Yee haw
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-06-2017, 07:06 AM
RE: Yee haw
(07-06-2017 02:50 PM)AB517 Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 01:22 PM)Dr H Wrote:  America needs “a more violent Christianity.”

The call to violence is bad enough, but in America a lot of these nutbags are also armed.

of course this doesn't seem like a good idea. But a liberal society is a very dangerous society. as we are seeing. So softer words are needed for the softed minded people I guess. the truth just doesn't work for people.

More dangerous than any other society?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2017, 07:10 AM
RE: Yee haw
(08-06-2017 07:01 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Of course that is subject to interpretation, but as Cosmo pointed out that leads to a "statistical propensity" for bad behaviors.

Sounds like something testable there? But hey ya know, even if you can find stats to back it up, alcohol leads to bad behaviour, yet I don't see people outlawing booze. Religion is such a personal thing. I'm extremely anti this broad-brush bullshit of calling all Muslims bad people for the actions of the few. All it does is give the dickheads of the world more justification for being dickheads. Plus, what if I am a Muslim? Am I supposed to change my religion like I change my socks because it's a bad religion? Peoples' minds don't work like that.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
08-06-2017, 07:14 AM
RE: Yee haw
Christianity has been (more or less) dragged into the 20th/21st century, kicking and screaming all the way. Islam hasn't. Whether or not it's inherently more violent, I think Bucky's the expert on this (well, much more than I am). The Qu'ran does literally call for the slaughter of infidels, though, so there's that.

Luckily, most people, everywhere, tend to be decent human beings, regardless of their delusion de choice.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Vera's post
08-06-2017, 08:16 AM
RE: Yee haw
(07-06-2017 02:50 PM)AB517 Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 01:22 PM)Dr H Wrote:  America needs “a more violent Christianity.”

The call to violence is bad enough, but in America a lot of these nutbags are also armed.

of course this doesn't seem like a good idea. But a liberal society is a very dangerous society. as we are seeing. So softer words are needed for the softed minded people I guess. the truth just doesn't work for people.

A liberal society is a dangerous society? How the fuck can you justify that statement? There are far less liberal and far more dangerous societies out there. And what exactly do you mean by "dangerous"? Dangerous how? In what way? Dangerous to whom? And liberal in what way? What parts of the "liberal" society make it dangerous?

Holy shit I don't even know what it means to say "A liberal society is a dangerous society" because that has no definition of the terms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2017, 11:14 AM
RE: Yee haw
(08-06-2017 07:14 AM)Vera Wrote:  Christianity has been (more or less) dragged into the 20th/21st century, kicking and screaming all the way. Islam hasn't. Whether or not it's inherently more violent, I think Bucky's the expert on this (well, much more than I am). The Qu'ran does literally call for the slaughter of infidels, though, so there's that.

Luckily, most people, everywhere, tend to be decent human beings, regardless of their delusion de choice.

This to me is the most succinct explanation of the situation that I've seen.

~ The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you ~
-Neil Degrasse Tyson
[Image: stairway_to_heaven_by_tomtr.png]
~ 0 ~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2017, 12:26 PM
RE: Yee haw
(08-06-2017 07:14 AM)Vera Wrote:  Christianity has been (more or less) dragged into the 20th/21st century, kicking and screaming all the way. Islam hasn't. Whether or not it's inherently more violent, I think Bucky's the expert on this (well, much more than I am). The Qu'ran does literally call for the slaughter of infidels, though, so there's that.

Luckily, most people, everywhere, tend to be decent human beings, regardless of their delusion de choice.
My thought has been that Islam lacks anything for itself that's equivalent to the Enlightenment, which led to Christianity being dragged kicking and screaming at least somewhat into the present. Or at least set up a system whereby it can, as a whole, follow the present day by a discrete generation or so (with some notable stand-out exceptions, such as that the Catholic church did not kinda-sorta admit it was wrong about Galileo until just a few years ago).

The usual rejoinder to this thought is that Islam HAD a renaissance or golden age already, long before the Enlightenment in the West (back when the Arabic world was leading in mathematics and science). It was simply crushed by fundamentalist elements. My thought is that it still needs another one, and perhaps that the original one never decisively "took". The other possibility is that nationalist populism is on track to crush the influence of the Western Enlightenment, a scary possibility that I don't want to even contemplate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mordant's post
08-06-2017, 03:55 PM
Yee haw
(08-06-2017 07:01 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 08:42 PM)Rachel Wrote:  And I disagree about it being the fault of the Qur'an. It's the fault of the believer who sets their religious text into political action.

