Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
I am refuting it. He said Christian radicals are the "taliban" of Christianity. I refute that. There are radical Christians out there, but we aren't responsible for thousands and thousands of deaths. We don't support the barbaric treatment of women.
I would imagine that the victims of the crusades, spanish inqusition, salem witch trials (etc, ad nauseum) might not agree with you...
I would imagine that the victims of the crusades, spanish inqusition, salem witch trials (etc, ad nauseum) might not agree with you...
Just Sayin'.
This reminds me of a line by Christopher Marlowe in his play "The Jew of Malta.": "Thou hast committed fornication: but that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead."
Beating the dead horse of the past is not a remedy for redemption. I believe Jim in CT is referring to present day Christianity.
This reminds me of a line by Christopher Marlowe in his play "The Jew of Malta.": "Thou hast committed fornication: but that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead."
Beating the dead horse of the past is not a remedy for redemption. I believe Jim in CT is referring to present day Christianity.
Doesn't mean their poo don't smell.
Shall we go into cults and what they have done in the name of "God"?
They're present day!
Doesn't mean their poo don't smell.
Shall we go into cults and what they have done in the name of "God"?
They're present day!
Sure, lets go into all the cults, including the progressive cult that treats government as a god, and what that cult has done, under their god's guise of "fairness" and "equality," to individual rights. And that's present day!
It appears that people think their god is better than other folk's god. Don't everyody's god poo stink? That seems to be the nature of poo.
If you don't poo in my back yard, I won't poo in yours.
This reminds me of a line by Christopher Marlowe in his play "The Jew of Malta.": "Thou hast committed fornication: but that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead."
Beating the dead horse of the past is not a remedy for redemption. I believe Jim in CT is referring to present day Christianity.
And that reminds me of George Santayana's famous quote:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
If one is willing to live life by the tenets set forth in a two thousand year old book, then they shouldn't conveniently ignore all of the events that occurred afterwards (as a direct result of said book). That goes for christianity, islam, judaism, etc, etc.
And that reminds me of George Santayana's famous quote:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
I admire Santayana's writings very much. I especially am in tune with his views on nature. Not the syruppy isn't it all beautiful and scenic and lets take a picture view, but on nature being the foundation through which we experience life.
As for the quote of which you are reminded, it has become a truism. We now apply it to the horrors and wars of the past. But Santayana was not referring only to destructive events, he was talking about the destruction of the past itself. There is much in history that he loves. He is very much a traditionalist and a believer that much of the past is good and we would not be "condemned" to repeat but would be blessed to retain.
A fuller quote which includes what immediately is written before the famous passage is: "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
This so much applies to what has happened in the history of our country. The Founders searched the past, and retained that which previous experience from classical history to their present day would best secure natural liberty. They weren't about absolute change. They were about improving history and the liberty of the beings that populate it. Then, a movement, progressivism, sprung from cataclysmic 19th century thinkers who wanted to reject the past as a means to improve the lot of the common man. Their "theories" were not based in nature as a foundation, but nature to be tamed and molded to fit what they considered good. That movement spread to "intellectuals" here, ironically, as an administrative method copied from Prussia which was instituted there to keep the masses from overthrowing the monarchy. The Progressives considered the Constitution "outdated," irrelevant, and an obstruction to their goal of an all-powerful system of central government which could more efficiently deliver and administer an "effective" freedom to the people rather than a merely legal freedom garanteed by the Constitution. It is this administrative system based on "modern" thinkers rather than past experience which we have today. Actually that "modern" system has been applied in recent history from WWI to the present in the West and, in a more severe form, in the East. It is no longer modern and the experience of effective liberty has not been as beneficial to freedom as was legal liberty. Actually the trajectory has been to benefit collective groups at the expense of the individual.
To that point, you might consider another Santayana quote: "individualism is in one sense the only possible ideal; for whatever social order may be most valuable can be valuable only for its effect on conscious individuals."
Another quote by him that I find more interesting than the rest: "There is eternal war in nature . . . War is but resisted change; and change must needs be resisted so long as the organism it would destroy retains any vitality." This can not only apply, again, to the Constitution and the war being waged on it and the resistance to that change if there is enough vitality left in the resistance. It also gives the lie to the quest for peace without victory. We are the product of war. Every molecule of our being is at war to survive and flourish against constant invasions of microbes and forces of nature. It is a war which we, as individuals will eventually lose. But we live on with the progeny who survive natural deaths and unnatural abortions and who will continue the battle. Our universal, material, biological inheritance is composed of this battle and every fiber of our being is informed by it. It is our natural mode. We must win to survive. We cannot compromise in this battle, not only with the forces of nature, but against the human forces that wish to enslave or destroy us. Santayana also said "Only the dead have seen the end of war." Peace will come with victory, either by those who wish to enslave or those who wish to be free. And that peace will last only until the next battle.
