Religion vs. Religion

[Southtown]

Or Mustians, if the order of appearance is important to you.

*cough*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#History

[Boerseun]

*cough*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#History

...the order of appearance in the word, "Mustians", which is a clever concatenation of "Muslims" and "Christians". If the order of appearance in the word irks you, then use the alternative, "Chrislims", which is the same device, only in a different order. This has nothing to do with chronological appearance.

[cwes99_03]

Strawman.

 

Oh wait, I shall show you how.

 

Turtle in no way knows the truth of what I believe as far as my belief in Jesus, his place in my worship, or my association with him. Thus by placing this stance on me, he is setting up a strawman argument by which he is hoping that others who have an equal hatred of those "born again", "Jesus is my savior", type christians to completely ignore anything I have to say.

 

That my friend is a dodge. That is to say, when you have nothing left to say and running crying while slinging mud over your shoulder.

 

Sorry, you can neg rep me for that, as I am being a bit harsh, but sometimes you have to boldly stand up and reveal your opponent for what he is. While I could likewise stoop to the level I see you sitting at Turtle, I will continue to invite you to tread the line, keep on topic, and not overstep forum rules, as I am sure you will continue your reputation attack on me and others who hold different viewpoints than yourself, and continue to assert your "dominance" in the knowledge of all religion and it's "nonsense" viewpoints.

 

 

"Disingenuous logical fallacy"? Say that again to the whole forum InfiniteNow. I respect you, but be truthful. Explain what is 1) disingenuous 2) what is fallacious about that post.

[cwes99_03]

I've said quite explicitly that you don't have to. This is your interpretation. I'll say that continuing to post "there's no solution" is asked and answered: its not germane to this thread (whether your religious, merely a philosopher or an atheist), and you (and *others*) are simply being asked not to keep repeating it. Others who accept a more general definition of Religion are being squeezed out in this side debate, and I'm trying to free up bandwidth.

 

Optimizing Signal-to-Noise,

Buffy

 

I guess the reason I keep coming back, Buffy, is that you dismiss it out of hand and have repeatedly said that I am copping out, or not providing a valid response.

 

The truth is that you have asked for a religious person to answer a question regarding how to resolve religious tension but when that person provides the only answer they hold to be true, you dismiss it and say that a religious answer isn't valid. In doing so you have turned to non-religious answers put forth by Boer who believes that the religious need to choke back their beliefs and submit to the governments authority over portions of their life. This is not a religious answer.

By dismissing my answer you dismiss the answer provided by the Bible, the Q'uran, and probably other holy books.

 

This question has been asked and answered by people throughout history. Read Ghandi's autobiography. He suggested ecumenicalism. I have been trying to show you repeatedly that ecumenicalism is not religion, it is philosophy. The two (holy writing based religion and human philosophy based religion) are at odds with one another.

 

You have your answer, and you refuse to acknowledge that it is even an answer, let alone the answer. If you want a philosophical approach to the answer, then there are numerous ones, because no two governments will agree on how to solve it.

[cwes99_03]

In my opinion, animosity transcends religion. It's just that simple. "Guns don't kill people..." The religions involved with conflict do not determine the nature of the conflict, the people do. Some Muslims are peaceable, some Christians shoot up abortion clinics. "Generalities are useless."

 

Read that very closely. Particularly that last part.

[InfiniteNow]

"Disingenuous logical fallacy"? Say that again to the whole forum InfiniteNow. I respect you, but be truthful. Explain what is 1) disingenuous 2) what is fallacious about that post.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you sure you wanted to address your angst toward me? :hihi:

 

Also, you continue to post non-relevancies as pertains to the subject of the thread. I respect you too, but I am growing concerned as you post more in the same vain...

[Dyothelite]

Buffy said:

"See guys? You're scaring away participants! Stop being such wonderful examples of my point!"

 

It's funny cuz that's why I don't post in religion forums (i mean other ones than this and another I run), because of these types of arguements. I love to encourage debates but religious debates can get ugly. As a future professor of religion I want to promote debate but not start a riot in my classroom.

 

Thats also the refuge I seek in the science community. Let's say I propose a closed system Big Bang theory and someone else proposes an open system "always been there" type of theory. As scientists we would argue but also agree we could both be wrong and would accept defeat gracefully if disproven.

 

Well in religion a closed system Big Bang Theory is essentially either Christian or in the case of a cyclic closed system of explosion, implosion, explosion etc. etc. it is a Hindu concept (Brahman, Vishnu, Shiva). An open system would question the very thread of a closed system proposal. Both questions in science and religion are the same inquiries, but in science you dont start wars over the questions, and you accept you might be wrong in your assertions.

 

Here my point: Scientists seek the origins of the universe and define it certain ways, religion seeks to define the same event of Creation but use different terms. I tend to call it the Creative Principle behind the Big Bang rather than God. But as scientists we dont kill each other over different theories like we do in religion.

