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
>> >>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes:
>> >>> "He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology." The
>> >>> secularists too seek the Pope's submission. Like the Islamists,
>> >>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
>> >>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
>> >>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
>> >>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united
>> >>> by their self-worshipping world view.
>> >>>
>> >>> It should be noted that the carefully staged "anger' from the
>> >>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict's characterization of
>> >>> Islam as a religion where God's "will is not bound up with any of
>> >>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
>> >>> not bound even by his own word.." This is not seen as an insult.
>> >>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description of
>> >>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
>> >>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
>> >>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>> >>>
>> >>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope's
>> >>> characterization of a secularist as: "(A) subject (who) then
>> >>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
>> >>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective 'conscience'
>> >>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical."
>> >>>
>> >>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
>> >>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, "In this
>> >>> way.ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
>> >>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter."
>> >>>
>> >>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
>> >>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
>> >>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
>> >>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
>> >>> both are in decline.
>> >>>
>> >>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
>> >>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler's fascists broke their pact
>> >>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
>> >>> of the allied forces on the western front.
>> >>>
>> >>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
>> >>> reply to the Pope's key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
>> >>> Emperor: "'Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or
>> >>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,'.. It is to this great
>> >>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
>> >>> the dialogue of cultures."
>> >>>
>> >>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72616 is a reply to message #72592] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 13:41 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>Yes, Don, you win. And if you're ever in town, I'll let you have one of
my
>Drop Top Amber Ales, or a Black Butte Porter. :)
>
>S
Just to be clear, my definition of victory was "not fighting",
rather than my having won the argument.
Someone is right here, and someone is wrong. If I am right, you
and some others will have some serious crow to eat. If you are
right, likewise for me and some others.
There is a point at which it is clear that no minds will change.
We have reached that point.
In the future, I would like us to commiserate together, rather
than say "I told you so" because the possible result of either
position could just **SUCK** huh?
Hence the "declaration".
DC
ps
Good friend of mine, (not a bushie by any means) dared to ask
some of his friends what their plan was, should the jihadis,
not the president, show themselves to be the real issue here.
these antiwar folks (long time friends of his BTW)literally
started yelling, spluttering and *chanting slogans* in his
face! We have avoided that. That is a victory.
So have a beer, and consider if the other guy has a point.
>
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:450dccf6$1@linux...
>>
>> As long as we all have been yakking on these subjects, three
>> things have happened.
>>
>> 1. No one switched sides
>>
>> 2. Everyone learned something
>>
>> 3. Almost all of us have gotten much more skilled in being
>> nice to each other despite our differences.
>>
>>
>> I don't know about the rest of you, but I am going to declare
>> victory and have a beer...
>>
>> DC
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72617 is a reply to message #72613] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 13:49 |
gene Lennon[3]
Messages: 40
Registered: June 2006
|
Member |
|
|
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I don't think we are going to have a choice. WHEN they take out a couple
>of American cities, will you still believe in talk? Will you care what
the
>rest of the world thinks of us?
>
>We should have crossed the border in to Pakistan and got Bin laden, now
what?
> Their not going to stop. The people or countries that harbor al-Qaida
are
>the enemies of the US. The head of the CIA said that they have a "vary
excellent
>idea of where Osama Bin laden is", but for political reasons they can't
go
>get him. So who do you think is protecting him?
>
>There is a lot more I could say, but the bottom line is we don't have the
>guts to do what is necessary. There are too many people in our country
that
>are weak minded and weak willed. They know they can destroy us because
our
>people are weak and divided.
>
>Think about who has been against us the whole way. There is a much bigger
>picture.
>
>James
>
A purely pragmatic question.
If the worst happens and a WMD goes off in a major US city, what would the
appropriate response be?
I’m not joking here, I think the possibility is high. I would like an honest
answer.
I’m not suggesting for a second that we should do nothing or we should blame
ourselves, but if the responsible people are a small percentage of the population
of a country or region, what should we do? Nuke the Middle East?
This is the time we should be talking about it. If we wait till it happens
we will be caught up in the moment and we could make decisions that literally
end civilization.
I lost friends on 9/11. I have not forgotten. However, I do not blame innocent
people for the actions of others.
“So who do you think is protecting him?”(Bin laden)
Our government!
Gene
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72618 is a reply to message #72610] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 14:15 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
We can disagree about that but the first line is the dictionary definition.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
TCB wrote:
> You're confusing 'faith' with 'a willingness to take risks.' Animals take
> risks, to get food, create more animals, etc., but I doubt they have faith.
> One needs no faith to start businesses, invest money, get married, etc.
>
> 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 #72619 is a reply to message #72612] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 14:08 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>Hi Dedric,
>
>Don't take my comments as an indication that I have no "faith" in a higher
>power, but couldn't our ability to feel empathy be one possible reason that
>the majority of people might have similar morals. I don't think an atheist
>knows murder is wrong just because god said "thou shalt not kill". I think
>the golden rule has a lot to do with it. Over time, we have learned as
>empathetic beings what is ultimately right and wrong. At least in the very
>broad sense. Now, how we got to the point where we feel such a vast number
>of emotions and are able to apply them to how we treat others is something
>else to ponder.
>
>Tony
The problem, of course, is that without a belief in moral
absolutes, reflecting realites designed into us by our creator,
anyone can say "who cares" to any social construct, contract,
set of mutual obligations, or anthroplogicial observation that
morals do indeed exist.
In fact, one is invited to do so by an ideology that places
humankind, not God at the center of existence. When the self
is the center of the universe, one easily decides that someone
else's morals and ideas of a social contract are an illusion.
Worse, ideas about morals may even put them at a competitive
disadvantage compared to the person who has none. (welcome
to the music biz!)
This result is likely given that set of assumptions, but it
becomes inevitable one you go down the road of the neo-darwinists
and socio-biologists who assert than humanity is simply a
vehicle for furthering our "selfish genes" rather than a created
being made to live in community with God and each other.
The theist (and certainly the Christian) must always live in
submission to a greater power, never being the center of
existence, and deriving morality from a higher power than the
self. Humility is our greatest calling, one I fail at
regularly, but still, it is there.
Without God, all is permitted.
DC
"It appears that the great sacred-cow of our culture, the self,
is not automatically interesting".
-Robert Hughes
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72620 is a reply to message #72611] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 14:17 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not news, it's
an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that others do
something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid as well,
my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise money and
convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly. It
works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a declared
interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial to have
the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole mess. How do
you declare war on a tactic?
Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead balloon in
the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say, Iraq.
Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying to get
by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group with
fantasies of violence in the USA.
Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is nothing holy
about war.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet. Al Quaeda just
> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now and the west
> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert to Islam. So
> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self defense?
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450ee7ef@linux...
>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of our own.
>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom line is
> that
>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450ec970@linux...
>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly not for
>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
>>>>
>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects, even
>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things have
> been
>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist Christians.
>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain extremist
>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps seem to
>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power hungry
>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite religious wars
>>>> for their own questionable ends.
>>>>
>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or "secularists" or
>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I think a
>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants. It
> doesn't
>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here, too.
>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep does that
>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have been an
>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
>>>>
>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only very
>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church hung on
>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the universe
> while
>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes the
>>>> actual way the solar system works.
>>>>
>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is only about
>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and clever
>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries ago,
> and
>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the contrary.
>>>>
>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches who,
>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting evidence
> of
>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing, and who
>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
>>>>
>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay big bucks
>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who push to
>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns blazing, our
>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who sometimes
>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
>>>>
>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find ways to
>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in
> spreading
>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in power.
>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and the
> focus
>>>> on the use of force.
>>>>
>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare victory.
> ;^)
>>>> Have a great week!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DC wrote:
>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have a great Monday!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
>>>>> By Andrew Walden
>>>>>
>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of
>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
>>>>> in a God not bound by anything—including his own words. Benedict
>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists
>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>>>>>
>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
>>>>> II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>>>>>
>>>>> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and
>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point. The
>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only
>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
>>>>> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’ to
>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
>>>>> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
>>>>>
>>>>> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s philosophy—hence
>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western “Left’
>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than
>>>>> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western “Left”
>>>>> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
>>>>>
>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
>>>>> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
>>>>> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope to
>>>>> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
>>>>> “calling a spade a spade”.
>>>>>
>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope
>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope’s
>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
>>>>> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
>>>>> “insult.”
>>>>>
>>>>> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
>>>>> lost on them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over
>>>>> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is
>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying
>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
>>>>> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual’
>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
>>>>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists
>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes:
>>>>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the Islamists,
>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united
>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
>>>>>
>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
>>>>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any of
>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
>>>>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an insult.
>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description of
>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>>>>>
>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience’
>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
>>>>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
>>>>> both are in decline.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their pact
>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
>>>>>
>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
>>>>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
>>>>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or
>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this great
>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
>>>>> the dialogue of cultures.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
>>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72621 is a reply to message #72619] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 14:29 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Without God, all is permitted."
