muslims PART 2

[inked]

Reality check number 2,343,626..............

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...408781,00.html

[Spock]

Lief Erikson People get 100% sure of themselves whether they have a scripture or not. .....

...cut and paste on the refrigerator

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

...cut and paste on the refrigerator

You quoted Lief there, not me. I'm being oppressed!!

Originally Posted by Spock

OPPRESS! OPPPPPPPPPPRESSSSSSS!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Reality check number 2,343,626..............

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...408781,00.html

Kind of like the spanish inquisition, except that was christians doing the persecuting.

[inked]

or the Communists in USSR and currently in China, you mean, BJ?

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Yes. And the way for people to keep an open mind is to realize that they don't really know anything 100%. .

Cut and paste on the refrigerator.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Kind of like the spanish inquisition, except that was christians doing the persecuting.

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

or the Communists in USSR and currently in China, you mean, BJ?

Yep, think relative, not absolute.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Some argue that the best form of government is a Benevolent Monarchy, which is what all religions essentially attempt to be.

And they are right.

GM, Churchill was wrong. Better forms have been tried.

Originally Posted by BJ

They must realize that truths are relative, yet at the same time interdependant, and approach human society with this in mind.

Except that truth isn't relative, it's absolute.

[inked]

O great and glorious, GW:

You shall never convince BJ that truth is absolute. I should know. I have been challenging the absolutism in his "everything is relative" for years and it still hasn't gotten past his Siegfried Line of calciumed cranium. The only absolute is BJ's contention that everything is relative. I am considering a trial of a depleted uranium encased projectile, but I have little hope that it could penetrate his obduracy that only one thing is absolute and that's relativism.

Good luck!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Yes. And the way for people to keep an open mind is to realize that they don't really know anything 100%.

However, even when people accept with their mouths that they don't know anything 100%, often they will behave as though they know things 100%, rejecting any argument that disagrees with them, no matter how much evidence there is to support it.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

They must realize that truths are relative, yet at the same time interdependant, and approach human society with this in mind.

If you defined truth as "the state of reality," how would you rephrase this sentence, may I ask?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You say: "The only way for people to really keep an open mind is for them to not know anything".

Not at all. You can have all kinds of personal convictions and still have an open mind. An open mind is not about what you believe to be true. It is about what you allow and accept other people to believe as true.

I suppose you're opposed to voting, then. By voting you're regecting and not allowing what some people believe is true. I suppose you're opposed to the police force as well, for by having a police force, we reject and don't allow what some people believe is true (some criminals). If we have to allow and accept what anyone believes is true, since there will be so much disagreement, we won't have any government, law or civilization at all. Anarchy is all that's left.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

"Right" is not what works for you. It is what works the best for everyone on this planet in the long term.

"Works the best," is a vague phrase- I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Works best to accomplish what objective?

Also, you can't benefit everyone in the long term. What benefits some people has costs for others.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The problem with fundamentalists is that they do not have the ability to put themselves in other people's shoes, because the very nature of fundamentalism demands that all people wear the same shoes.

Christian fundamentalism requests that all people wear the same shoes, if "wear the same shoes," means share the same faith. Fundamentalist Christians do not force people to change religion. They do attempt to keep laws out of government that seem to them to be wrong, of course, just as anyone else does, or SHOULD. They act on their beliefs, and they act on doctrine. Christian doctrine is nonviolent, however, therefore real fundamentalists are nonviolent.

Historically, people now viewed as Christian "fundamentalists," did force people to change their religion, and used incredible violence against people who didn't share their faith. However, "fundamentalism," is defined in the dictionary as strict adherence to doctrine, and unwillingness to change that doctrine. Christians who reinterpret scripture or ignore major parts of it are not fundamentalists.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

However, even when people accept with their mouths that they don't know anything 100%, often they will behave as though they know things 100%, rejecting any argument that disagrees with them, no matter how much evidence there is to support it.
.

....this should be required to be printed out and pasted on many members computer monitors

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

O great and glorious, GW:

You shall never convince BJ that truth is absolute. I should know. I have been challenging the absolutism in his "everything is relative" for years and it still hasn't gotten past his Siegfried Line of calciumed cranium. The only absolute is BJ's contention that everything is relative. I am considering a trial of a depleted uranium encased projectile, but I have little hope that it could penetrate his obduracy that only one thing is absolute and that's relativism.

Good luck!