[Southtown]

...the order of appearance in the word, "Mustians", which is a clever concatenation of "Muslims" and "Christians". If the order of appearance in the word irks you, then use the alternative, "Chrislims", which is the same device, only in a different order. This has nothing to do with chronological appearance.

Oh sorry. Haha (my bad)

[Buffy]

I've said quite explicitly that you don't have to. This is your interpretation. I'll say that continuing to post "there's no solution" is asked and answered: its not germane to this thread (whether your religious, merely a philosopher or an atheist), and you (and *others*) are simply being asked not to keep repeating it.

I guess the reason I keep coming back, Buffy, is that you dismiss it out of hand and have repeatedly said that I am copping out, or not providing a valid response.

I quite clearly state in my post that you quote here that its simply "not germane" to the scope of this thread as I've defined it. I have done everything I know how to bring you into this discussion as I've circumscribed it. As I have clearly stated, this proposal of "there is nothing to do" is a perfectly valid one, but it is "uninteresting" because it posits that no action whatsoever be taken, and as I have said, my stated goal in this thread is to find actions that would be useful to pursue in order to minimize conflict. Thats not dismissal, that's just saying its not useful to discuss here.

 

I do indeed understand that you do not agree with the premises that I have described, however I have tried to create semantic equivalences between our differing terminologies that would allow you participate in a positive manner: that does *not* necessarily mean that your opinions about these differences are *invalid*, but it does mean that you should set aside your desire to debate these differences in this thread. If you believe that you cannot set aside this debate, then maybe you should not participate in this thread.

 

It is important to note that my disagreement with your definition of terms is something that you will encounter everywhere you go, and that semantic equivalences are important to recognize and are useful mechanisms for enhancing communications with others, lest you find yourself endlessly repeating this debate instead of sharing information on topics that depend upon a common understanding of the concepts.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Actually, Garreau painted himself an optimist in his radio interview.

Not surprising, but personally it sure sounds like "Stay the course" to me! :esheriff:

That's fine, its just off topic here except insofar as to use it in some very relevant way to back up Garreau's "option" (or dare I say, "non-option" as seemingly advocating inaction).

...

Habit is a great deadener, :phones:

Buffy

 

I didn't get the sense Garreau implied 'staying the course', as in 'do nothing' as you later suggest. 'Stay the course' as in continue to advance scientific knowledge which is supplanting religious superstition in an evolutionary way. Habit is also a great 'livener' as in having the habit of using the scientific method or the habit of cooking food thouroughly to prevent illness, etcetera. Even apparently doing nothing can be deceptive, as in when you wait patiently for bread to bake all the way. Is your apparent inactivity doing nothing to make a good loaf? :cup:

[cwes99_03]

You just don't get it. Religion creates the problem. If there was no religion, there would be no problem. Tell me I'm wrong?

 

You're wrong. ;)

No seriously, you're wrong, because there would still be human philosophies that cause wars. Many of the human philosophies (not teachings based on holy writings) that are touted as religion are actually the ones causing the wars. The main part of the "religious" wars today, if one were to follow my logic, are not religious wars at all.

Below this comment, you'll read another quote that says that it wasn't until Constantine took his philosophies and inserted them into a new state religion in the name of Christianity, and later "St." Augustine inserted his philosophies on war in the name of christ, that christians became a warrior faction. Nearly 2,000 years later further philosophy insertion has turned it into, be a Christian when at church but do whatever you want to in the name of God and country when you are asked by your president, premier, emperor, etc.

 

Wow this thread got ugly quick! That's why I stay out of these types of debates. Religion and society, the ever present reality that somehow we have to reconcile the errors of mankind and create peace. Can you truly serve two masters? Jesus and G W Bush (or Caesar)? One says not to kill and the other asks you to kill for a cause? ....I stay as far away from these arguements.

 

I'm waiting for a riot to start in here.

 

God bless America.

 

You say you stay out of them, you say you can't serve two masters, and then you say "God bless America" and then dive into the debate. Any reason why we should believe this above post? Which is it?

 

See guys? You're scaring away participants! Stop being such wonderful examples of my point!

Likewise your heavy fisted rebukes and that of the mods and admins are attempting to scare away valid points simply because you don't want to hear them.

 

Ok I could go on for days about this but I'll start with my serving two masters reference:

 

This can been seen from both sides as ways to validate or invalidate the Christian Church, but I choose to see the historical relevance to today.

 

For the first few centuries of Christianity, Christians were persecuted. They were persecuted for many reasons but one of the greatest reasons that they were seen as trouble makers was because they refused military service and public office. Teachers like Tertullian and Origen taught Christians that they cannot serve two masters: Jesus and Ceasar. Therefore, they refused to kill or serve the government.

 

Then around the turn of the fourth century Constantine made Christianity the state religion. Well, up to this point Christians had the Romans be their army and police for them. The Church was given enormous power but with it came the inevitable reality that politics equals war and crime. During the destruction of Carthage in 425CE (I think) St. Augustine witnessed the destruction of His city. He then proposed the "Christian Just War Theory" which became the basis for the church being able to justify "war in the name of God" (Crusades).

 

Over centuries we finally got to where we are today in America: the separation of church and state, but in the Muslim world there are still schools of thought that teach and practice "Just War" in the name of God. Where we go to war to defend freedom, they go to war because they beleive it is God's will and they are justified by God to do so.

 

So to say this isn't an ever present global problem is a huge understatment. As far as the two masters thing goes, you have three choices: denounce violence and serve peace, embrace war for the sake of peace, or embrace war for the sake of God.

 

You can either go to war because you think God condones it (Holy War) or you can go to war as a solution to a problem and ask to be forgiven by a God who does not advocate Holy War.

 

How about the third, Biblical, option. Have no part with this world, pray for God's kingdom to come, and work in harmony with your prayers and scriptural beliefs. Why isn't this an option?

[cwes99_03]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you sure you wanted to address your angst toward me? ;)

 

Also, you continue to post non-relevancies as pertains to the subject of the thread. I respect you too, but I am growing concerned as you post more in the same vain...

 

Nope, you are absolutely right, I apologize.

CraigD, called me ingenous.

 

I post it here on this thread, because it is an attack on my character and my post. If someone believes my post to be ingenous or logically false, they should address it here. I was inviting him to do so, but accidentally put your name in. Mea culpa. Please forgive me.

[cwes99_03]

I continue to post on this thread, even under threat of ban because you are directing some anger and questioning and blame against me and people like me when we have nothing to do with the problems you discuss.

The only role I have in the religion vs religion thought here, is that I believe other religions to be false. I do not attempt to kill them or shut them up in any way, as some have attempted here. I only attempt to demonstrate the mistakes in argument and the misunderstanding so many have. In doing so, I have suffered much abuse. I take that abuse with a light heart, because I expect it from you. Thanks. I also expect that some of you will come to see the truth and respect it and take up the "fight" for truth.

[InfiniteNow]

Person A: Absolute truth = X

Person B: Absolute truth = Y

 

Person C: Clearly, one or both of you is wrong. So where do we go from here?

 

 

My take is that religious "truths" are wrong because they are framed in the absolute. Science takes the high ground because it is dynamic and changes when previous data is proven inaccurate or incomplete.

 

What can be done? How do we resolve these inconsistencies which are clear to all but the most closed minded? Change the absolute truths such that recognition is made that there are no absolutes except, perhaps, change itself.

[Boerseun]

Person A: Absolute truth = X

Person B: Absolute truth = Y

 

Person C: Clearly, one or both of you is wrong. So where do we go from here?

 

 

My take is that religious "truths" are wrong because they are framed in the absolute. Science takes the high ground because it is dynamic and changes when previous data is proven inaccurate or incomplete.

 

What can be done? How do we resolve these inconsistencies which are clear to all but the most closed minded? Change the absolute truths such that recognition is made that there are no absolutes except, perhaps, change itself.

Definitely a repworthy post. Unfortunately, I can't, seeing as I needs to spreads the love first! But I need to get it on record, though...:hyper:

[Pyrotex]

Person A: Absolute truth = X

Person B: Absolute truth = Y

Person C: Clearly, one or both of you is wrong. ....

Huzzah!

 

Absolutist thinking and pulpit logic are almost always wrong, as is demonstrated adequately by many centuries of history. And such people typically complain that they are being "persecuted for righteousness sake". The truth is, they are being persecuted because they are irrational, absolutist, dogmatic, aggressively critical, offensive and make really bad neighbors.

 

But then, who am *I* to judge! :hyper: ;)

 

Last Stand at the Zombie Corral

[cwes99_03]

Person A: Absolute truth = X

Person B: Absolute truth = Y

 

Person C: Clearly, one or both of you is wrong. So where do we go from here?

 

 

My take is that religious "truths" are wrong because they are framed in the absolute. Science takes the high ground because it is dynamic and changes when previous data is proven inaccurate or incomplete.

 

What can be done? How do we resolve these inconsistencies which are clear to all but the most closed minded? Change the absolute truths such that recognition is made that there are no absolutes except, perhaps, change itself.

 

 

Boer, I'd give it rep for the first part. The last part though is the difficult part of this thread's question.

I've repeatedly said this but in another fashion. I've said if you want to end the strife between religions you must end religions. Boer himself has basically posted this, only he did not seem to realize that he was saying bring an end to religion, he just thinks that the religious should be satisfied with being religious only some of the time.