A few questions about that assertion:
1) Which God? Your God or anyone's God? If your God, are you then asking
for everyone to convert? If everyone doesn't convert will there be a
head tax on those who don't?
2) When considering the non-deity case, why should we assume a sociopath
as the arbiter of morality?
3) Pretty much all HAS been permitted in the name of a deity at one time
or another. Sociopaths are not limited to the non-religious. How would
you deal with religious sociopaths acting in the name of declared morality?
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DC wrote:
> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>> Hi Dedric,
>>
>> Don't take my comments as an indication that I have no "faith" in a higher
>
>> power, but couldn't our ability to feel empathy be one possible reason that
>
>> the majority of people might have similar morals. I don't think an atheist
>
>> knows murder is wrong just because god said "thou shalt not kill". I think
>
>> the golden rule has a lot to do with it. Over time, we have learned as
>> empathetic beings what is ultimately right and wrong. At least in the very
>
>> broad sense. Now, how we got to the point where we feel such a vast number
>
>> of emotions and are able to apply them to how we treat others is something
>
>> else to ponder.
>>
>> Tony
>
>
> The problem, of course, is that without a belief in moral
> absolutes, reflecting realites designed into us by our creator,
> anyone can say "who cares" to any social construct, contract,
> set of mutual obligations, or anthroplogicial observation that
> morals do indeed exist.
>
> In fact, one is invited to do so by an ideology that places
> humankind, not God at the center of existence. When the self
> is the center of the universe, one easily decides that someone
> else's morals and ideas of a social contract are an illusion.
> Worse, ideas about morals may even put them at a competitive
> disadvantage compared to the person who has none. (welcome
> to the music biz!)
>
> This result is likely given that set of assumptions, but it
> becomes inevitable one you go down the road of the neo-darwinists
> and socio-biologists who assert than humanity is simply a
> vehicle for furthering our "selfish genes" rather than a created
> being made to live in community with God and each other.
>
> The theist (and certainly the Christian) must always live in
> submission to a greater power, never being the center of
> existence, and deriving morality from a higher power than the
> self. Humility is our greatest calling, one I fail at
> regularly, but still, it is there.
>
> Without God, all is permitted.
>
> DC
>
> "It appears that the great sacred-cow of our culture, the self,
> is not automatically interesting".
>
> -Robert Hughes
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72622 is a reply to message #72619] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 15:05 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Don,
I'm not in the same league with you to debate theology. I'll try to state my
feelings in the most coherent way, but it will be, at best, clumsy. The
problem, from my point of view, with relying on "God" to dictate morality is
that every different religion believes their God is the one true God (or
God's in some cases). Evidently, fundamentalist Islam's God says it's
completely moral and beyond that, an Islamic's duty to kill infidels. So,
who's God's morals should all of mankind follow. You say yours. They say
theirs. I can only follow what I believe to be true in my own heart. I feel
that I can still have faith in something beyond myself (God) and faith that
for what ever reason, I have the ability to sense right from wrong. Perhaps
the one true God gave us that ability.? Obviously people do say "who cares"
to the accepted social moral standards all the time. If not, we wouldn't
have any murder, theft, rape, etc. But by and large, I think the majority of
people know in their hearts the difference between right and wrong,
regardless of what God they follow or weather they believe in God at all.
Tony
"DC" <dc@spammersinkabul.com> wrote in message news:450f0ab7$1@linux...
>
> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>>Hi Dedric,
>>
>>Don't take my comments as an indication that I have no "faith" in a higher
>
>>power, but couldn't our ability to feel empathy be one possible reason
>>that
>
>>the majority of people might have similar morals. I don't think an atheist
>
>>knows murder is wrong just because god said "thou shalt not kill". I think
>
>>the golden rule has a lot to do with it. Over time, we have learned as
>>empathetic beings what is ultimately right and wrong. At least in the very
>
>>broad sense. Now, how we got to the point where we feel such a vast number
>
>>of emotions and are able to apply them to how we treat others is something
>
>>else to ponder.
>>
>>Tony
>
>
> The problem, of course, is that without a belief in moral
> absolutes, reflecting realites designed into us by our creator,
> anyone can say "who cares" to any social construct, contract,
> set of mutual obligations, or anthroplogicial observation that
> morals do indeed exist.
>
> In fact, one is invited to do so by an ideology that places
> humankind, not God at the center of existence. When the self
> is the center of the universe, one easily decides that someone
> else's morals and ideas of a social contract are an illusion.
> Worse, ideas about morals may even put them at a competitive
> disadvantage compared to the person who has none. (welcome
> to the music biz!)
>
> This result is likely given that set of assumptions, but it
> becomes inevitable one you go down the road of the neo-darwinists
> and socio-biologists who assert than humanity is simply a
> vehicle for furthering our "selfish genes" rather than a created
> being made to live in community with God and each other.
>
> The theist (and certainly the Christian) must always live in
> submission to a greater power, never being the center of
> existence, and deriving morality from a higher power than the
> self. Humility is our greatest calling, one I fail at
> regularly, but still, it is there.
>
> Without God, all is permitted.
>
> DC
>
> "It appears that the great sacred-cow of our culture, the self,
> is not automatically interesting".
>
> -Robert Hughes
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72624 is a reply to message #72618] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 15:08 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Here's dictionary.com
faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would
be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith
of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to
be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement,
etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance,
etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through
Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
I don't see anything in there about risk. My point is that people can do
the things you're talking about knowing full well they might fail, but do
them anyway. That's taking a risk, not having faith. I don't have faith but
I've taken lots of personal and professional risks in my life.
TCB
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>We can disagree about that but the first line is the dictionary definition.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>TCB wrote:
>> You're confusing 'faith' with 'a willingness to take risks.' Animals take
>> risks, to get food, create more animals, etc., but I doubt they have faith.
>> One needs no faith to start businesses, invest money, get married, etc.
>>
>> 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 #72626 is a reply to message #72620] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 15:16 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is indication of some
sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we blow the
threat away before it pays us a visit?
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f0b12@linux...
>
> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not news, it's
> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that others do
> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid as well,
> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
>
> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise money and
> convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly. It
> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a declared
> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial to have
> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
>
> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole mess. How do
> you declare war on a tactic?
>
> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead balloon in
> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say, Iraq.
>
> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying to get
> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group with
> fantasies of violence in the USA.
>
> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is nothing holy
> about war.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
> DJ wrote:
> > I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet. Al Quaeda
just
> > came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now and the
west
> > will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert to
Islam. So
> > where to you draw the line between irrationality and self defense?
> >
> >
> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450ee7ef@linux...
> >> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of our
own.
> >> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -Jamie
> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>
> >>
> >> DJ wrote:
> >>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom line is
> > that
> >>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
> >>>
> >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:450ec970@linux...
> >>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly not for
> >>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
> >>>>
> >>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects, even
> >>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things have
> > been
> >>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist Christians.
> >>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain extremist
> >>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps seem
to
> >>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power
hungry
> >>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite religious wars
> >>>> for their own questionable ends.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or "secularists" or
> >>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I think a
> >>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants. It
> > doesn't
> >>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
> >>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here, too.
> >>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep does
that
> >>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have been
an
> >>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
> >>>>
> >>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only very
> >>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church hung on
> >>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the universe
> > while
> >>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes the
> >>>> actual way the solar system works.
> >>>>
> >>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
> >>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is only
about
> >>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and clever
> >>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries ago,
> > and
> >>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the contrary.
> >>>>
> >>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches who,
> >>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting evidence
> > of
> >>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing, and
who
> >>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
> >>>>
> >>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay big
bucks
> >>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who push
to
> >>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns blazing, our
> >>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who sometimes
> >>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
> >>>>
> >>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find ways to
> >>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in
> > spreading
> >>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in power.
> >>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and the
> > focus
> >>>> on the use of force.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare victory.
> > ;^)
> >>>> Have a great week!
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> -Jamie
> >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> DC wrote:
> >>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Have a great Monday!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
> >>>>> By Andrew Walden
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
> >>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of
> >>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
> >>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
> >>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
> >>>>> in a God not bound by anything—including his own words. Benedict
> >>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists
> >>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
> >>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
> >>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
> >>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
> >>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
> >>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
> >>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
> >>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
> >>>>> II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
> >>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
> >>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
> >>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
> >>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
> >>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
> >>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and
> >>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
> >>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
> >>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
> >>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point. The
> >>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
> >>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
> >>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only
> >>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
> >>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
> >>>>> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
> >>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
> >>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’ to
> >>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
> >>>>> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s philosophy—hence
> >>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western “Left’
> >>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than
> >>>>> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western “Left”
> >>>>> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
> >>>>> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
> >>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
> >>>>> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope to
> >>>>> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
> >>>>> “calling a spade a spade”.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope
> >>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope’s
> >>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
> >>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
> >>>>> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
> >>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
> >>>>> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
> >>>>> “insult.”