If one is willing to live life by the tenets set forth in a two thousand year old book, then they shouldn't conveniently ignore all of the events that occurred afterwards (as a direct result of said book). That goes for christianity, islam, judaism, etc, etc.
We humans have this wonderful capacity to misread. Often we do so intentionally. If we have a purpose that may be a direct contradiction to a bible, or a Constitution, but knowing the influence of quoting or adhering to that bible or constitution, we may with malice "interpret" those binding documents in a way that makes it easy to impose other than what is in them. Such is the unfortunate and malicious way that good books and constitutions are corrupted and thus lead to "events that occur afterwards," and which can erroneously be seen "as a direct result" of those documents.
As for The Bible, the "New Testament" version, much is blamed on it, such as inquisitions and conquests, which are not professed in the book. Certainly there have been those who seemed to read the words in ways not intended and twisted them to aid in horrific events. Blaming the Bible would assume, since you consider it the direct cause, that such horrific events would not have occurred if there was no Bible. Nonsense. The Bible was an excuse. Something else would have been the cause if there was no Bible. Remember the quote about those who cannot remember the past. The original history of Christianity was one of suffering and persecution and poverty and enslavement. Christ was a redeemer of the unfortunate, not a torturer. Those that forgot that message were the cause of being condemned to repeat the horrors that original Christians wanted us to escape.
Last edited by detbuch; 10-26-2012 at 07:45 PM..
Reason: typos and addition
We humans have this wonderful capacity to misread. Often we do so intentionally. If we have a purpose that may be a direct contradiction to a bible, or a Constitution, but knowing the influence of quoting or adhering to that bible or constitution, we may with malice "interpret" those binding documents in a way that makes it easy to impose other than what is in them. Such is the unfortunate and malicious way that good books and constitutions are corrupted and thus lead to "events that occur afterwards," and which can erroneously be seen "as a direct result" of those documents.
As for The Bible, the "New Testament" version, much is blamed on it, such as inquisitions and conquests, which are not professed in the book. Certainly there have been those who seemed to read the words in ways not intended and twisted them to aid in horrific events. Blaming the Bible would assume, since you consider it the direct cause, that such horrific events would not have occurred if there was no Bible. Nonsense. The Bible was an excuse. Something else would have been the cause if there was no Bible. Remember the quote about those who cannot remember the past. The original history of Christianity was one of suffering and persecution and poverty and enslavement. Christ was a redeemer of the unfortunate, not a torturer. Those that forgot that message were the cause of being condemned to repeat the horrors that original Christians wanted us to escape.
Excellent points. What a great discussion. Thank you for expanding upon Santayana's message. I particularly like the "eternal war" segment- Could you source that for me? I'd like to read it in its fullest.
While I agree with you that the bible was used as an excuse, the fact remains that it was the direct cause. It doesn't matter that someone could have found a different excuse if there was no bible. My point (and vaguely relating to SD's original topic) is simply that religious extremism is present in both religions. Obviously there's nothing identical to the Taliban in modern day (<50 years) christianity (unless you consider the catholic church and altar boys), but the history of both religions is stained with blood.
And it's still worth noting that while I'm not religious, I do feel that overall the Bible (and other religious tomes- the Quran, Torah, etc) have contributed to more good than evil in this world. They are all a simple collection of guidelines, intended to be interpreted loosely in order to promote fellowship. Like you said- it's the zealots and crazies that give the religions a bad name. I'm not a subscriber to blind faith- while I consider myself extremely spiritual, I don't get organized religion. I've seen too many people profess themselves as "good christians", yet they lie, cheat, steal, and are quite generally abominable. But for some people, religion is their answer, and it really helps them turn their life around. I can respect that.
I still think I follow the George Carlin tenets though.
Excellent points. What a great discussion. Thank you for expanding upon Santayana's message. I particularly like the "eternal war" segment- Could you source that for me? I'd like to read it in its fullest.
The quote is from an essay "tipperary" found in a collection of essays (he calls them soliloquies) entitled "Soliloquies in England and Later Soliloquies." If you can't get the book at the library, you can probably find the essay (or the entire book) on line. It is elusive and sometimes hard to track down. It was, for me, one of the most influential essays I have ever read. Read it a long time ago in my college days when I was more impressionable. But rereading it impresses me as much or more than it did then. Only that which is in quotes in my post is Santayana's. The rest is my extrapolation from what he says. Though it was written in 1922, I think, it is timeless and relevant today. If you can't find it, let me know.
