Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Zip Napalm wrote:
Are you speaking of a broad definition of faith?

Somewhat. Faith is closely tied to the metaphysical as what you choose to believe has a great deal to do with what can be known.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Thats an incredibly broad definition of religious.

That's the idea. I find it more illustrative, and accurate, than "religion is anything attached to God".

That's the idea. I find it more illustrative, and accurate, than "religion is anything attached to God".

Don't we already have words and phrases that can cover that ground without reapropriating something that has a common usage though?

ShumaGorath wrote:
Don't we already have words and phrases that can cover that ground without reapropriating something that has a common usage though?

We do, but the relationship through a single word establishes a comparison which is useful when confronted with Harris-style atheism.

This isn't meant to be an attack on anyone here.
But I get SO TIRED of the "Who's worse" tit for tat between atheists and religious folks on this forum.
Comparing genocide figures to figure out which "side" is worse...gah.

'Course I've only myself to blame for continuing to read the threads. But a lot of the time you can learn something, people just need to cool their jets a bit and not be so damn defensive all the time.

Da Boss wrote:This isn't meant to be an attack on anyone here.
But I get SO TIRED of the "Who's worse" tit for tat between atheists and religious folks on this forum.
Comparing genocide figures to figure out which "side" is worse...gah.

'Course I've only myself to blame for continuing to read the threads. But a lot of the time you can learn something, people just need to cool their jets a bit and not be so damn defensive all the time.

Agreed.
I have no idea why I read all of that but I cant see why people even bother starting a discussion about things they would never be willing to change their views on. Why try to argue things that are completely irrelevant to what the OP was about, just to get into the same endless discussion that people have been having, for no good reason, for hundreds of years.

I'm never getting the time back i spent reading that. and for that reason i'm annoyed

The same reason it always happens: its amusing, distracting, engrossing, immersive, or otherwise interesting. Oh, and it does occasionally change minds. If it didn't, then everyone would believe exactly the same thing at exactly the same time now and forever.

On the topic of idolatry, consider certain inalienable objects such as the Statue of Liberty, the Sphinx, inside the Washington Monument, Mount Rushmore, the Buddha in Hydrabad, General Shaw in Turret Square, there are many others. Why should their presence bring a need for violins?

G

On the topic of communism being a religion or not, i believe and so do many scholars that it was in post first world war Russia and was and still is in China. idols of the leader are in every citizens home, just because there isn't a god involved doesn't mean that the faith isn't anymore real.

Green Blow Fly wrote:On the topic of idolatry, consider certain inalienable objects such as the Statue of Liberty, the Sphinx, inside the Washington Monument, Mount Rushmore, the Buddha in Hydrabad, General Shaw in Turret Square, there are many others. Why should their presence bring a need for violins?

Because some nice music is just the thing for looking at land marks.

Mods - Please PM me on exactly which so called 'holy' books are on your 'Do Not Mock' list. I want to know what self-verifying subjects are off limits. I think you owe me a ban.
And on topic:

I find it troubling that a person of any faith is willing to justify violence over a cartoon. It would seem to me that any rational person would be more concerned about discussing why a cartoon was worth violence rather than "well at least it wasn't *my* faith" fingerpointing.

The catch to this is 'terror'. There's a certain demented sense to this - "make a cartoon we don't like, and we'll kill you and your children" is a powerful statement. A moment of levity on a cocktail napkin suddenly has potential bloody repercussions. Moreover the application of such (intended) atrocity - a man in his prime attacking an old man and a child - implies a willingness to use overwhelming force. Machiavelli and Sun Tzu pointed folks in this very direction (and Orson Scott Card for that matter. Ender was a bastard). This of course presumes that this wasn't one man's distilled crazy.

I wonder what other liberties people are willing to sacrifice for fear of axe wielding crazies. Will we stop reading Sutter Caine, driving from Joliet to Chicago to save an Orphanage because of this sort of thing or stand up as world citizens and cry 'no more'?

I find it troubling that a person of any faith is willing to justify violence over a cartoon.

All faiths are capable of rationalizing all forms of violence. It's easily within human capacity to rationalize killing for almost any cause, it's why we punish offenders for doing so. The human brain is not a perfect thing, just as one can kill for money, duty, or honor they can also do so for faith or out of anger. The reasons are fairly meaningless, with the right stimulus a person can be made to kill regardless of the actual meaning or nature of the offense (ask anyone in blackwater, traveling across half the world to kill someone for money is all to common).

I wonder what other liberties people are willing to sacrifice for fear of axe wielding crazies. Will we stop reading Sutter Caine, driving from Joliet to Chicago to save an Orphanage because of this sort of thing or stand up as world citizens and cry 'no more'?