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
> >>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
> >>>>> lost on them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over
> >>>>> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is
> >>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying
> >>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
> >>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
> >>>>> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
> >>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual’
> >>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
> >>>>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
> >>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
> >>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists
> >>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
> >>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
> >>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
> >>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
> >>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes:
> >>>>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
> >>>>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the Islamists,
> >>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
> >>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
> >>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
> >>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united
> >>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
> >>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
> >>>>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any of
> >>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
> >>>>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an insult.
> >>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description of
> >>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
> >>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
> >>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
> >>>>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
> >>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
> >>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience’
> >>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
> >>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
> >>>>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
> >>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
> >>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
> >>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
> >>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
> >>>>> both are in decline.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
> >>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their pact
> >>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
> >>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
> >>>>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
> >>>>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or
> >>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this great
> >>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
> >>>>> the dialogue of cultures.”
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72630 is a reply to message #72622] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 15:49 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Tony,
I think you did pretty well, actually.
"Which God to follow" can be a sincere question, as in:
"it makes sense to me that God would have a plan for our lives and
wants the best for us, and I need to know who God really is"
or it can be rhetoric, from a clear atheist position, as in:
"well, there's a god over here and there's a god over there, and
another one in Boston, and how are we to know which god is the
right one?"
and the person really believes in no God whatsover.
The difference is important because if one believes in a creator, it is
reasonable to assume that the creator is interested in him as well.
This, at least is the Christian position, and the Bible and certainly the
life of Christ centers on the issue of "who cares about humans
anyway?"
Well, John 3:16 answers that doesn't it, and while secularist
reasoning can be shown to be utterly self-referential and even
irrational, in the end spiritual things are spiritually discerned and if
someone simply wishes to dispute, they may do so, forever.
So, as a Christian, believing that Jesus came to save me, and that
the Bible narrative, while not perfect in the details, nonetheless
contains His story. I would say on that basis, that the God of the
Bible is the right one, and I would say that the muslims are mistaken
and do not serve God at all. "By their fruits you will know them"
*However* there is the obvious case of the righteous Muslim,
Buddhist, Hindu etc. I do believe that the imprint of our creation
exists in all of us, granting even the atheist a conscience, despite
their basic antipathy to absolutes. Beyond that, I also believe that
God turns no one away, so there is the mystery of those who
seek God in their own culture and their own religion, clearly *finding* Him!
We are responsible for what we know, not what the other guy knows.
That doesn't make faiths all equal or the same.
BTW, the case can be made that ANY theistic belief is superior
to atheism and neo-darwinism, simply because it gives at least some
basis for universal morality.
What about the righteous atheist? Well, there are a few of these,
and I think some of them have been called by God to do good despite their
ideology and that thing they follow that they call
"conscience" is in reality the Holy Spirit and they may be saved
on the basis of their reaction to that voice of God. I also think that
denominations generally thoroughly *suck* (good theological
term eh?) and have driven away many righteous people who live
without religion in a righteous manner. I do believe they are all
called to join the rest of us at some point, but I will not pretend
to judge them, nor Hindus, Muslims etc on when that is.
Brain Welch (Head) from Korn became a Christian a while back, and
evidently has a new tune called "Religion Must Die" and I think he
has a point. Take a look at his new site. I like the music.
http://www.headtochrist.com/
Of course, whatever emerges from the death of religion, even if it
is the most dynamic Christian community since the 1st century,
will be called 'religion' by the secularists who so dominate our
culture, so it's semantics to some extent.
DC
"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>Hi Don,
>
>I'm not in the same league with you to debate theology. I'll try to state
my
>feelings in the most coherent way, but it will be, at best, clumsy. The
>problem, from my point of view, with relying on "God" to dictate morality
is
>that every different religion believes their God is the one true God (or
>God's in some cases). Evidently, fundamentalist Islam's God says it's
>completely moral and beyond that, an Islamic's duty to kill infidels. So,
>who's God's morals should all of mankind follow. You say yours. They say
>theirs. I can only follow what I believe to be true in my own heart. I feel
>that I can still have faith in something beyond myself (God) and faith that
>for what ever reason, I have the ability to sense right from wrong. Perhaps
>the one true God gave us that ability.? Obviously people do say "who cares"
>to the accepted social moral standards all the time. If not, we wouldn't
>have any murder, theft, rape, etc. But by and large, I think the majority
of
>people know in their hearts the difference between right and wrong,
>regardless of what God they follow or weather they believe in God at all.
>
>Tony
>
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinkabul.com> wrote in message news:450f0ab7$1@linux...
>>
>> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>>>Hi Dedric,
>>>
>>>Don't take my comments as an indication that I have no "faith" in a higher
>>
>>>power, but couldn't our ability to feel empathy be one possible reason
>>>that
>>
>>>the majority of people might have similar morals. I don't think an atheist
>>
>>>knows murder is wrong just because god said "thou shalt not kill". I think
>>
>>>the golden rule has a lot to do with it. Over time, we have learned as
>>>empathetic beings what is ultimately right and wrong. At least in the
very
>>
>>>broad sense. Now, how we got to the point where we feel such a vast number
>>
>>>of emotions and are able to apply them to how we treat others is something
>>
>>>else to ponder.
>>>
>>>Tony
>>
>>
>> The problem, of course, is that without a belief in moral
>> absolutes, reflecting realites designed into us by our creator,
>> anyone can say "who cares" to any social construct, contract,
>> set of mutual obligations, or anthroplogicial observation that
>> morals do indeed exist.
>>
>> In fact, one is invited to do so by an ideology that places
>> humankind, not God at the center of existence. When the self
>> is the center of the universe, one easily decides that someone
>> else's morals and ideas of a social contract are an illusion.
>> Worse, ideas about morals may even put them at a competitive
>> disadvantage compared to the person who has none. (welcome
>> to the music biz!)
>>
>> This result is likely given that set of assumptions, but it
>> becomes inevitable one you go down the road of the neo-darwinists
>> and socio-biologists who assert than humanity is simply a
>> vehicle for furthering our "selfish genes" rather than a created
>> being made to live in community with God and each other.
>>
>> The theist (and certainly the Christian) must always live in
>> submission to a greater power, never being the center of
>> existence, and deriving morality from a higher power than the
>> self. Humility is our greatest calling, one I fail at
>> regularly, but still, it is there.
>>
>> Without God, all is permitted.
>>
>> DC
>>
>> "It appears that the great sacred-cow of our culture, the self,
>> is not automatically interesting".
>>
>> -Robert Hughes
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72635 is a reply to message #72626] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 16:33 |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Deej, good lord amighty, if we go around blowing away every perceived threat
to us, we're gonna be dropping a lot of bombs on a lot of people. Where
should we start? Seriously? How many countries shall we bomb back to the
stone age in an attempt to rid the world of potential threats? How many
civil wars shall we create and get bogged down in to appease our more
war-like citizens? Cuz last time I checked, there were easily half 3 or 4
dangerous states posing a much greater economic and/or military threat to us
and our allies than Iraq recently did.
And speaking of Iraq, how the hell are we ever gonna spare the man-power to
fight other countries while we are so severely over-taxed in Iraq? Is it any
accident that Iran has been so loud and obnoxious recently? They know we are
compromised tactically. They laugh loud and long every day at our current
difficulties.
Any of you guys ever bone up on the last 60 years or so of Arabic/Persian
history? We've been playing with fire for a long time now, as far as I can
tell. Seems to me that part of the current problem is that a lot of
skeletons in our national closet are coming to light. I certainly don't
condone the radical Islamic fringe that seems to have it in for us, but
folks in the Mideast in general have a few good reasons to profoundly resent
our beloved U.S.A. Would I like to erase the earth of all religious and
political fundamentalism? Hell yes. I'd also like us to get really, really,
serious about not meddling in the affairs of other people in a decades-long
effort to influence the price of oil.
Jimmy
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:450f1b1d@linux...
> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is indication of some
> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we blow the
> threat away before it pays us a visit?
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f0b12@linux...
> >
> > Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not news, it's
> > an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that others do
> > something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid as well,
> > my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
> >
> > By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise money and
> > convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly. It
> > works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a declared
> > interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial to have
> > the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
> >
> > We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole mess. How do
> > you declare war on a tactic?
> >
> > Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead balloon in
> > the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say, Iraq.
> >
> > Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
> > tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying to get
> > by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
> > attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group with
> > fantasies of violence in the USA.
> >
> > Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is nothing holy
> > about war.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -Jamie
> > http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >
> >
> >
> > DJ wrote:
> > > I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet. Al Quaeda
> just
> > > came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now and the
> west
> > > will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert to
> Islam. So
> > > where to you draw the line between irrationality and self defense?
> > >
> > >
> > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:450ee7ef@linux...
> > >> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of our
> own.
> > >> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> -Jamie
> > >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> DJ wrote:
> > >>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom line
is
> > > that
> > >>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
> > >>>
> > >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> news:450ec970@linux...
> > >>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly not
for
> > >>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects,
even
> > >>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things have
> > > been
> > >>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist
Christians.