While I agree with you that the bible was used as an excuse, the fact remains that it was the direct cause.
I have to respectfully disagree. If I knowingly twist something you say as an excuse or a cause to commit a murder or other mayhem, especially if what you say directs me to do the opposite, the direct cause would be my personal motives, not your words. If a sympathetic jury was persuaded that you didn't maliciously twist words and was erroneously inspired by them to do harm, they might let you off with a lesser sentence depending on the severity of the crime, but could not condemn the words whose meaning was the opposite of what you interpreted. The direct cause would not be the words but your misinterpretation of them. Otherwise, since good can be so easily corrupted and then be the cause of evil, why do good?
It doesn't matter that someone could have found a different excuse if there was no bible.
It matters because it demonstrates that the bible was not needed. Therefor it was not the cause.
My point (and vaguely relating to SD's original topic) is simply that religious extremism is present in both religions. Obviously there's nothing identical to the Taliban in modern day (<50 years) christianity (unless you consider the catholic church and altar boys), but the history of both religions is stained with blood.
Sure, it makes sense to believe that extremism exists, not only in both, or all, religions, but the same sense would lead you to believe that extremism exists in all things human. The problem with making anything useful of that sense is that those you consider to be extreme believe that they are not, and, perhaps, that you are. If by extreme you simply mean out of step with the majority of a group, that could "mean" innumerable things. It could be a pejorative difference to those who have collectivist mentalities, or it could be a desirable trait to individualists. Being extreme, in itself, says very little other than a severe difference. Extremities can be simply functional with no connotation of "good" or "bad." On the other hand, they can be descriptive moral or social qualities. You can be extremely good or extremely good at something. Or extremely bad. But, again, the good or bad can be a matter of opinion.
As for Mourdock's supposedly "extreme" view, there are obviously differing opinions whether his belief is good or proper or correct. If the extreme is merely that his views are a minority opinion, there is no quality to that other than numbers.
And so much of history, whether it be religious, political, economical, social, whatever, is, as you say, "stained in blood." That is part of nature's eternal war. Those that think that the blood staining will stop if we could all just get along and all think the same way,and that clashes among differing tribes will melt by a universal peace treaty (without victory) don't have a very clear picture of what drives humanity.
And it's still worth noting that while I'm not religious, I do feel that overall the Bible (and other religious tomes- the Quran, Torah, etc) have contributed to more good than evil in this world. They are all a simple collection of guidelines, intended to be interpreted loosely in order to promote fellowship. Like you said- it's the zealots and crazies that give the religions a bad name. I'm not a subscriber to blind faith- while I consider myself extremely spiritual, I don't get organized religion. I've seen too many people profess themselves as "good christians", yet they lie, cheat, steal, and are quite generally abominable. But for some people, religion is their answer, and it really helps them turn their life around. I can respect that.
I still think I follow the George Carlin tenets though.
Spiritually, we have a lot in common. George Carlin, not so much. He's VERY (extremely?) funny . . . but not so deep. Perhaps, I have learned to be more tolerant of "extremists" when they have no impact on my life--such as mourdock's supposed extremism. Extremism can be a spice of life. It can lead to "good" change as well as "bad." The mediocre in-between seldom moves anything.
Wow,way to keep the thread going with no clue what I meant.I certainly was not comparing Christianity with the Taliban. The comparison was between two groups who take their religious beliefs to the extreme. In my opinion detbutch and JimCT(shock) display just that when compared with the majority of their Christian peers. I think the Taliban subscribe to similar passion when compared with the majority of their peers. I would also venture a guess that history would reveal more deaths in the name of Ghristianity than all other religions combined.
I would imagine that the victims of the crusades, spanish inqusition, salem witch trials (etc, ad nauseum) might not agree with you...
Just Sayin'.
OK, I am talking abuot the times we live in. If you can find any victims of those crimes, I will apologize.
Christians are humans, which mean swe are all far from perfect. But we are not, in any way, the moral equivalent of the Taliban. We don't hurt thousands of people in the name of our religion.
OK, I am talking abuot the times we live in. If you can find any victims of those crimes, I will apologize.
Christians are humans, which mean swe are all far from perfect. But we are not, in any way, the moral equivalent of the Taliban. We don't hurt thousands of people in the name of our religion.
Comment was meant more tongue-in-cheek. But for a few examples:
Army of God bombing abortion clinics?
The KKK?
Catholic/Protestant conflicts in Ireland?
Anders Breivik?
The NAZIS?? (which to be fair about half of the ruling party members rejected christianity, but radical christian ideology was a major part of the propaganda)
My point is simply that when it comes to religion, no one's hands are clean.
Unless you're a Buddhist. I can't think of any Buddhist bombings
Hybrid Mode
