Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 >we end up with what we have now - a society in which dumb and dumber are >considered to have an equal right to express their views, vote, become >politicians and make shitloads of money simply because they can hit a ball >or behave badly in front of a camera. Don't hold back, . Why don't you express how you feel? *WEG* Blissings, Sam If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking. -- Denis WaitleyIt is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- AristotleThe goal of an argument should be progress, not victory. -- Author unknownAccept complete responsibility both for understanding and for being understood. -- He's a blockhead who wants a proof of what he can't perceive; And he's a fool who tries to make such a blockhead believe. -- Blake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 >This then covers the whole expression of feeling for INTJ's:>>Basic - "good" "bad">Elevated - "bloody good" "like shit" (both spoken as if it were somewhat >surprising)>Highest level, - "fucking great!" "fucking terrible" Well! Surprise! As an INFP (last time around; it changes and only the IN part seems consistent) that pretty well covers it for me, too, though I gotta admit I do sometimes tend to use words with some finer nuances. Still, your choices work for me, too. Hmm, maybe we have more in common than at first appears. lol Blissings, Sam When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.~ Wayne DyerIdeologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. ~ Eugene IonescuNo single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood. ~ Despair, Inc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 >I shall offer the true meanings of >these as well, for your edification.... Well, you crusty ol' curmudgeon you! Thank you for that edifying post. (But doncha sometimes in the secrets depths of your judging black and white heart sometimes enjoy letting out just a touch of the other pole of your primary functions? C'mon, you know you do!) Blissings, Sam If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking. -- Denis WaitleyIt is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- AristotleThe goal of an argument should be progress, not victory. -- Author unknownAccept complete responsibility both for understanding and for being understood. -- He's a blockhead who wants a proof of what he can't perceive; And he's a fool who tries to make such a blockhead believe. -- Blake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Dear , On what basis do you claim that there are " human rights " that might be violated? " Right " in this context is a noun, implying a thing, a being. What sort of being is it? What sort of being does it have? I have never been able to get a satisfactory answer to this question from the apologists for universal human rights. Now, I think I have some idea of what justice and injustice are, as used by Aristotle and Xenophon (for whom conventional slavery is unjust). I " get " that, at least to a degree. But it seems to me that the whole " universal human rights " thing is as much a myth, or perhaps more a myth, as the creation story in Genesis. TJMTSU. My problem with argument such as yours here (and by no means just yours) is that they seem to start at the roof. Best regards, Dan Watkins > > > Date: 2006/02/13 Mon AM 10:11:57 PST > To: JUNG-FIRE > Subject: slavery > > Dan says: > >> Indeed, it is news to me that slavery has been abolished even now. I think it is still practiced in various Arab countries, perhaps in others as well.<< > > --It's true that the Christian world had the good sense to abolish slavery only 1800 years or so after its scriptures were written, and that there are some holdouts in various parts of the world that consider slavery if not moral, at least profitable. Of course, a modern Christian would say that a Christian who owns a slave isn't a " real Christian " , while Muslims would be condemned as a group. The Bible and the Quran are both violent and " soft " on some human rights violations. Sins of scripture should be exposed, because they have, in the past, been used by large numbers of religious people to justify atrocities like slavery and persecution. It takes some time for the minority within a religion who has a more ethical perspective to turn the tide, and it can't be done just by appealing to scripture. It has to become a wave of moral revulsion and anxiety over participation in systemic evil. Inevitably, the Islamic world will denounce terrorism forcefully enough to put a stop to the > death cults. Most Muslim mothers don't want their kids going to hell for murder. It's understandable that mothers of suicide bombers would find it impossible to believe their sons went to hell, knowing that it was in part a gesture of loyalty to them and their suffering. They would almost have to believe their sons were heroes or martyrs, rather than murderers. But Muslims who have not fallen into the magnetism of the Jihadists are more than aware of what terrorism is doing to the image of Islam in the world, and when a large number of people are cowed into silence, there is always