I'm not sure what you mean. No liberties were reduced, and the cartoon has been shown hundreds of times. Hell, I saw it just yesterday (again) a year after it was originally created in the news. If you mean that mans specific liberties, well then you're probably going to have to take that up with the mufti that issued the fatwa, and the extremist organization that put up the million dollar bounty.

Fifty wrote:"How dare you draw a cartoon implying Islam is violent! Now die for your crime!"

QFT sigged

I don't think that you can say anyone could be convinced to kill. I'm certain a lot of people will never kill and that's a good thing too. Violence is the last resort for those unenlightened.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I don't think that you can say anyone could be convinced to kill. I'm certain a lot of people will never kill and that's a good thing too. Violence is the last resort for those unenlightened.

G

As a basic function of the brains drive to survive anyone can be put into a situation where they would kill, from there it's a matter of controlling factors determining what the actual reasoning is behind the reaction. Certainly it's much, much harder to get some to kill, and indeed given enough learned behavior it could be next to impossible (society is meant to instill this pacifistic behavior as a default, though it does a bad job, human nature is violent we are not a pacifistic species). But the capacity for violence exists within every capable person.

ShumaGorath wrote:All faiths are capable of rationalizing all forms of violence.

Making them possibly equally hypocritical? This should present rational people with less comfort. If 'faithful' people are somehow enriched by faith (leaving questions about the value of others) then shouldn't they be better than this?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Nobody's gone out to put more than a few sharp objects in John Carpenter (Sutter Caine). Belushi and Akroyd (Joliet-Chicago road trip) seem relatively unharmed - minus the OD.

No liberties were reduced

Really? No special treatment for Islam here none at all.Nothing to see here. Nobody gets special treatment None at all. Although this one might be a tad unfair.

If Islamic Extremists haven't become the most recent bogeymen have I been reading the wrong news sources? (I concede Malkin is only useful as an aggregator.) Islam doesn't get other Islamic criticism, yet Christians taking issue with abortion clinics are just isolated crazies. (Not to derail on the ethics of said medical procedure - it has little relevance here beyond extremism.) Christians can call each other crazies, but there's not a whole lot of Muslim Outrage published about this sort of misbehavior.






edit: Link fixing. laugh at some, mock others at your leisure

There are many recorded instance of persons in dangerous situations did not kill even when arguably it may have been best for them to have done so.

G

Destrado wrote:Let's not forget that the bible got translated and probably a lot of stuff changed/misinterpreted by scribes and monks, so it's further away from the original one than the Koran.

No.... lets DO forget this, because it's blatantly not true to say that it's "further away from the original". You have no ground to make such a claim since you don't know what you are talking about or you wouldn't have made it. Yes there were some minor changes that do not effect major doctrines of orthodoxy. But minor changes and differences does not equate to an Ordinal change, making it "further away from the original" as you claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote: however you show a complete lack of understanding of what and why that violence took place.

What and why are irrelevant to a comment meant to elucidate the presence of violence in a text.

You're having a problem internalizing that comment because you have some sort of problem with violence as a whole. Your instinct to inviolate your faith is leading you to react harshly to something that was no more than a bare statement of fact.

OK where are there "calls for violence" in the new testament, that would make that a statement of fact?

My instinct had nothing to do with what you call "inviolating my faith" but more to do with not wanting someone that doesn't know the new testement, to be fooled into thinking something was there (like calls for violence in the new testament) that clearly isn't. Stop trying to psychoanalyze me Dogma, your very bad at it, and especially bad at being an internet shrink. :-)

generalgrog wrote:
OK where are there "calls for violence" in the new testament, that would make that a statement of fact?

Matthew 10:34-36

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

You can read that passage as a metaphor for the familial nature of all mankind, or you can read it as an exultation of violence in the service of God. Essentially the same way one can read the more violent passages in the Koran.

generalgrog wrote:
My instinct had nothing to do with what you call "inviolating my faith" but more to do with not wanting someone that doesn't know the new testement, to be fooled into thinking something was there (like calls for violence in the new testament) that clearly isn't.

Except it is. You might not adhere to the more violent meaning, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hence the point about speaking against anything you perceive as being profane.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oldgrue wrote: Christians can call each other crazies, but there's not a whole lot of Muslim Outrage published about this sort of misbehavior.

To be fair, most Muslims don't speak or write in English.

dogma wrote:That's only a command to kill if you want it to be.

No, it isn't a polite suggestion. Trying to reason otherwise, especially in context, is almost stupidly obtuse.

dogma wrote:Idolatry in Islam generally relates to those who direct their worship towards men, as opposed to God. People who worship God in accordance with another monotheistic tradition are not considered to be idolaters.