I'm not certain that relativism is absolute, but it certainly appears to be.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

However, even when people accept with their mouths that they don't know anything 100%, often they will behave as though they know things 100%, rejecting any argument that disagrees with them, no matter how much evidence there is to support it.

Tell me about it!

I can only try.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If you defined truth as "the state of reality," how would you rephrase this sentence, may I ask?

Even if the is a creator and absolute truths, we have no way of knowing (absolutely!) what they are. So, in practice, everthing is still relative, including those very "truths".

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I suppose you're opposed to voting, then. By voting you're regecting and not allowing what some people believe is true. I suppose you're opposed to the police force as well, for by having a police force, we reject and don't allow what some people believe is true (some criminals). If we have to allow and accept what anyone believes is true, since there will be so much disagreement, we won't have any government, law or civilization at all. Anarchy is all that's left.

Not at all. Whether something like "thou shalt not kill" is a universal truth or not is irrelavant. We make laws and have police because it improves our society. And by improving society, it improves the lives of individuals. Something is not "bad" because of some universal truth. It is bad because a vast majority of a given society thinks it's bad.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

"Works the best," is a vague phrase- I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Works best to accomplish what objective?

Survival of the individual and the society. And, after that, happiness.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Also, you can't benefit everyone in the long term. What benefits some people has costs for others.

Obviously. That's what society is about, balancing benefits and costs. But my point is that one should balance those in the real world, not with scripture. Like the homosexual debate. If you think it is right or wrong, give real world examples of why and try to convince a majority of people. What any given scripture may say about the issue is irrelavant, or at least should be.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Christian fundamentalism requests that all people wear the same shoes, if "wear the same shoes," means share the same faith. Fundamentalist Christians do not force people to change religion. They do attempt to keep laws out of government that seem to them to be wrong, of course, just as anyone else does, or SHOULD. They act on their beliefs, and they act on doctrine. Christian doctrine is nonviolent, however, therefore real fundamentalists are nonviolent.

Historically, people now viewed as Christian "fundamentalists," did force people to change their religion, and used incredible violence against people who didn't share their faith. However, "fundamentalism," is defined in the dictionary as strict adherence to doctrine, and unwillingness to change that doctrine. Christians who reinterpret scripture or ignore major parts of it are not fundamentalists.

This is the problem: "strict adherence to doctrine, and unwillingness to change that doctrine". While you are right that some fundamentalists do not force people to change, which would be even more problematic, when one holds a certain belief to be absolutely true, they lose the ability to see society clearly. Everything is seen through religion-colored glasses and, instead of looking at the real world sources behind problems, they ascribe them to belief systems.

Basically, it comes back to perspective. Do you approach a problem with a clean slate, or do you frame it within the limitations inherent to any written piece of work. Times change, situations change, people change, and that is what is missing from fundamentalism, the acceptance of change and ultimately true "choice". I would argue that telling someone that they have to accept everything a particular scripture adheres to or nothing at all is not really giving that person a real choice at all.

[inked]

Ah, BJ, surely you must admit that "even if there is a Creator and absolutes, there is no way of knowing what they are (absolutely)" is belied by your evangelical approach to absolute relativism. If the Creator were to tell what the absolutes were, one could know absolutely what they were. Just like you insisting that relativism is absolute certainly.

Now it would appear that you and the Creator (who has told us the absolutes and lived them out) have the same problem: the listeners aren't paying attention or are listening to their own ideas. This should give you a point of contact with the Creator so as to be able to hear.......... .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

How many devout muslims who live comfortably in the united states do you see becoming suicide bombers?

Religious Extremism is Spreading Among Muslim Youth in the U.S.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I also suggest you do some reading on the history of the Klan if you think this kind of reaction is just about belief systems and not about real world conditions.

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying it's "just about belief systems and not about real world conditions." Though belief systems are part of the real world, and a major motivator for many people who aren't you . I'm sure environment is a factor, but religion also is a key factor.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The Klan sprung out of a christian society who felt occupied and threatened by another christian society after defeat during the civil war, and their methods were very similar to those of the muslims in the middle east today.

The Klan emerged not because they felt "occupied" or "threatened" by the North, but because they were afraid of the blacks gaining power. That's why they targetted the blacks in their acts of terrorism and not the North . Their activities were tightly bound to their racism. It came down to belief, the racist ideology that filled the South before the Civil War. That racism had no outlet of slavery any more, so it took the form of violence and terrorism.

Just as racism didn't start with the Klan but needed a new outlet, so modern extremism isn't anything new to Islam. It's just what the religion has always been.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Tell me about it!

I can only try.

I assure you, debating with you makes me feel the same way!

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Even if the is a creator and absolute truths, we have no way of knowing (absolutely!) what they are. So, in practice, everthing is still relative, including those very "truths".

The truths aren't relative, but people's views of what they are differ. People are relative, varying. Our perceptions of truth vary, or are relative to society and time period.

What do you mean, exactly, when you say views of truth are interdependent?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Not at all. Whether something like "thou shalt not kill" is a universal truth or not is irrelavant.

Non-Christians so often use the wrong translation of that verse! I'm just mentioning this so that in the future you'll use the correct translation that comes from the actual Greek, "thou shalt not murder."

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

We make laws and have police because it improves our society. And by improving society, it improves the lives of individuals.

Except that those individuals who objected to the law feel as though it's making their lives worse rather than better (and they might be right!). You're still trampling on the beliefs of some in order to support the views of others.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Something is not "bad" because of some universal truth. It is bad because a vast majority of a given society thinks it's bad.

So in Nazi Germany, the Jews were bad. A large majority there were anti-Semitic.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Obviously. That's what society is about, balancing benefits and costs. But my point is that one should balance those in the real world, not with scripture. Like the homosexual debate. If you think it is right or wrong, give real world examples of why and try to convince a majority of people. What any given scripture may say about the issue is irrelavant, or at least should be.

Regarding homosexuality, first of all, we do present evidence aside from scripture. For instance, the largely unusual family backgrounds of the vast majority of those with homosexual instincts indicates that it's environment that's the cause, and homosexuality is not natural to mankind, or genetic. STDs among male homosexuals show it is not healthy. I've seen low self esteem and consideration of suicide in a lesbian I knew who lived in an environment where homosexuality was praised and heterosexuality was the oddity. Of course that could have been a rarity, but I doubt it. I could offer more on this, but it's not the thread, and I don't really want to get into it, actually.

But Christians also view scripture truth as being part of the "real world."

I'll respond to the rest of your post later today, if I have time.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Ah, BJ, surely you must admit that "even if there is a Creator and absolutes, there is no way of knowing what they are (absolutely)" is belied by your evangelical approach to absolute relativism. If the Creator were to tell what the absolutes were, one could know absolutely what they were. Just like you insisting that relativism is absolute certainly.

You're the one stuck on absolute certainty. I'm just saying that it appears that way. Your absolute thought patterns can't seem to grasp the idea that someone could actually admit to just not being sure but at the same time express an opinion about observations. You leave no room for middle ground or compromise.

I understand your point of view, yet you can not understand mine. That is the problem with the fundamentalist. They can not understand any point of view but their own.

Originally Posted by inked

Now it would appear that you and the Creator (who has told us the absolutes and lived them out) have the same problem: the listeners aren't paying attention or are listening to their own ideas. This should give you a point of contact with the Creator so as to be able to hear.......... .

I'd have to think that if there was a creator he would actually understand his creation better than you seem to and realize that some people would eventually come to the conclusions that I do.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'll respond to the rest of your post later today, if I have time.

Don't worry about it. Our discussions are getting kind of cyclical.

But I suggest you read more about the early KKK. You'll find that their motivations and actions had a lot more to do with reaction to northern occupation of the south than you may think. They were trying to protect their way of life. This involved slavery to a large degree, but that was only part of the picture.

But they were christians, so any evidence that might parallel the muslim experience would be justified away I suppose. All I can say is keep reading and thinking.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Encouraging the more peaceful forms of Islam is one of the solutions I suggested in the strategy I offered. Considering Islam's history and modern trends, however, as well as what the doctrines themselves say, I don't think that this solution is enough on its own. It won't solve the problem.

So what is the solution?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Christian fundamentalism requests that all people wear the same shoes, if "wear the same shoes," means share the same faith. Fundamentalist Christians do not force people to change religion. They do attempt to keep laws out of government that seem to them to be wrong, of course, just as anyone else does, or SHOULD. They act on their beliefs, and they act on doctrine. Christian doctrine is nonviolent, however, therefore real fundamentalists are nonviolent.

Ah, but the problem, Leify, is BJ is here changing what he means by 'fundamentalist'. He claims to define 'fundamentalist' as essentially anyone who considers religious rather than secular truths to be higher, but here he is using it in the more common sense of 'bigoted and intolerant'.

BJ, I say to you, good sir, sophistry! Shame on you and your sophistical ways!