|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 25, 2018 14:46:15 GMT
What I just explained. You even quoted it in full. It is hard to see whether Arlon is here talking about "Christianity" (i.e. things he defines to suit himself, convenient to his argument) or Christianity (the more expected, and usual use of the term), such is the opaque nature of his logic. In this sort of context there is quite a semantic difference. That is, one can claim any old thing as one's own, but any old thing won't do for the rest of us.
Meanwhile, here is another dictionary definition for him to argue against (and win, naturally)
A moment's thought would show the opposite: that much of the strife, internecine or otherwise of various religions down through history would demonstrate that it is in fact often all about contested rules - (which religions are full of) whether those pertaining to such things as how one follows a faith, who is in charge or which god is, as a matter of rule, the one which we have to believe in. And of course all the rules, and the arguments pertaining, are justified regularly through the rule of holy words. Bad luck if you are burning at the stake, stoned in the marketplace, or have your cities pillaged and burnt as a result. But at least Arlon has one thing right: ultimately it is hard to tell one religion apart from another through respective claims about supposed unique metaphysical and moral insights; none has been objectively proven more true than the rest. Of course Arlon would agree with this. Not least since he has recently asserted that any such positive proofs are impossible... |
|
|
|
Post by sublime92 on Jun 26, 2018 0:00:03 GMT
I love how we as a species use religion to get creative.
Take for example the Crusades of the middle ages and modern day Jihads. They both describe conditions in which one side invades another country to commit murder of the local citizens. The Crusaders also raped and pillaged, something the jihadists haven't adopted yet. Each side claims that their war is holy so everything is justified.
The people who are killed are called murder victims, collateral damage or a justified target depending on who you ask.
The people who do the killing are called "god's soldiers" or terrorists, depending on which side one is on. They are called freedom fighters if this happens in another country and they happen to be on your government's payroll.
This mixes well with the Commandmet that says "thou shalll not kill". For the first century of its existence, Islam was absolutely soaked in blood. The killing only slowed down as the Islamic empire finally ran into boundaries in the 8th century, after about a century of expansionist, imperialist, unprovoked Islamic aggression. Even after the initial expansion slowed, the killings did not end. Slaughter (jihad) and oppression (sharia) are part of the core doctrines of Islam. Killing for Islam is not a modern idea, and it will never end until some sort of reformation takes place within the religion. Medieval Christianity was equally violent, but Christianity has since reformed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2018 22:39:01 GMT
I love how we as a species use religion to get creative.
Take for example the Crusades of the middle ages and modern day Jihads. They both describe conditions in which one side invades another country to commit murder of the local citizens. The Crusaders also raped and pillaged, something the jihadists haven't adopted yet. Each side claims that their war is holy so everything is justified.
The people who are killed are called murder victims, collateral damage or a justified target depending on who you ask.
The people who do the killing are called "god's soldiers" or terrorists, depending on which side one is on. They are called freedom fighters if this happens in another country and they happen to be on your government's payroll.
This mixes well with the Commandmet that says "thou shalll not kill". For the first century of its existence, Islam was absolutely soaked in blood. The killing only slowed down as the Islamic empire finally ran into boundaries in the 8th century, after about a century of expansionist, imperialist, unprovoked Islamic aggression. Even after the initial expansion slowed, the killings did not end. Slaughter (jihad) and oppression (sharia) are part of the core doctrines of Islam. Killing for Islam is not a modern idea, and it will never end until some sort of reformation takes place within the religion. Medieval Christianity was equally violent, but Christianity has since reformed. Medieval Christianity was equally violent, but Christianity has since reformed.
I'm calling BS on that one. In fact your response proves my statement. How, you ask? Well, we bomb them with drones, invade their countries, etc. The only difference between us and them in terms of committing atrocities is which side one is on.
Just ask yourself - was William Wallace a traitor and terrorist or a hero and patriot? It's kind of hard to answer when the person is white!!!
|
|