a watershed moment when their voices become known and felt. > > I'm not sure if most slavery is practiced by Muslims, I hear there's a human trafficking problem that's more of a criminal industry than a religiously justified way of life. I've never actually heard a Muslim endorse slavery, but I've heard a number of Christians justify slavery in Biblical times ( " It wasn't so bad for the slaves " they say) or failing to condemn Moses for his acts of genocidal retribution (Numbers 31, and others). I wouldn't say Christianity is inherently evil, but I do believe that " sins of scripture " have to be discussed by modern Christians and Muslims alike, if they want to avoid being left in the position of Pharisees or slavery apologists, fearing that any deviation from dogma is a betrayal of God (and to hell with compassion when hell is at stake, right?) > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Dear , at 02:48 AM 2/14/2006, you wrote: >On what basis do you claim that there are " human rights " that might be >violated? " Right " in this context is a noun, implying a thing, a being. >What sort of being is it? What sort of being does it have? I have never >been able to get a satisfactory answer to this question from the >apologists for universal human rights. You are a bloody nuisance, Watkins, always posing another question that needs to be answered. I think you are really asking where " live and let live " behaviour comes from. It seems there are three types of behaviour which violate this condition, ie, predatory, defensive and parasitic. It also appears that when these behaviours are not required by instinctive need, they are in abeyance - thus the natural state is live and let live. It would seem consciousness abhors pain more than the body, thus such behaviours become categorised as good/bad rather than merely things to be either avoided or accepted. Once this happens people make up laws about things which never had laws before - ultimately the idea of a " universal right " is a consciously constructed defensive fear reaction to a known and recognisable natural behaviour. " You can't do that any more - we have laws now, you know. " BTW, an interesting aside here - if you think about evolutionary drives, then with the introjection of the fight flight syndrome into a self aware consciousness and the resultant safeguarding of the person, ie, his body, by social structure and law we then have the beginnings of " social evolution " which then sees the process of physical evolution discarded and subverted. But in so doing we introduce the possibility of conscious evolution, ie, that now, instead of the most well adapted physically being the survivor, it should naturally be the most well adapted mentally who ought to survive. But - and this is the funny part - with the inevitable introjection of universal human rights into the social conscience where it then becomes a modifier of political consciousness rather than merely an conscious instrument to maintain the bodily safety of ones tribe, it then disallows any evolutionary process to work within consciousness - and we end up with what we have now - a society in which dumb and dumber are considered to have an equal right to express their views, vote, become politicians and make shitloads of money simply because they can hit a ball or behave badly in front of a camera. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Dear Master Heyward, You wrote: Dear , at 02:48 AM 2/14/2006, you wrote: >On what basis do you claim that there are " human rights " that might be >violated? " Right " in this context is a noun, implying a thing, a being. >What sort of being is it? What sort of being does it have? I have never >been able to get a satisfactory answer to this question from the >apologists for universal human rights. >You are a bloody nuisance, Watkins, always posing another >question that >needs to be answered. If you didn't want to be a teacher, you could have worked at the stamping plant - sir. >I think you are really asking where " live and let live " >behaviour comes >from. More than that. I think I understand live and let live under normal - i.e., peaceful - conditions. What I don't understand is the doctrine of " absolute rights " that continue to exist and apply, putatively, even under extraordinary conditions, conditions of exigency and even harsh necessity. Hence, for example, we have to have the Nuremburg trials because everyone has a right to " trial by his peers. " Can't just kill 'em, as Churchill suggested. Can't torture the enemy under any circumstances, even if you can prevent a nuclear attack by doing so. " Rights " become absolutes, such that prudence is, at the very least, seriously compromised. And, since the existence of these rights is asserted, I do think it fair to ask what sort being they have. Can't kick 'em, like a rock. >It seems there are three types of behaviour which >violate this >condition, ie, predatory, defensive and parasitic. It >also appears that >when these behaviours are not required by instinctive >need, they are in abeyance - thus the natural state is live and let live. Yes. Contra Hobbes and the boys, peace is the