Unlike Christianity, Islam recognizes no separation between religion and politics. Muhammad was a military and political leader as well as a religious leader, and is considered by many Muslims to be the ideal exemplar of human behavior. Of course that is subject to interpretation, but as Cosmo pointed out that leads to a "statistical propensity" for bad behaviors.

Of course, you could also argue that Christianity has committed worse atrocities historically, but that might be due to Christians having more power than Muslims, not to their religion being more barbaric.

Bottom line, religious-style thinking of whatever variety leads to some terrible problems.


As you well know, there are those who would remove the separation between church and state and install a Christian theocracy in all but name. While Islam was spread at the point of a sword, the same can be said for Christianity, particularly how the religion was spread in he New World by the Spanish.

I absolutely agree that religious-style thinking invites disaster. Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" addresses this quite eloquently, even if the people who should have understood his point failed to do so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rachel's post
08-06-2017, 06:24 PM
RE: Yee haw
(07-06-2017 09:03 PM)Cosmo Wrote:  @Rachel

There are two things you are failing to address:
1) If you read the Quran, comparatively to the Bible, it is easy to see that the mental leaps required in order to make the Islamic faith progressive are enormous in comparison to Christianity (which has some barely redeeming qualities in the NT.) I am not saying that the Bible doesn't have some absolutely nasty bits, because it certainly does, but the Quran literally says inside of it that its followers are not allowed to scrutinize it... which leads to;
The Bible also contains passages which suggest that it is not to be questioned. Or that advocate belief without evidence, which amounts to the same thing. For example:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
-- Hebrews 11:1

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
-- John 20:29


Quote:2) It is the statistical propensity for a system of thought to produce anti-humanist outcomes. In the case of Islam, the statistical propensity in the modern day is enormously higher than any other religion.
Perhaps. Or perhaps we're just noticing that propensity of Islam more right now, because their violent fundamentalists happen to be more active right now.

20-30 years ago few Americans were concerning themselves with issues of Islamic terrorism, because they were more concerned with Christian fundamentalists sending death threats to doctors and blowing up clinics.

Quote:A discussion about Islamic Theocracy is ongoing in the Muslim Billboard thread, where I hashed out my thoughts in fair detail. I don't want to do it again.

It is certainly possible for one ideology to be more toxic than another ideology. As a left leaning moderate, I can say with certainty that I don't want Islamic schools of thought gaining any ground in Western culture.
Sure, it's possible.
Buddhism is usually considered pretty innocuous. But even Buddhists have been known to rouse themselves to violence now and again. See Sri Lanka.

No religion escapes this, because religions are like political systems: their first duty is self-preservation, second it to create a clear "us/them" dichotomy, and third is to bring more members into the fold (e.g. conversions). None of these things are passive.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dr H's post
08-06-2017, 06:37 PM
RE: Yee haw
(08-06-2017 07:01 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 08:42 PM)Rachel Wrote:  And I disagree about it being the fault of the Qur'an. It's the fault of the believer who sets their religious text into political action.

Unlike Christianity, Islam recognizes no separation between religion and politics.
Plenty of Christian sects don't recognize that distinction, either.

Witness the fact that eight states still religious test clauses in their constitutions.
Supreme court actions have since rendered them essentially moot, but only within the last 20 years.

Then there's the movement to repeal the Johnson amendment:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/po....html?_r=0

And stuff like this:
https://www.amazon.com/Political-Christi...0983145792

Quote:Bottom line, religious-style thinking of whatever variety leads to some terrible problems.
There we are.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dr H's post
08-06-2017, 06:43 PM
RE: Yee haw
(08-06-2017 07:10 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(08-06-2017 07:01 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Of course that is subject to interpretation, but as Cosmo pointed out that leads to a "statistical propensity" for bad behaviors.

Sounds like something testable there? But hey ya know, even if you can find stats to back it up, alcohol leads to bad behaviour, yet I don't see people outlawing booze.

They're still working on that in the US. Not an outright ban -- tried that once; disastrous results -- but neo-probies are alive and well, and chipping away at our right to get sloshed.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: