Why are we still whining about what happened centuries ago? Sure, it was horrible and it shouldn't be forgotten. But should we carry the blame for what our ancestors did?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Caspar, I'd appreciate it if, in the future, you don't refer to me as Naive. I know what the heck I'm talking about when it comes to this; and I work very hard to educate myself to these kinds of things. You come off as extremly arrogant when you do things like this, and it's not something that helps your argument at all. I'm also aware that Islam is not a sola scriptura religion, but religion is the topic here.
You and I can surely agree that there is a difference between the religion as laid down by the scripture it chooses to use and the way the religion is practiced/relgious dogma. All the quote means is that, by the religion the way it is laid down in the scripture, it is supposed to be introverted. Now, if people don't follow that tenant (as in the exmaple you gave) that is not a fault of the religion...that is a fault of the practitioner in question. It's the same reason I don't generally have problems with Christianity as a religion and it's message...I have problems with the dogma and the way that it's practiced.
Since the topic of this thread is "Religion" and not "Religious Dogma" or "Religious People", I decided to go for a literal interpretation of the word. Apparantly, you feel the need to contracdict me based on the dichotomy of theory/pracice. That's fine, and I agree that there is a major gulf there. However, don't assume that just because I didn't bring it up, you need to take a patronizing attitude to "enlighten" me to my obvious mistake. I am aware of it, and resent your patronizing attitude.
While I appreciate the fact that you are trying to enlighten another person...you may want to try some tact (or, perhaps, establishing first that the person in question really does need enlightenment). You can help educate people, but you don't need to be patronizing about it.
You and I can surely agree that there is a difference between the religion as laid down by the scripture it chooses to use and the way the religion is practiced/relgious dogma. All the quote means is that, by the religion the way it is laid down in the scripture, it is supposed to be introverted. Now, if people don't follow that tenant (as in the exmaple you gave) that is not a fault of the religion...that is a fault of the practitioner in question. It's the same reason I don't generally have problems with Christianity as a religion and it's message...I have problems with the dogma and the way that it's practiced.
Since the topic of this thread is "Religion" and not "Religious Dogma" or "Religious People", I decided to go for a literal interpretation of the word. Apparantly, you feel the need to contracdict me based on the dichotomy of theory/pracice. That's fine, and I agree that there is a major gulf there. However, don't assume that just because I didn't bring it up, you need to take a patronizing attitude to "enlighten" me to my obvious mistake. I am aware of it, and resent your patronizing attitude.
While I appreciate the fact that you are trying to enlighten another person...you may want to try some tact (or, perhaps, establishing first that the person in question really does need enlightenment). You can help educate people, but you don't need to be patronizing about it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Why are we still whining about what happened centuries ago? Sure, it was horrible and it shouldn't be forgotten. But should we carry the blame for what our ancestors did?[/QUOTE]
Exactly, the only relevant events, information, etc. are those of the present.
Exactly, the only relevant events, information, etc. are those of the present.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Why are we still whining about what happened centuries ago? Sure, it was horrible and it shouldn't be forgotten. But should we carry the blame for what our ancestors did?[/QUOTE]
Exactly, the only relevant events, information, etc. are those of the present.[/QUOTE]
So therefore, German neo-Nazis can feel free to re-form the NSDAP. It wasn't THEIR fault, right?
Oh, and while we're at it, why not another Stalinist in Russia? The candidate didn't kill 10 million, did he?
The point here is, that Jingles and you are only right up to a point.
Exactly, the only relevant events, information, etc. are those of the present.[/QUOTE]
So therefore, German neo-Nazis can feel free to re-form the NSDAP. It wasn't THEIR fault, right?
Oh, and while we're at it, why not another Stalinist in Russia? The candidate didn't kill 10 million, did he?
The point here is, that Jingles and you are only right up to a point.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME] You and I can surely agree that there is a difference between the religion as laid down by the scripture it chooses to use and the way the religion is practiced/relgious dogma. All the quote means is that, by the religion the way it is laid down in the scripture, it is supposed to be introverted. Now, if people don't follow that tenant (as in the exmaple you gave) that is not a fault of the religion...that is a fault of the practitioner in question. It's the same reason I don't generally have problems with Christianity as a religion and it's message...I have problems with the dogma and the way that it's practiced.
Since the topic of this thread is "Religion" and not "Religious Dogma" or "Religious People", I decided to go for a literal interpretation of the word. Apparantly, you feel the need to contracdict me based on the dichotomy of theory/pracice. That's fine, and I agree that there is a major gulf there. [/QUOTE]
You want to discuss religion in its pure form? Fine, come see me at the Divinity faculty sometime. However, when we are talking about religion in a topic like this, we are referring to religion as it is practiced. Theory is good, interesting and relevant, but only insofar as it is practiced. I could have a field-day talking about Leviticus and the intollerant evils it wishes to enforce, but the majority of it isn't practiced, thus it isn't relevant. Or should I refer to Judaïsm as a severely homicidal religion because Leviticus is part of their Law, officially?