Not true. Muslim fundamentalists will consider any graven image, ie any painting or sculpture of anything that isn't an abstract idea, as a violation of the 10 Commandments, and therefore idolatry. Even still, moderate muslims will consider the use of the Cross, Crucifix, statues of saints, etc. as idolatry. So to say that it excludes all followers of monotheistic religion is quite simply false.

dogma wrote:Matthew 10:34-36

So you took a passage that is a parable for how His message will cause problems between families. He does not condone violence by any interpretation. Also, He was quoting Scripture, not telling you to kill your family if they don't believe.

dogma wrote:You can read that passage as a metaphor for the familial nature of all mankind, or you can read it as an exultation of violence in the service of God.

No you can't, but then again, you do largely ignore orthodoxy in order to try and declare your twisted reading as valid. Let me say this loud and clear: The interpretation you have suggested for Matthew 10:34-36 is not embraced by any Church that adheres to any sense of orthodoxy, and not (to my knowledge) even by any church that is in a state of heresy or apostasy.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
OK where are there "calls for violence" in the new testament, that would make that a statement of fact?

Matthew 10:34-36

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

True that. And isn't there a certain story where Jesus beat up the merchants in the temple and drove them out?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:

dogma wrote:Matthew 10:34-36

So you took a passage that is a parable for how His message will cause problems between families. He does not condone violence by any interpretation. Also, He was quoting Scripture, not telling you to kill your family if they don't believe.

dogma wrote:You can read that passage as a metaphor for the familial nature of all mankind, or you can read it as an exultation of violence in the service of God.

No you can't, but then again, you do largely ignore orthodoxy in order to try and declare your twisted reading as valid. Let me say this loud and clear: The interpretation you have suggested for Matthew 10:34-36 is not embraced by any Church that adheres to any sense of orthodoxy, and not (to my knowledge) even by any church that is in a state of heresy or apostasy.

The Bible is the word of God, no? So if the Churches are refusing to embrace the Word of God, they are clearly not following his will...

Emperors Faithful wrote:True that. And isn't there a certain story where Jesus beat up the merchants in the temple and drove them out?

Considering Christ is God incarnate, and they were defiling His temple, I think He had a right...

Emperors Faithful wrote:The Bible is the word of God, no? So if the Churches are refusing to embrace the Word of God, they are clearly not following his will...

That comment doesn't even make sense. You are assuming Dogma presents a valid interpretation, which it isn't, and further you are assuming it is the only one that is right. Why does everyone assume the Bible has to be read completely literally? Such notions are foolish, and not to mention a product of Enlightenment philosophy, not of the Church.

JEB_Stuart wrote:No, it isn't a polite suggestion. Trying to reason otherwise, especially in context, is almost stupidly obtuse.

Does the precious like its emotion to originate from within? It must, because your draping the comment in your own aesthetics.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Not true. Muslim fundamentalists will consider any graven image, ie any painting or sculpture of anything that isn't an abstract idea, as a violation of the 10 Commandments, and therefore idolatry. Even still, moderate muslims will consider the use of the Cross, Crucifix, statues of saints, etc. as idolatry. So to say that it excludes all followers of monotheistic religion is quite simply false.

No, quite true. Stop pretending as though a comment with the qualifier 'generally' is an absolute fact. I know its hard for you orthodox folk, but it can be done.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
So you took a passage that is a parable for how His message will cause problems between families. He does not condone violence by any interpretation. Also, He was quoting Scripture, not telling you to kill your family if they don't believe.

Any interpretation which you believe. Welcome to the world of the English language, in which words have meanings thats are wholly unintended.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
No you can't, but then again, you do largely ignore orthodoxy in order to try and declare your twisted reading as valid.

You don't understand validity if the phrase above is your common usage.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Let me say this loud and clear: The interpretation you have suggested for Matthew 10:34-36 is not embraced by any Church that adheres to any sense of orthodoxy, and not (to my knowledge) even by any church that is in a state of heresy or apostasy.

That's nice. I don't care. I care about logic, and valid statements. Whether or not those relate to that which you believe is completely lacking in relevance.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:True that. And isn't there a certain story where Jesus beat up the merchants in the temple and drove them out?

Considering Christ is God incarnate, and they were defiling His temple, I think He had a right...

I notice how you don't adress the issue that Jesus not only encouraged, but utilised violence himself. Regardless of the reasons or 'right'. A slight Catch 22 on his previous preaching.

Emperors Faithful wrote:The Bible is the word of God, no? So if the Churches are refusing to embrace the Word of God, they are clearly not following his will...

That comment doesn't even make sense. You are assuming Dogma presents a valid interpretation, which it isn't, and further you are assuming it is the only one that is right. Why does everyone assume the Bible has to be read completely literally? Such notions are foolish, and not to mention a product of Enlightenment philosophy, not of the Church.

I'm not.
I was demonstrating that such a dogmatic (pun not intended) approach easily leads to radical sects splitting off, which are NOT a true reflection of the mainstream religeon. (For both Islamic and Christian religeons)

This thread is being closed due to it.. oh, you can read it and figure it out for yourselves. Really.