> > >>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain
extremist
> > >>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps seem
> to
> > >>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power
> hungry
> > >>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite religious
wars
> > >>>> for their own questionable ends.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or "secularists"
or
> > >>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I think a
> > >>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants. It
> > > doesn't
> > >>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
> > >>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here, too.
> > >>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep does
> that
> > >>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have been
> an
> > >>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only very
> > >>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church hung
on
> > >>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the universe
> > > while
> > >>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes the
> > >>>> actual way the solar system works.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
> > >>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is only
> about
> > >>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and
clever
> > >>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries
ago,
> > > and
> > >>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the contrary.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches
who,
> > >>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting
evidence
> > > of
> > >>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing, and
> who
> > >>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay big
> bucks
> > >>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who push
> to
> > >>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns blazing,
our
> > >>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who
sometimes
> > >>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find ways
to
> > >>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in
> > > spreading
> > >>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in
power.
> > >>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and the
> > > focus
> > >>>> on the use of force.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare
victory.
> > > ;^)
> > >>>> Have a great week!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Cheers,
> > >>>> -Jamie
> > >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> DC wrote:
> > >>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Have a great Monday!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ----------------------------------------
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
> > >>>>> By Andrew Walden
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
> > >>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria's University of
> > >>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
> > >>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
> > >>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
> > >>>>> in a God not bound by anything-including his own words. Benedict
> > >>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists
> > >>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
> > >>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict's speech is a work of enlightened
> > >>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
> > >>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
> > >>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
> > >>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
> > >>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
> > >>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
> > >>>>> II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
> > >>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
> > >>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Four days later, according to AP: "Pakistan's legislature
> > >>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
> > >>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
> > >>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
> > >>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and
> > >>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
> > >>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
> > >>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope's
> > >>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II's 600-year-old point. The
> > >>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
> > >>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
> > >>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it's only
> > >>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
> > >>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
> > >>>>> in God's image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
> > >>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
> > >>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any 'offense' to
> > >>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
> > >>>>> 'morality' they have-the will to power.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "Will to Power" is a key element of Nietzsche 's philosophy-hence
> > >>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western "Left'
> > >>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than
> > >>>>> by Marxist thought-hence the alliance between the Western "Left"
> > >>>>> and the Islamofascist 'Right.'
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
> > >>>>> Manuel II said they would: "Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
> > >>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
> > >>>>> extolled Muslims to 'respond in a manner which forces the Pope to
> > >>>>> apologize.'" Note they intend to use "force" not reason.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
> > >>>>> "calling a spade a spade".
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, "Pope
> > >>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims.." This is false. The Pope's
> > >>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
> > >>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
> > >>>>> secularists fear is the Pope's decision to choose to enter
> > >>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
> > >>>>> "apologize" for being a Christian? That is the so-called
> > >>>>> "insult."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> One might "reasonably" ask when will Muslims "apologize" for
> > >>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
> > >>>>> lost on them.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: "Muslim leaders the world over
> > >>>>> have demanded apologies. For many Muslims, holy war - jihad - is
> > >>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence." In saying
> > >>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
> > >>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
> > >>>>> Christianity-and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
> > >>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, 'we can join your 'spiritual'
> > >>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool's paradise. The
> > >>>>> "spiritual" non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
> > >>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
> > >>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists
> > >>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
> > >>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
> > >>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
> > >>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
> > >>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes:
> > >>>>> "He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology." The
> > >>>>> secularists too seek the Pope's submission. Like the Islamists,
> > >>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
> > >>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
> > >>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
> > >>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united
> > >>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged "anger' from the
> > >>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict's characterization of
> > >>>>> Islam as a religion where God's "will is not bound up with any of
> > >>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
> > >>>>> not bound even by his own word.." This is not seen as an insult.
> > >>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description of
> > >>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
> > >>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
> > >>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope's
> > >>>>> characterization of a secularist as: "(A) subject (who) then
> > >>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
> > >>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective 'conscience'
> > >>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
> > >>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, "In this
> > >>>>> way.ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
> > >>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
> > >>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
> > >>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
> > >>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
> > >>>>> both are in decline.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
> > >>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler's fascists broke their pact
> > >>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
> > >>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
> > >>>>> reply to the Pope's key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
> > >>>>> Emperor: "'Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or
> > >>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,'.. It is to this great
> > >>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
> > >>>>> the dialogue of cultures."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72647 is a reply to message #72626] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 17:30 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on the nature of
the threat.
We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999, well
before the 9/11 attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of overreacting
or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
preemptive attack policy. :^)
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is indication of some
> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we blow the
> threat away before it pays us a visit?
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f0b12@linux...
>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not news, it's
>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that others do
>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid as well,
>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
>>
>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise money and
>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly. It
>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a declared
>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial to have
>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
>>
>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole mess. How do
>> you declare war on a tactic?
>>
>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead balloon in
>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say, Iraq.
>>
>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying to get
>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group with
>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
>>
>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is nothing holy
>> about war.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet. Al Quaeda
> just
>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now and the
> west
>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert to
> Islam. So
>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self defense?
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450ee7ef@linux...
>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of our
> own.
>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom line is
>>> that
>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> news:450ec970@linux...
>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly not for
>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects, even
>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things have
>>> been
>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist Christians.
>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain extremist
>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps seem
> to
>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power
> hungry
>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite religious wars
>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or "secularists" or
>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I think a
>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants. It
>>> doesn't
>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here, too.
>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep does
> that
>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have been
> an
>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only very
>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church hung on
>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the universe
>>> while
>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes the
>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is only
> about
>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and clever
>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries ago,
>>> and
>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the contrary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches who,
>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting evidence
>>> of
>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing, and
> who
>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay big
> bucks
>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who push
> to
>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns blazing, our
>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who sometimes
>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find ways to
>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in
>>> spreading
>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in power.
>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and the
>>> focus
>>>>>> on the use of force.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare victory.
>>> ;^)
>>>>>> Have a great week!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DC wrote:
>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of
>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything—including his own words. Benedict
>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists
>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
>>>>>>> II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and
>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point. The
>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only
>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
>>>>>>> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’ to
>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
>>>>>>> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s philosophy—hence
>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western “Left’
>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than
>>>>>>> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western “Left”
>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope to
>>>>>>> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
>>>>>>> “calling a spade a spade”.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope
>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope’s
>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
>>>>>>> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
>>>>>>> “insult.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
>>>>>>> lost on them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over
>>>>>>> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is
>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying
>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
>>>>>>> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual’
>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
>>>>>>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists
>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes:
>>>>>>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the Islamists,
>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united
>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any of
>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an insult.
>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description of
>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience’
>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
>>>>>>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
>>>>>>> both are in decline.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their pact
>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
>>>>>>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
>>>>>>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or
>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this great
>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72648 is a reply to message #72624] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 17:40 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
There you go, clearly faith is not limited to religion. Although just as
clearly it's important for religion.
As to risk, many people have faith that their risks will pan out. Some
people do things because they have such faith. I know people like that.
I am people like that. That doesn't preclude anyone from doing something
for some other reason, of course.
If you want to say you don't have faith in anything, using any of the
definitions below, then that's your prerogative and I don't have a
problem with that.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
TCB wrote:
> Here's dictionary.com
>
> faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth]
> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –noun
> 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
> 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would
> be substantiated by fact.
> 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith
> of the Pilgrims.
> 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to
> be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
> 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
> 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement,
> etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
> 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance,
> etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
> 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through
> Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
>
> I don't see anything in there about risk. My point is that people can do
> the things you're talking about knowing full well they might fail, but do
> them anyway. That's taking a risk, not having faith. I don't have faith but
> I've taken lots of personal and professional risks in my life.
>
> TCB
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> We can disagree about that but the first line is the dictionary definition.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> TCB wrote:
>>> You're confusing 'faith' with 'a willingness to take risks.' Animals take
>>> risks, to get food, create more animals, etc., but I doubt they have faith.
>>> One needs no faith to start businesses, invest money, get married, etc.
>
>>> 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 #72650 is a reply to message #72630] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 18:16 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dude, that is so in line with my thoughts on organized religion that you
might be a long lost brother. As a kid I spent a lot of time in a small town
church were I was told that God was, essentially, a must-fear mean old man
type. I haven't spent a lot of time near that particular sect since I was
able to 'not' be around it. I'm not too sure about all these 'we welcome all
thinking and religion as ok" types either. There's got to be some kind of
middle ground theology out there, I just haven't found it yet.
AA
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:450f2278$1@linux...
>
> Tony,
>
> I think you did pretty well, actually.
>
> "Which God to follow" can be a sincere question, as in:
> "it makes sense to me that God would have a plan for our lives and
> wants the best for us, and I need to know who God really is"
>
> or it can be rhetoric, from a clear atheist position, as in:
> "well, there's a god over here and there's a god over there, and
> another one in Boston, and how are we to know which god is the
> right one?"
>
> and the person really believes in no God whatsover.
>
> The difference is important because if one believes in a creator, it is
> reasonable to assume that the creator is interested in him as well.
> This, at least is the Christian position, and the Bible and certainly the
>
> life of Christ centers on the issue of "who cares about humans
> anyway?"
>
> Well, John 3:16 answers that doesn't it, and while secularist
> reasoning can be shown to be utterly self-referential and even
> irrational, in the end spiritual things are spiritually discerned and if
>
> someone simply wishes to dispute, they may do so, forever.
>
> So, as a Christian, believing that Jesus came to save me, and that
> the Bible narrative, while not perfect in the details, nonetheless
> contains His story. I would say on that basis, that the God of the
> Bible is the right one, and I would say that the muslims are mistaken
> and do not serve God at all. "By their fruits you will know them"
>
> *However* there is the obvious case of the righteous Muslim,
> Buddhist, Hindu etc. I do believe that the imprint of our creation
> exists in all of us, granting even the atheist a conscience, despite
> their basic antipathy to absolutes. Beyond that, I also believe that
> God turns no one away, so there is the mystery of those who
> seek God in their own culture and their own religion, clearly *finding*
> Him!
>
>
> We are responsible for what we know, not what the other guy knows.
>
> That doesn't make faiths all equal or the same.
>
> BTW, the case can be made that ANY theistic belief is superior
> to atheism and neo-darwinism, simply because it gives at least some
> basis for universal morality.
>
> What about the righteous atheist? Well, there are a few of these,
> and I think some of them have been called by God to do good despite their
> ideology and that thing they follow that they call
> "conscience" is in reality the Holy Spirit and they may be saved
> on the basis of their reaction to that voice of God. I also think that
> denominations generally thoroughly *suck* (good theological
> term eh?) and have driven away many righteous people who live
> without religion in a righteous manner. I do believe they are all
> called to join the rest of us at some point, but I will not pretend
> to judge them, nor Hindus, Muslims etc on when that is.
>
> Brain Welch (Head) from Korn became a Christian a while back, and
> evidently has a new tune called "Religion Must Die" and I think he
> has a point. Take a look at his new site. I like the music.
>
> http://www.headtochrist.com/
>
> Of course, whatever emerges from the death of religion, even if it
> is the most dynamic Christian community since the 1st century,
> will be called 'religion' by the secularists who so dominate our
> culture, so it's semantics to some extent.
>
> DC
>
>
>
>
> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>>Hi Don,
>>
>>I'm not in the same league with you to debate theology. I'll try to state
> my
>>feelings in the most coherent way, but it will be, at best, clumsy. The
>
>>problem, from my point of view, with relying on "God" to dictate morality
> is
>>that every different religion believes their God is the one true God (or
>
>>God's in some cases). Evidently, fundamentalist Islam's God says it's
>>completely moral and beyond that, an Islamic's duty to kill infidels. So,
>
>>who's God's morals should all of mankind follow. You say yours. They say
>
>>theirs. I can only follow what I believe to be true in my own heart. I
>>feel
>
>>that I can still have faith in something beyond myself (God) and faith
>>that
>
>>for what ever reason, I have the ability to sense right from wrong.
>>Perhaps
>
>>the one true God gave us that ability.? Obviously people do say "who
>>cares"
>
>>to the accepted social moral standards all the time. If not, we wouldn't
>
>>have any murder, theft, rape, etc. But by and large, I think the majority
> of
>>people know in their hearts the difference between right and wrong,
>>regardless of what God they follow or weather they believe in God at all.
>>
>>Tony
>>
>>
>>"DC" <dc@spammersinkabul.com> wrote in message news:450f0ab7$1@linux...
>>>
>>> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>>>>Hi Dedric,
>>>>
>>>>Don't take my comments as an indication that I have no "faith" in a
>>>>higher
>>>
>>>>power, but couldn't our ability to feel empathy be one possible reason
>
>>>>that
>>>
>>>>the majority of people might have similar morals. I don't think an
>>>>atheist
>>>
>>>>knows murder is wrong just because god said "thou shalt not kill". I
>>>>think
>>>
>>>>the golden rule has a lot to do with it. Over time, we have learned as
>>>>empathetic beings what is ultimately right and wrong. At least in the
> very
>>>
>>>>broad sense. Now, how we got to the point where we feel such a vast
>>>>number
>>>
>>>>of emotions and are able to apply them to how we treat others is
>>>>something
>>>
>>>>else to ponder.
>>>>
>>>>Tony
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem, of course, is that without a belief in moral
>>> absolutes, reflecting realites designed into us by our creator,
>>> anyone can say "who cares" to any social construct, contract,
>>> set of mutual obligations, or anthroplogicial observation that
>>> morals do indeed exist.
>>>
>>> In fact, one is invited to do so by an ideology that places
>>> humankind, not God at the center of existence. When the self
>>> is the center of the universe, one easily decides that someone
>>> else's morals and ideas of a social contract are an illusion.
>>> Worse, ideas about morals may even put them at a competitive
>>> disadvantage compared to the person who has none. (welcome
>>> to the music biz!)
>>>
>>> This result is likely given that set of assumptions, but it
>>> becomes inevitable one you go down the road of the neo-darwinists
>>> and socio-biologists who assert than humanity is simply a
>>> vehicle for furthering our "selfish genes" rather than a created
>>> being made to live in community with God and each other.
>>>
>>> The theist (and certainly the Christian) must always live in
>>> submission to a greater power, never being the center of
>>> existence, and deriving morality from a higher power than the
>>> self. Humility is our greatest calling, one I fail at
>>> regularly, but still, it is there.
>>>
>>> Without God, all is permitted.
>>>
>>> DC
>>>
>>> "It appears that the great sacred-cow of our culture, the self,
>>> is not automatically interesting".
>>>
>>> -Robert Hughes
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72655 is a reply to message #72648] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 19:05 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I never said faith was limited to religion _at all_ because that would be
silly. I only bring this up because I think it's a very important point.
Nearly every time you read 'without faith there would be no XXXXXXXX' it's
just not true and XXXXXXXX can get along just fine without faith. Probably
the best popular book about risk is called 'Against the Gods' and it's sort
of about this very topic.
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Gods-Remarkable-Story-Risk/dp/ 0471295639/sr=8-1/qid=1158631839/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2500887-29 81628?ie=UTF8&s=books
TCB
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>There you go, clearly faith is not limited to religion. Although just as
>clearly it's important for religion.
>
>As to risk, many people have faith that their risks will pan out. Some
>people do things because they have such faith. I know people like that.
>I am people like that. That doesn't preclude anyone from doing something
>for some other reason, of course.
>
>If you want to say you don't have faith in anything, using any of the
>definitions below, then that's your prerogative and I don't have a
>problem with that.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>TCB wrote:
>> Here's dictionary.com
>>
>> faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth]
>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>> –noun
>> 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
>> 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
would
>> be substantiated by fact.
>> 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm
faith
>> of the Pilgrims.
>> 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to
>> be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
>> 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
>> 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement,
>> etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
>> 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath,
allegiance,
>> etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
>> 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through
>> Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
>>
>> I don't see anything in there about risk. My point is that people can
do
>> the things you're talking about knowing full well they might fail, but
do
>> them anyway. That's taking a risk, not having faith. I don't have faith
but
>> I've taken lots of personal and professional risks in my life.
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> We can disagree about that but the first line is the dictionary definition.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> TCB wrote:
>>>> You're confusing 'faith' with 'a willingness to take risks.' Animals
take
>>>> risks, to get food, create more animals, etc., but I doubt they have
faith.
>>>> One needs no faith to start businesses, invest money, get married, etc.
>>
>>>> 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 #72657 is a reply to message #72655] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 21:20 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks for the link. It looks like it might be a more interesting read
than what you might expect of a book on probability theory.
Without risk management there would be no insurance.
Seems like we have some major risk management headaches ahead in the
foreign relations area. I don't have much faith that our current
government understands the situation or is capable of brokering a
lasting and beneficial peace.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
TCB wrote:
> I never said faith was limited to religion _at all_ because that would be
> silly. I only bring this up because I think it's a very important point.
> Nearly every time you read 'without faith there would be no XXXXXXXX' it's
> just not true and XXXXXXXX can get along just fine without faith. Probably
> the best popular book about risk is called 'Against the Gods' and it's sort
> of about this very topic.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Against-Gods-Remarkable-Story-Risk/dp/ 0471295639/sr=8-1/qid=1158631839/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2500887-29 81628?ie=UTF8&s=books
>
> TCB
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> There you go, clearly faith is not limited to religion. Although just as
>
>> clearly it's important for religion.
>>
>> As to risk, many people have faith that their risks will pan out. Some
>> people do things because they have such faith. I know people like that.
>
>> I am people like that. That doesn't preclude anyone from doing something
>
>> for some other reason, of course.
>>
>> If you want to say you don't have faith in anything, using any of the
>> definitions below, then that's your prerogative and I don't have a
>> problem with that.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> TCB wrote:
>>> Here's dictionary.com
>>>
>>> faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth]
>>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>>> –noun
>>> 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
>>> 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
> would
>>> be substantiated by fact.
>>> 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm
> faith
>>> of the Pilgrims.
>>> 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
> to
>>> be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
>>> 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
>>> 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement,
>>> etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
>>> 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath,
> allegiance,
>>> etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
>>> 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through
>>> Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
>>>
>>> I don't see anything in there about risk. My point is that people can
> do
>>> the things you're talking about knowing full well they might fail, but
> do
>>> them anyway. That's taking a risk, not having faith. I don't have faith
> but
>>> I've taken lots of personal and professional risks in my life.
>>>
>>> TCB
>>>
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> We can disagree about that but the first line is the dictionary definition.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>> You're confusing 'faith' with 'a willingness to take risks.' Animals
> take
>>>>> risks, to get food, create more animals, etc., but I doubt they have
> faith.
>>>>> One needs no faith to start businesses, invest money, get married, etc.
>>>>> 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 #72658 is a reply to message #72647] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 21:14 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f3862@linux...
>
> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on the nature of
> the threat.
Agreed.
>
> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999, well
> before the 9/11 attack.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
>
> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of overreacting
> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
> preemptive attack policy. :^)
I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There has always been
the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be based on
accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt that Bush,
Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the invasion of
Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's before they
were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard to stomach
the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our intelligence
services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush for the decisions
made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the first place.
Regards,
Deej
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DJ wrote:
> > I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is indication of
some
> > sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we blow the
> > threat away before it pays us a visit?
> >
> >
> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f0b12@linux...
> >> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not news,
it's
> >> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that others
do
> >> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid as
well,
> >> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
> >>
> >> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise money
and
> >> convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly. It
> >> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a declared
> >> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial to have
> >> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
> >>
> >> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole mess. How
do
> >> you declare war on a tactic?
> >>
> >> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead balloon in
> >> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say, Iraq.
> >>
> >> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
> >> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying to get
> >> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
> >> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group with
> >> fantasies of violence in the USA.
> >>
> >> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is nothing
holy
> >> about war.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -Jamie
> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> DJ wrote:
> >>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet. Al Quaeda
> > just
> >>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now and the
> > west
> >>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert to
> > Islam. So
> >>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self defense?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:450ee7ef@linux...
> >>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of our
> > own.
> >>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> -Jamie
> >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom line
is
> >>> that
> >>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > news:450ec970@linux...
> >>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly not
for
> >>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects,
even
> >>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things have
> >>> been
> >>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist
Christians.
> >>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain
extremist
> >>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps seem
> > to
> >>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power
> > hungry
> >>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite religious
wars
> >>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or "secularists"
or
> >>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I think a
> >>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants. It
> >>> doesn't
> >>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
> >>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here, too.
> >>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep does
> > that
> >>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have been
> > an
> >>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only very
> >>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church hung
on
> >>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the universe
> >>> while
> >>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes the
> >>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
> >>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is only
> > about
> >>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and
clever
> >>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries
ago,
> >>> and
> >>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the contrary.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches
who,
> >>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting
evidence
> >>> of
> >>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing, and
> > who
> >>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay big
> > bucks
> >>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who push
> > to
> >>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns blazing,
our
> >>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who
sometimes
> >>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find ways
to
> >>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in
> >>> spreading
> >>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in
power.
> >>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and the
> >>> focus
> >>>>>> on the use of force.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare
victory.
> >>> ;^)
> >>>>>> Have a great week!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> DC wrote:
> >>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
> >>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
> >>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of
> >>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
> >>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
> >>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
> >>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything—including his own words. Benedict
> >>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists
> >>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
> >>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
> >>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
> >>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
> >>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
> >>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
> >>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
> >>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
> >>>>>>> II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
> >>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
> >>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
> >>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
> >>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
> >>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
> >>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and
> >>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
> >>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
> >>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
> >>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point. The
> >>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
> >>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
> >>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only
> >>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
> >>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
> >>>>>>> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
> >>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
> >>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’ to
> >>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
> >>>>>>> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s philosophy—hence
> >>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western “Left’
> >>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than
> >>>>>>> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western “Left”
> >>>>>>> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
> >>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
> >>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
> >>>>>>> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope to
> >>>>>>> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
> >>>>>>> “calling a spade a spade”.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope
> >>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope’s
> >>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
> >>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
> >>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
> >>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
> >>>>>>> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
> >>>>>>> “insult.”
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
> >>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
> >>>>>>> lost on them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over
> >>>>>>> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is
> >>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying
> >>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
> >>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
> >>>>>>> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
> >>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual’
> >>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
> >>>>>>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
> >>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
> >>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists
> >>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
> >>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
> >>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
> >>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
> >>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes:
> >>>>>>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
> >>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the Islamists,
> >>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
> >>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
> >>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
> >>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united
> >>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
> >>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
> >>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any of
> >>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
> >>>>>>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an insult.
> >>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description of
> >>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
> >>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
> >>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
> >>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
> >>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
> >>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience’
> >>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
> >>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
> >>>>>>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
> >>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
> >>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
> >>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
> >>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
> >>>>>>> both are in decline.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
> >>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their pact
> >>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
> >>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
> >>>>>>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
> >>>>>>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or
> >>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this great
> >>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
> >>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures.”
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72661 is a reply to message #72657] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 22:11 |
ulfiyya
Messages: 25
Registered: July 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
for ... many times poeple.
THIS IS NOT A POLITIK SITE!!!
This is ...Paris site (Music) Remember...
Keep youre Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>Thanks for the link. It looks like it might be a more interesting read
>than what you might expect of a book on probability theory.
>
>Without risk management there would be no insurance.
>
>Seems like we have some major risk management headaches ahead in the
>foreign relations area. I don't have much faith that our current
>government understands the situation or is capable of brokering a
>lasting and beneficial peace.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>TCB wrote:
>> I never said faith was limited to religion _at all_ because that would
be
>> silly. I only bring this up because I think it's a very important point.
>> Nearly every time you read 'without faith there would be no XXXXXXXX'
it's
>> just not true and XXXXXXXX can get along just fine without faith. Probably
>> the best popular book about risk is called 'Against the Gods' and it's
sort
>> of about this very topic.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Against-Gods-Remarkable-Story-Risk/dp/ 0471295639/sr=8-1/qid=1158631839/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2500887-29 81628?ie=UTF8&s=books
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> There you go, clearly faith is not limited to religion. Although just
as
>>
>>> clearly it's important for religion.
>>>
>>> As to risk, many people have faith that their risks will pan out. Some
>>> people do things because they have such faith. I know people like that.
>>
>>> I am people like that. That doesn't preclude anyone from doing something
>>
>>> for some other reason, of course.
>>>
>>> If you want to say you don't have faith in anything, using any of the
>>> definitions below, then that's your prerogative and I don't have a
>>> problem with that.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> TCB wrote:
>>>> Here's dictionary.com
>>>>
>>>> faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth]
>>>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>>>> –noun
>>>> 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
>>>> 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
>> would
>>>> be substantiated by fact.
>>>> 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm
>> faith
>>>> of the Pilgrims.
>>>> 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
>> to
>>>> be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
>>>> 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
>>>> 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement,
>>>> etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
>>>> 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath,
>> allegiance,
>>>> etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
>>>> 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made
through
>>>> Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see anything in there about risk. My point is that people can
>> do
>>>> the things you're talking about knowing full well they might fail, but
>> do
>>>> them anyway. That's taking a risk, not having faith. I don't have faith
>> but
>>>> I've taken lots of personal and professional risks in my life.
>>>>
>>>> TCB
>>>>
>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>> We can disagree about that but the first line is the dictionary definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>> You're confusing 'faith' with 'a willingness to take risks.' Animals
>> take
>>>>>> risks, to get food, create more animals, etc., but I doubt they have
>> faith.
>>>>>> One needs no faith to start businesses, invest money, get married,
etc.
>>>>>> 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 #72664 is a reply to message #72658] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 23:22 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt specific
things could have been handled better under the previous government.
The transition of power between the previous and current governments was
pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have doomed the
hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the previous
government. The current government, for example, failed to follow
through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and failed to
prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan;
failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of Afghanistan;
allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there; failed to
plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own state
department; and they have continually exploited the "war on terrorism"
for domestic political ends.
You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief inspector, and Bush
himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff. One of the
Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our government,
was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a position of
power in Iraq after the invasion.
The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a last
resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.) Doctrine."
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f3862@linux...
>> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on the nature of
>> the threat.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999, well
>> before the 9/11 attack.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
>>
>> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of overreacting
>> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
>> preemptive attack policy. :^)
>
> I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There has always been
> the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be based on
> accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt that Bush,
> Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the invasion of
> Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's before they
> were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard to stomach
> the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our intelligence
> services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush for the decisions
> made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the first place.