Since the topic of this thread is "Religion" and not "Religious Dogma" or "Religious People", I decided to go for a literal interpretation of the word. Apparantly, you feel the need to contracdict me based on the dichotomy of theory/pracice. That's fine, and I agree that there is a major gulf there. [/QUOTE]
You want to discuss religion in its pure form? Fine, come see me at the Divinity faculty sometime. However, when we are talking about religion in a topic like this, we are referring to religion as it is practiced. Theory is good, interesting and relevant, but only insofar as it is practiced. I could have a field-day talking about Leviticus and the intollerant evils it wishes to enforce, but the majority of it isn't practiced, thus it isn't relevant. Or should I refer to Judaïsm as a severely homicidal religion because Leviticus is part of their Law, officially?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Beliefs are like concrete, and information is like water. Once you close yourself off to new information, new ideas, etc., your beliefs solidify, and they become increasingly difficult to break. I like to keep my mind "wet" with a constant flow of new ideas.[/QUOTE]
Awesome analogy!
Awesome analogy!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Why are we still whining about what happened centuries ago? Sure, it was horrible and it shouldn't be forgotten. But should we carry the blame for what our ancestors did?[/QUOTE]
Exactly, the only relevant events, information, etc. are those of the present.[/QUOTE]
So therefore, German neo-Nazis can feel free to re-form the NSDAP. It wasn't THEIR fault, right?
Oh, and while we're at it, why not another Stalinist in Russia? The candidate didn't kill 10 million, did he?
The point here is, that Jingles and you are only right up to a point.[/QUOTE]
You're still wrong.
German neo-Nazis can feel free to do whatever they wish, and it isn't wrong until they infringe upon the rights of someone else. Up until that point, they are doing nothing wrong, and any past occurences have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on that.
The reasons for not putting a Stalinist in Russia is due to his political views not being consistent with a good government. If he doesn't kill people, he cannot be blamed for those 10 million deaths. If he does kill people, he can ONLY BE BLAMED FOR THE DEATHS HE CAUSES.
Unlike most things, this is quite clear and simple. The actions of those who came before you should have NO bearing whatsoever upon you.
Exactly, the only relevant events, information, etc. are those of the present.[/QUOTE]
So therefore, German neo-Nazis can feel free to re-form the NSDAP. It wasn't THEIR fault, right?
Oh, and while we're at it, why not another Stalinist in Russia? The candidate didn't kill 10 million, did he?
The point here is, that Jingles and you are only right up to a point.[/QUOTE]
You're still wrong.
German neo-Nazis can feel free to do whatever they wish, and it isn't wrong until they infringe upon the rights of someone else. Up until that point, they are doing nothing wrong, and any past occurences have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on that.
The reasons for not putting a Stalinist in Russia is due to his political views not being consistent with a good government. If he doesn't kill people, he cannot be blamed for those 10 million deaths. If he does kill people, he can ONLY BE BLAMED FOR THE DEATHS HE CAUSES.
Unlike most things, this is quite clear and simple. The actions of those who came before you should have NO bearing whatsoever upon you.
That is a completely disgusting over-relative version of events. Under no circumstance can you claim a neo-nazi to be theoretically a legal politician, same goes for the Stalinist.
In saying that a Stalinist can't come to power because his system of government wouldn't work, while you do not say the same of a neo-nazi, you have yet again shown your true colours.
Oh, and for your information: Stalinism WORKED, economically. It was just a completely inhuman system. Nazism, however, worked NEITHER morally nor economically: the only credits on their balance-sheets came from the war-industry. Save for that, they didn't do shit for the country. What an achievement it was.
In saying that a Stalinist can't come to power because his system of government wouldn't work, while you do not say the same of a neo-nazi, you have yet again shown your true colours.
Oh, and for your information: Stalinism WORKED, economically. It was just a completely inhuman system. Nazism, however, worked NEITHER morally nor economically: the only credits on their balance-sheets came from the war-industry. Save for that, they didn't do shit for the country. What an achievement it was.
Someone needs to remind me why we even bother debating with Caspar.
He's obviously not open to a civil debate about anything, because if you don't agree with him he calls you names and then gets arrogant about how he knows all.
He's obviously not open to a civil debate about anything, because if you don't agree with him he calls you names and then gets arrogant about how he knows all.
I think he missed my point.
A straw man is good for scaring crows, but is very bad for making arguments.
A straw man is good for scaring crows, but is very bad for making arguments.