‘Make Every Woman Wear a Burkha’
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Yes there is - both have tried to conquer other civilizations. The muslims tried for Europe and the christians tried for the Levant. While in modern terms they would appear distinct, they both have histories ripe with theocracy and religious rule and decree. Both studied the arts, science and medicine.
As did every previous civilization, so what?
73Zeppelin wrote:
I fail to appreciate your attempt at christian apologetics.
It isn't christian apologetics. It is an unabashed pride in my own culture, my own people and my own traditions. I do not acknowledge that there exists a equivalancy between our civilization and that of others. They are not all the same. The enligthenment could never have happened in Islam. It will never happen. And that is precisely becuase of fundamental historic differences between the two civilizations.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is an unabashed pride in my own culture, my own people and my own traditions.
Nothing wrong with that, unless you by default assume that the only way to love your way of life, is to look down on all others.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
‘Make Every Woman Wear a Burkha’[^] And now we see the appropriateness of the user-info image I'd used until it was removed as "religiously offensive" (anyone with eyes to see could see that it was a political statement). This Moslem bullshit will never stop until Westerners refuse to put up with it any longer -- but to effectively oppose the Islamization and dhimmification of our societies would mean admiting that we took a wrong-turn at the so-called "Enlightenment," and what are the chances of that happening before it's too late?
-
I have to disagree with you on that. The enlightenment itself was the pinnacle of western civilization. It freed christianity from the state, and established a model for limiting political power to only the enforcement of laws and a few essential responsibilities. The problem occurs when the enlightenment message is coopted by a new form of moral authoritarianism disguising itself as a product of the enlightenment but which is really a means of returning us to pre-enlightenment social and political conditions. The enlightenment was first and foremost about the liberation of humanity from centralized authoritarianism. The modern left is about anything but that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have to disagree with you on that. The enlightenment itself was the pinnacle of western civilization.
Disagree all you want, you're wrong. This so-called pinnacle of civilization gave us, as it must, collectivism/socialism and The Terror which must follow from that (and therefore it gave us all variants of collectivism/socialism and the 100s of millions of human deaths which have inescapably followed).
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Yes there is - both have tried to conquer other civilizations. The muslims tried for Europe and the christians tried for the Levant. While in modern terms they would appear distinct, they both have histories ripe with theocracy and religious rule and decree. Both studied the arts, science and medicine.
As did every previous civilization, so what?
73Zeppelin wrote:
I fail to appreciate your attempt at christian apologetics.
It isn't christian apologetics. It is an unabashed pride in my own culture, my own people and my own traditions. I do not acknowledge that there exists a equivalancy between our civilization and that of others. They are not all the same. The enligthenment could never have happened in Islam. It will never happen. And that is precisely becuase of fundamental historic differences between the two civilizations.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The enligthenment could never have happened in Islam.
Stan, wake up and smell the coffee ... the willful and suicidal foolishness and illogic and irrationality you are trying to argue against -- though you can never succeed, for it is logically impossible to argue with irrationality -- is exactly the state to which the so-called Enlightenment has reduced us.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The enligthenment could never have happened in Islam.
Stan, wake up and smell the coffee ... the willful and suicidal foolishness and illogic and irrationality you are trying to argue against -- though you can never succeed, for it is logically impossible to argue with irrationality -- is exactly the state to which the so-called Enlightenment has reduced us.
I love how you're both right wing nut jobs, but you have to nit pick over the details.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
I have never been to a sporting event in my life
I'm surprised. Not even to the Speedway Track or Greyhound Racing? You have led a sheltered life.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Beer is served at room temperature because it is worth tasting.
I've never had a beer in my life (even the smell of it turns my stomach) ... but I can see the reason of that. Chilling it would change the taste.
-
I love how you're both right wing nut jobs, but you have to nit pick over the details.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have to disagree with you on that. The enlightenment itself was the pinnacle of western civilization.
Disagree all you want, you're wrong. This so-called pinnacle of civilization gave us, as it must, collectivism/socialism and The Terror which must follow from that (and therefore it gave us all variants of collectivism/socialism and the 100s of millions of human deaths which have inescapably followed).
-
‘Make Every Woman Wear a Burkha’[^] And now we see the appropriateness of the user-info image I'd used until it was removed as "religiously offensive" (anyone with eyes to see could see that it was a political statement). This Moslem bullshit will never stop until Westerners refuse to put up with it any longer -- but to effectively oppose the Islamization and dhimmification of our societies would mean admiting that we took a wrong-turn at the so-called "Enlightenment," and what are the chances of that happening before it's too late?
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
We strayed from God's teachings. Or something like that.
I keep trying to understand the idea of a Supreme Being that wants to see His creations murder each other over their various interpretations of Him. Since I've seen hundreds of posts like the OP that seem to be filled with hatred or when they really get going, violence, I have to assume not everyone has this problem. Don't get me wrong, I do understand, better than most, that there are times when men or nations will/must use violence to achieve their goals, I just don't understand claiming that their omnicient, omnipotent, benevolent Creator wants them to do so. :confused:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I would never make the mistake of associating a "Supreme Being's" attitude with the model put forth by followers. In my agnostic ways, what gives me hope with regard to any concept of a Supreme Being is the fact that "it/he/she" doesn't meddle in our experiential affairs. We can be guided, we do have working models, but nevertheless it will always be up to us to implement them. Lest we be a group of unwitting puppets for ye' old puppet master to wield. And I just can't accept that concept and retain respect for such a being. If we are to entertain the concept of free-will, and accept it, why would we complain about it and then ask for that to be subverted by "assistance"? Its our responsibility to clean up our own mess, whether psychological, social, or environmental. Think about this, our planet has all that we need to live a luxurious life. Yet we complicate it. Overpopulate it. Pollute it. Etc ad infinitum. We really could live on nothing and still be wealthy. Think of all the different varieties of fruit/nuts/vegetables/spices. We have all we need to live wealthy. Plenty of real estate, until a committee takes it away and gives it to some corporation. Instead we divide it up, create the notion of private property, slice up the land and call pieces of it off limits, dig up the resources and sell em back to ourselves at some artificial profit, and oh if I could just stop there and not mention GMO. Which we wouldn't need if we weren't throwing a monkey wrench into a beautifully working evolutionary model that took millions of years to perfect. No, I say that if there is a Supreme Being, I would be embarrassed to be face to face and call my self an Earthian. I'd say, let us suffer our own devices. Let us stew in our own juices, for surely we've made this bed and should sleep in it. But, I do think we have all the data we need to have a decent life on this planet. Plenty of opportunity for experience and personal growth. Plenty to suffer through. Remember we aren't judged by our success as much as by our failure, so they say. So, I think that the relationship would have to be similar to what you would have with your garden. Sometimes I have found my garden in a state where to let the good plants grow to fruition I had to leave some of the weeds. To pull the weeds would have shocked the garden. So I let them all grow. The weeds tried to starve the others, but I fed them all. And watched the good ones grow strong along side the weeds. But in the end I only harvested the good plants and the we