>
> Regards,
>
> Deej
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is indication of
> some
>>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we blow the
>>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f0b12@linux...
>>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not news,
> it's
>>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that others
> do
>>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid as
> well,
>>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
>>>>
>>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise money
> and
>>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly. It
>>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a declared
>>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial to have
>>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
>>>>
>>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole mess. How
> do
>>>> you declare war on a tactic?
>>>>
>>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead balloon in
>>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say, Iraq.
>>>>
>>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
>>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying to get
>>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
>>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group with
>>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
>>>>
>>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is nothing
> holy
>>>> about war.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet. Al Quaeda
>>> just
>>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now and the
>>> west
>>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert to
>>> Islam. So
>>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self defense?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> news:450ee7ef@linux...
>>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of our
>>> own.
>>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom line
> is
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>> news:450ec970@linux...
>>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly not
> for
>>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects,
> even
>>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things have
>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist
> Christians.
>>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain
> extremist
>>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps seem
>>> to
>>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power
>>> hungry
>>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite religious
> wars
>>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or "secularists"
> or
>>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I think a
>>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants. It
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
>>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here, too.
>>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep does
>>> that
>>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have been
>>> an
>>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only very
>>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church hung
> on
>>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the universe
>>>>> while
>>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes the
>>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
>>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is only
>>> about
>>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and
> clever
>>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries
> ago,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches
> who,
>>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting
> evidence
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing, and
>>> who
>>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay big
>>> bucks
>>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who push
>>> to
>>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns blazing,
> our
>>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who
> sometimes
>>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find ways
> to
>>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in
>>>>> spreading
>>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in
> power.
>>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and the
>>>>> focus
>>>>>>>> on the use of force.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare
> victory.
>>>>> ;^)
>>>>>>>> Have a great week!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DC wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
>>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
>>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of
>>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
>>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
>>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
>>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything—including his own words. Benedict
>>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists
>>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
>>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
>>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
>>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
>>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
>>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
>>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
>>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
>>>>>>>>> II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
>>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
>>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
>>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
>>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
>>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
>>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and
>>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
>>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
>>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
>>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point. The
>>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
>>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
>>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only
>>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
>>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
>>>>>>>>> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
>>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
>>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’ to
>>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
>>>>>>>>> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s philosophy—hence
>>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western “Left’
>>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than
>>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western “Left”
>>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
>>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
>>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
>>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope to
>>>>>>>>> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
>>>>>>>>> “calling a spade a spade”.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope
>>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope’s
>>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
>>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
>>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
>>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
>>>>>>>>> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
>>>>>>>>> “insult.”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
>>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
>>>>>>>>> lost on them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over
>>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is
>>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying
>>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
>>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
>>>>>>>>> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
>>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual’
>>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
>>>>>>>>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
>>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
>>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists
>>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
>>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
>>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
>>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes:
>>>>>>>>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
>>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the Islamists,
>>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
>>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
>>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
>>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united
>>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
>>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
>>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any of
>>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
>>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an insult.
>>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description of
>>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
>>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
>>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
>>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
>>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
>>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience’
>>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
>>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
>>>>>>>>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
>>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
>>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
>>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their pact
>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
>>>>>>>>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or
>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this great
>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures.”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72700 is a reply to message #72661] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 09:31 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
With all due respect ulfiyya, the general consensus here is that anyone can
discuss anything they feel like discussing. This group has morphed into more
of a gathering place for PARIS users and former users. An online coffee
house as such. The key for you is to simply skip the topics you don't want
to read.
Tony
"ulfiyya" <ulfiyya@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:450f7bfa$1@linux...
>
> for ... many times poeple.
> THIS IS NOT A POLITIK SITE!!!
> This is ...Paris site (Music) Remember...
>
>
>
> Keep youre Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>Thanks for the link. It looks like it might be a more interesting read
>>than what you might expect of a book on probability theory.
>>
>>Without risk management there would be no insurance.
>>
>>Seems like we have some major risk management headaches ahead in the
>>foreign relations area. I don't have much faith that our current
>>government understands the situation or is capable of brokering a
>>lasting and beneficial peace.
>>
>>Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>TCB wrote:
>>> I never said faith was limited to religion _at all_ because that would
> be
>>> silly. I only bring this up because I think it's a very important point.
>>> Nearly every time you read 'without faith there would be no XXXXXXXX'
> it's
>>> just not true and XXXXXXXX can get along just fine without faith.
>>> Probably
>>> the best popular book about risk is called 'Against the Gods' and it's
> sort
>>> of about this very topic.
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Against-Gods-Remarkable-Story-Risk/dp/ 0471295639/sr=8-1/qid=1158631839/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2500887-29 81628?ie=UTF8&s=books
>>>
>>> TCB
>>>
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> There you go, clearly faith is not limited to religion. Although just
> as
>>>
>>>> clearly it's important for religion.
>>>>
>>>> As to risk, many people have faith that their risks will pan out. Some
>
>>>> people do things because they have such faith. I know people like that.
>>>
>>>> I am people like that. That doesn't preclude anyone from doing
>>>> something
>>>
>>>> for some other reason, of course.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to say you don't have faith in anything, using any of the
>
>>>> definitions below, then that's your prerogative and I don't have a
>>>> problem with that.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>> Here's dictionary.com
>>>>>
>>>>> faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
>>>>> Pronunciation[feyth]
>>>>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>>>>> -noun
>>>>> 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's
>>>>> ability.
>>>>> 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
>>> would
>>>>> be substantiated by fact.
>>>>> 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the
>>>>> firm
>>> faith
>>>>> of the Pilgrims.
>>>>> 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
>>> to
>>>>> be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
>>>>> 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish
>>>>> faith.
>>>>> 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
>>>>> engagement,
>>>>> etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
>>>>> 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath,
>>> allegiance,
>>>>> etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent
>>>>> troubles.
>>>>> 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made
> through
>>>>> Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see anything in there about risk. My point is that people can
>>> do
>>>>> the things you're talking about knowing full well they might fail, but
>>> do
>>>>> them anyway. That's taking a risk, not having faith. I don't have
>>>>> faith
>>> but
>>>>> I've taken lots of personal and professional risks in my life.
>>>>>
>>>>> TCB
>>>>>
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> We can disagree about that but the first line is the dictionary
>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>> You're confusing 'faith' with 'a willingness to take risks.' Animals
>>> take
>>>>>>> risks, to get food, create more animals, etc., but I doubt they have
>>> faith.
>>>>>>> One needs no faith to start businesses, invest money, get married,
> etc.
>>>>>>> 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 #72705 is a reply to message #72664] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 10:23 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a last
resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service that they
created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to slag and blame
for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they vote against
it.
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f8aec@linux...
>
> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt specific
> things could have been handled better under the previous government.
>
> The transition of power between the previous and current governments was
> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have doomed the
> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
>
> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the previous
> government. The current government, for example, failed to follow
> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and failed to
> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan;
> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of Afghanistan;
> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there; failed to
> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own state
> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on terrorism"
> for domestic political ends.
>
> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief inspector, and Bush
> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff. One of the
> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our government,
> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a position of
> power in Iraq after the invasion.
>
> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a last
> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
>
> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.) Doctrine."
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DJ wrote:
> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f3862@linux...
> >> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on the nature
of
> >> the threat.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999, well
> >> before the 9/11 attack.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
> >>
> >> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of overreacting
> >> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
> >> preemptive attack policy. :^)
> >
> > I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There has always
been
> > the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be based on
> > accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt that Bush,
> > Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the invasion of
> > Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's before they
> > were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard to
stomach
> > the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our intelligence
> > services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush for the
decisions
> > made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the first place.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Deej
> >
> >
> >> Cheers,
> >> -Jamie
> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>
> >>
> >> DJ wrote:
> >>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is indication of
> > some
> >>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we blow
the
> >>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:450f0b12@linux...
> >>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not news,
> > it's
> >>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that others
> > do
> >>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid as
> > well,
> >>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
> >>>>
> >>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise money
> > and
> >>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly. It
> >>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a declared
> >>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial to
have
> >>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
> >>>>
> >>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole mess. How
> > do
> >>>> you declare war on a tactic?
> >>>>
> >>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead balloon in
> >>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say, Iraq.
> >>>>
> >>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
> >>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying to
get
> >>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
> >>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group with
> >>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is nothing
> > holy
> >>>> about war.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> -Jamie
> >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality.............yet. Al
Quaeda
> >>> just
> >>>>> came out with an ultimatim stating that it's full on war now and the
> >>> west
> >>>>> will be destroyed. The only way to save ourselves is to convert to
> >>> Islam. So
> >>>>> where to you draw the line between irrationality and self defense?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > news:450ee7ef@linux...
> >>>>>> Let's keep from reacting to irrationality with irrationality of our
> >>> own.