natural human state. >It would seem consciousness abhors pain more than the >body, thus such >behaviours become categorised as good/bad rather than >merely things to be >either avoided or accepted. Hmmm .... I suspect it was more deliberate than that (cf. Hobbes and the boys, above). >Once this happens people make up laws about >things which never had laws before - ultimately the idea >of a " universal >right " is a consciously constructed defensive fear >reaction to a known and >recognisable natural behaviour. " You can't do that any more - we have laws now, you know. " OK - but why would so many thinking people then appear to accept it? I would say that technology enters into it, but I think the " rights " preceeded the technology for the most part, and indeed facilitated the development of the technology. >BTW, an interesting aside here - if you think about evolutionary drives, then with the introjection of the fight flight syndrome into a self aware consciousness and the resultant safeguarding of the person, ie, his body, by social structure and law we then have the beginnings of " social evolution " which then sees the process of physical evolution discarded and subverted. But in so doing we introduce the possibility of conscious evolution, ie, that now, instead of the most well adapted physically being the survivor, it should naturally be the most well adapted mentally who ought to survive. But - and this is the funny part - with the inevitable introjection of universal human rights into the social conscience where it then becomes a modifier of political consciousness rather than merely an conscious instrument to maintain the bodily safety of ones tribe, it then disallows any evolutionary process to work within consciousness - and we end up with what we have now - a society in which dumb and dumber are considered to have an equal right to express their views, vote, become politicians and make shitloads of money simply because they can hit a ball or behave badly in front of a camera. Well spoken, by God. Bucks me up like a pint of Smythwick's, that does. Best, Dan regards, Dear , at 02:48 AM 2/14/2006, you wrote: >On what basis do you claim that there are " human rights " that might be >violated? " Right " in this context is a noun, implying a thing, a being. >What sort of being is it? What sort of being does it have? I have never >been able to get a satisfactory answer to this question from the >apologists for universal human rights. You are a bloody nuisance, Watkins, always posing another question that needs to be answered. I think you are really asking where " live and let live " behaviour comes from. It seems there are three types of behaviour which violate this condition, ie, predatory, defensive and parasitic. It also appears that when these behaviours are not required by instinctive need, they are in abeyance - thus the natural state is live and let live. It would seem consciousness abhors pain more than the body, thus such behaviours become categorised as good/bad rather than merely things to be either avoided or accepted. Once this happens people make up laws about things which never had laws before - ultimately the idea of a " universal right " is a consciously constructed defensive fear reaction to a known and recognisable natural behaviour. " You can't do that any more - we have laws now, you know. " BTW, an interesting aside here - if you think about evolutionary drives, then with the introjection of the fight flight syndrome into a self aware consciousness and the resultant safeguarding of the person, ie, his body, by social structure and law we then have the beginnings of " social evolution " which then sees the process of physical evolution discarded and subverted. But in so doing we introduce the possibility of conscious evolution, ie, that now, instead of the most well adapted physically being the survivor, it should naturally be the most well adapted mentally who ought to survive. But - and this is the funny part - with the inevitable introjection of universal human rights into the social conscience where it then becomes a modifier of political consciousness rather than merely an conscious instrument to maintain the bodily safety of ones tribe, it then disallows any evolutionary process to work within consciousness - and we end up with what we have now - a society in which dumb and dumber are considered to have an equal right to express their views, vote, become politicians and make shitloads of money simply because they can hit a ball or behave badly in front of a camera. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Dear Sam,at 06:20 AM 2/14/2006, you wrote: >Don't hold back, . Why don't you express how you feel? *WEG* I am INTJ. Ergo, there was not an electron sized glimmer of feeling behind what I wrote. It was a statement of pure, intellectually realised fact. If you are interested to know how I feel, however... then you will have to know me a whole lot better first. :-) INTJ's only have two feelings: ie, " good " and " bad " . " So, how are we feeling today Mr Heyward? " " Er..., good " Actually I must modify - there are three conditions of these particular feelings. This then covers the whole expression of feeling for INTJ's: Basic - " good " " bad " Elevated - " bloody good " " like shit " (both spoken as if it were somewhat surprising) Highest level, - " fucking great! " " fucking terrible " love, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Dear Sam, It occurred to me that my descriptions might still engender incorrect interpretations within other types, so I shall offer the true meanings of these as well, for your edification.... In answer to the question: " So, how do you feel today, Mr Heyward " Ans. " Er... good. " Int. " what did you ask me that for, you moron. I don't feel anything. " Ans. " bloody good " Int. " The whole family is going away for a month's holiday overseas - except me. " Ans. " Fucking great " Int. " I just got home from the airport. " Ans. " Er... bad " Int. " I don't feel good " Ans. " Bloody bad " Int. " there is something wrong. I know precisely what it is, but I'm not going to tell you " Ans. " Fucking miserable " Int. " I am close to death. You had better get an ambulance. " Alternate int. " I have to go to the airport and pick up the wife and kids. " :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Lockhart writes: <snip> > I'm not sure if most slavery is practiced by Muslims, I hear there's >a human trafficking problem that's more of a criminal industry than a >religiously justified way of life. I've never actually heard a Muslim >endorse slavery, but I've heard a number of Christians justify slavery >in Biblical times ( " It wasn't so bad for the slaves " they say) or >failing to condemn Moses for his acts of genocidal retribution (Numbers >31, and others). I wouldn't say Christianity is inherently evil, but >I do believe that " sins of scripture " have to be discussed by modern >Christians and Muslims alike, if they want to avoid being left in the >position of Pharisees or slavery apologists, fearing that any deviation >from dogma is a betrayal of God (and to hell with compassion when hell >is at stake, right?) I would dispute that slavery was ever ended. 'Human trafficking' (i.e. forced prostitution) has been the same all along, for one thing. It's just cheaper and easier to move the cargo around with globalization so it is growing again all over the world. Labor slavery was actually simply rennovated into a subtler form. Now the slave is bought incrementally, 'by the hour' (referred to as 'wages') instead of in a single transaction. The struggles of the labor movement in the 20th century are simply the next phase of the struggle against slavery after the partial victory in the 19th. And as anyone who ever reads or listens to or watches the news must know, the labor movement has fallen on hard times in the last few decades even here in the 'advanced' West and is losing ground. Rumor has it that China is actually operating huge _literal_ slave labor industries, 'paying' not even pittance wages but only room and board, but since exposing and admitting this would be very inconvenient to the pillars of both American and Chinese Capitalism there will probably never be any reliable evidence allowed to escape China. So yes, the leading slavers of the world right now are (nominal) Christians, and I guess atheists among the Chinese. Haven't heard if they are experiencing any 'religious' revivals in China. Any muslims who may be practicing more traditional forms are well down the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 Dear Dan, I cannot believe in my heart of hearts that I agree with you. Haven't we been here before...on slavery? I have a problem with " human rights " as cast in stone. Whatever rights we give ourselves depend on our consciousness and the culture it creates. If we do not give ourselves " rights " sometimes hoary from past times, who gives them to us? I have never heard a declaration from GO-do on the subject. Sure we have commandments, but we know society's need rules. Hamurabi's list was in existence longer than most, but did Moses get from G-d when he come down the mountain the ten rigid rules for man to obey or get zonked? Those were tribal rules, anyway, they did not include those to whom this G-d was not G-d...er.... " the stranger " If G-d decided we had " common human rights " wouldn't all peoples everywhere since man's beginning have some notion of that? Whatever " rights " others see as engraved in stone, a million occasions of not seeing any rights just from being born human have occurred.Now Greek and Roman citizens seem to have had some rights at home, but not among the Barbarians who ran amok.The Chinese of old had rules of etiquette for how the monarch was to be treated, but for the rest of humanity it still depended on rank, strength and wealth. Who said? Well, it seems to me, it is us, as we grow more aware who have decided to allow everyone the same " rights " at least intellectually. WE as a young nation decided to write them down , not just chant them as most revolutionists did. Then we covered our a.....by putting qualifications around most of them until we were besieged with 14 amendments to add...by ourselves. I know no religion which champions rights first. First come responsibilities to those of our community, of our faith, of our country, of our color, of our level of standard of living. The League of Nations and the U.N. were written by " modern " somewhat conscious people who thought if they had some rights so should everybody. That helped a lot, since most of the world continued to do exactly what they had always done.