> >>>>>> There's a lot of fear mongering. Chicken Little is back.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>>>> It doesn't matter at all whether this was the Pope. The bottom
line
> > is
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>> it is rationality as opposed to irrationality.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:450ec970@linux...
> >>>>>>>> The Catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. Certainly not
> > for
> >>>>>>>> Lutherans, and for good reason.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A Pope criticizing other religions (even other Christian sects,
> > even
> >>>>>>>> other Catholics) is nothing new. Certainly much harsher things
have
> >>>>> been
> >>>>>>>> said about Islam by some (not all) extreme fundamentalist
> > Christians.
> >>>>>>>> And certainly much harsher things have been said by certain
> > extremist
> >>>>>>>> Islamists about Christianity. The more extremist of both camps
seem
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>> be spoiling to relive the crusades. With some of the more power
> >>> hungry
> >>>>>>>> ready to endanger civilization by attempting to incite religious
> > wars
> >>>>>>>> for their own questionable ends.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's a vast generalization to say the "the left" or "secularists"
> > or
> >>>>>>>> even "Christians" are demanding an apology from the Pope. I think
a
> >>>>>>>> whole lot of people think the Pope can say whatever he wants. It
> >>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>>> matter to most non-Catholics in the USA and in reality, Papal
> >>>>>>>> declarations are ignored by a fair number of Catholics here, too.
> >>>>>>>> Obviously some Moslems are upset in some places, but how deep
does
> >>> that
> >>>>>>>> go? When black churches were burning in the USA, it would have
been
> >>> an
> >>>>>>>> exaggeration to blame everyone in the USA for that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to the Catholic church which only very
> >>>>>>>> recently apologized for the oppression of Galileo. The church
hung
> > on
> >>>>>>>> tenaciously to the dogma of an earth-centered view of the
universe
> >>>>> while
> >>>>>>>> denying the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which describes
the
> >>>>>>>> actual way the solar system works.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It also extends to a few Christian sects who, feeling similarly
> >>>>>>>> insecure, tenaciously cling to the notion that the earth is only
> >>> about
> >>>>>>>> 6,000 years old, by virtue of the biblical interpretations and
> > clever
> >>>>>>>> (at the time) calculations of an Irish Bishop several centuries
> > ago,
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> in the face of solid current scientific evidence to the contrary.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some (not all) Christian churches
> > who,
> >>>>>>>> feeling similarly insecure, deny the solid and ever-mounting
> > evidence
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> evolution, responding with dogma in psuedo-scientific clothing,
and
> >>> who
> >>>>>>>> seek to water down scientific education in the USA.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to power hungry industries who pay big
> >>> bucks
> >>>>>>>> to spread denial about global warming for short term gain. Who
push
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>> control oil in the middle east with force. With our guns blazing,
> > our
> >>>>>>>> soldiers dying and our debt rising astronomically. And who
> > sometimes
> >>>>>>>> hide behind Christianity to do so.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The fear of reason extends to some neoconservatives who find ways
> > to
> >>>>>>>> pretend that everyone is aligning against Christianity. And in
> >>>>> spreading
> >>>>>>>> this fear attempt to incite Christians to vote to keep them in
> > power.
> >>>>>>>> And in so pandering, help to continue the denial of reason and
the
> >>>>> focus
> >>>>>>>> on the use of force.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Not that I'll change your mind, DC, so go ahead and declare
> > victory.
> >>>>> ;^)
> >>>>>>>> Have a great week!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> DC wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I thought this was worth reading if any of you are interested.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
> >>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial
> >>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of
> >>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God
> >>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of
> >>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief
> >>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything—including his own words.
Benedict
> >>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular
humanists
> >>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the
> >>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened
> >>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between
> >>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash
> >>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His
> >>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance
> >>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist Right.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech.
> >>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel
> >>>>>>>>> II: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there
> >>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command
> >>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature
> >>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
> >>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
> >>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of
> >>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam
and
> >>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
> >>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
> >>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
> >>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point.
The
> >>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
> >>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be
> >>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only
> >>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
> >>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
> >>>>>>>>> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
> >>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
> >>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’
to
> >>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
> >>>>>>>>> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s
philosophy—hence
> >>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western “Left’
> >>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought
than
> >>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western “Left”
> >>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
> >>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
> >>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
> >>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope
to
> >>>>>>>>> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
> >>>>>>>>> “calling a spade a spade”.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope
> >>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope’s
> >>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not
> >>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and
> >>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
> >>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not
> >>>>>>>>> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
> >>>>>>>>> “insult.”
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
> >>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is
> >>>>>>>>> lost on them.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over
> >>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is
> >>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying
> >>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a
> >>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
> >>>>>>>>> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
> >>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual’
> >>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
> >>>>>>>>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
> >>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
> >>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the
Islamists
> >>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
> >>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of
> >>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
> >>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
> >>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
editorializes:
> >>>>>>>>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
> >>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the Islamists,
> >>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
> >>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
> >>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
> >>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are
united
> >>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
> >>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
> >>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any
of
> >>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God is
> >>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an
insult.
> >>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description
of
> >>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
> >>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
> >>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
> >>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
> >>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
> >>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience’
> >>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can
> >>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
> >>>>>>>>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
> >>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
> >>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
> >>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
> >>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
> >>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
> >>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their pact
> >>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
> >>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to
> >>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
> >>>>>>>>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word
or
> >>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this
great
> >>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in
> >>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures.”
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: An interesting paradox - Islam and the Pope [message #72708 is a reply to message #72700] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 11:00 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
i nominate you for john's diplomat search..props to you...damn, i
wasn't going to enter this fray...
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:31:50 -0500, "Tony Benson"
<tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>With all due respect ulfiyya, the general consensus here is that anyone can
>discuss anything they feel like discussing. This group has morphed into more
>of a gathering place for PARIS users and former users. An online coffee
>house as such. The key for you is to simply skip the topics you don't want
>to read.
>
>Tony
>
>
>"ulfiyya" <ulfiyya@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:450f7bfa$1@linux...
>>
>> for ... many times poeple.
>> THIS IS NOT A POLITIK SITE!!!
>> This is ...Paris site (Music) Remember...
>>
>>
>>
>> Keep youre Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Thanks for the link. It looks like it might be a more interesting read
>>>than what you might expect of a book on probability theory.
>>>
>>>Without risk management there would be no insurance.
>>>
>>>Seems like we have some major risk management headaches ahead in the
>>>foreign relations area. I don't have much faith that our current
>>>government understands the situation or is capable of brokering a
>>>lasting and beneficial peace.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>TCB wrote:
>>>> I never said faith was limited to religion _at all_ because that would
>> be
>>>> silly. I only bring this up because I think it's a very important point.
>>>> Nearly every time you read 'without faith there would be no XXXXXXXX'
>> it's
>>>> just not true and XXXXXXXX can get along just fine without faith.
>>>> Probably
>>>> the best popular book about risk is called 'Against the Gods' and it's
>> sort
>>>> of about this very topic.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Against-Gods-Remarkable-Story-Risk/dp/ 0471295639/sr=8-1/qid=1158631839/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2500887-29 81628?ie=UTF8&s=books
>>>>
>>>> TCB
>>>>
>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>> There you go, clearly faith is not limited to religion. Although just
>> as
>>>>
>>>>> clearly it's important for religion.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to risk, many people have faith that their risks will pan out. Some
>>
>>>>> people do things because they have such faith. I know people like that.
>>>>
>>>>> I am people like that. That doesn't preclude anyone from doing
>>>>> something
>>>>
>>>>> for some other reason, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to say you don't have faith in anything, using any of the
>>
>>>>> definitions below, then that's your prerogative and I don't have a
>>>>> problem with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>> Here's dictionary.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
>>>>>> Pronunciation[feyth]
>>>>>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>>>>>> -noun
>>>>>> 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's
>>>>>> ability.
>>>>>> 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
>>>> would
>>>>>> be substantiated by fact.
>>>>>> 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the
>>>>>> firm
>>>> faith
>>>>>> of the Pilgrims.
>>>>>> 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
>>>> to
>>>>>> be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
>>>>>> 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish
>>>>>> faith.
>>>>>> 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
>>>>>> engagement,
>>>>>> etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
>>>>>> 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath,
>>>> allegiance,
>>>>>> etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent
>>>>>> troubles.
>>>>>> 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made
>> through
>>>>>> Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see anything in there about risk. My point is that people can
>>>> do
>>>>>> the things you're talking about knowing full well they might fail, but
>>>> do
>>>>>> them anyway. That's taking a risk, not having faith. I don't have
>>>>>> faith
>>>> but
>>>>>> I've taken lots of personal and professional risks in my life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> We can disagree about that but the first line is the dictionary
>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>>> You're confusing 'faith' with 'a willingness to take risks.' Animals
>>>> take
>>>>>>>> risks, to get food, create more animals, etc., but I doubt they have
>>>> faith.
>>>>>>>> One needs no faith to start businesses, invest money, get married,
>> etc.
>>>>>>>> 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: Mon Nov 18 21:32:34 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06188 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