( as late as the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Europe's rulers decided only they had rights.) So, old buddy, I agree. We were not encoded with rights by our Creator at birth...and all those tiny baby girls laid out to die after birth would have to agree. We enlightened few ( my tongue is in cheek) made rules about other people's rights and called them divinely inspired. Then we proceeded to break everyone. Today we are barbarians again and torture and inflict harm as did the Inquisition...but at least they wanted to save souls... The pursuit of happiness? gotta laugh? How many people is our government grinding into the dirt to find money for bombs? The right to health? excuse me?...ask 45,000 small American children with no health care and no food in their tummies. Here, not in Darfur. And the respect due a human being? is that before or after we put them on a dog chain and lead them around naked, or rape everyone of them as in Bosnian war? Or sell them as sex slaves? or pay them wages they cannot live on? Who does this to human beings who have human rights? Not other human beings???? We do obey some rules. The human right in which " might makes right " , Arbeit macht Frei, Rather dead than Red, Kill in the name of Allah, and oh....lets export democracy to the poor benighted folks...at the end of a rifle. yeh, we have one human right...the right to fear and live in fear, or to become, what .. " enlightened " No one can take that right away, not even death.And yes, we have the right to change our attitude to whatever befalls us. That too no one can take away. And yes, we can listen to that small voice within and treat others as we want to be treated...will we remember that when we are being abused? And as you pointed out, slavery is alive and well in many countries. Why do we never take them into account? Toni slavery >> >> Dan says: >> >> Indeed, it is news to me that slavery has been abolished even now. I >> think it is still practiced in various Arab countries, perhaps in others >> as well.<< >> >> --It's true that the Christian world had the good sense to abolish >> slavery only 1800 years or so after its scriptures were written, and that >> there are some holdouts in various parts of the world that consider >> slavery if not moral, at least profitable. Of course, a modern Christian >> would say that a Christian who owns a slave isn't a " real Christian " , >> while Muslims would be condemned as a group. The Bible and the Quran are >> both violent and " soft " on some human rights violations. Sins of >> scripture should be exposed, because they have, in the past, been used by >> large numbers of religious people to justify atrocities like slavery and >> persecution. It takes some time for the minority within a religion who >> has a more ethical perspective to turn the tide, and it can't be done >> just by appealing to scripture. It has to become a wave of moral >> revulsion and anxiety over participation in systemic evil. Inevitably, >> the Islamic world will denounce terrorism forcefully enough to put a stop >> to the >> death cults. Most Muslim mothers don't want their kids going to hell for >> murder. It's understandable that mothers of suicide bombers would find it >> impossible to believe their sons went to hell, knowing that it was in >> part a gesture of loyalty to them and their suffering. They would almost >> have to believe their sons were heroes or martyrs, rather than murderers. >> But Muslims who have not fallen into the magnetism of the Jihadists are >> more than aware of what terrorism is doing to the image of Islam in the >> world, and when a large number of people are cowed into silence, there is >> always a watershed moment when their voices become known and felt. >> >> I'm not sure if most slavery is practiced by Muslims, I hear there's a >> human trafficking problem that's more of a criminal industry than a >> religiously justified way of life. I've never actually heard a Muslim >> endorse slavery, but I've heard a number of Christians justify slavery in >> Biblical times ( " It wasn't so bad for the slaves " they say) or failing to >> condemn Moses for his acts of genocidal retribution (Numbers 31, and >> others). I wouldn't say Christianity is inherently evil, but I do believe >> that " sins of scripture " have to be discussed by modern Christians and >> Muslims alike, if they want to avoid being left in the position of >> Pharisees or slavery apologists, fearing that any deviation from dogma is >> a betrayal of God (and to hell with compassion when hell is at stake, >> right?) >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 vienna19311 wrote: dear Toni, Dear Dan, I cannot believe in my heart of hearts that I agree with you. Well.... I thought I felt a disturbance in the force. What next - a Hillary/McCain ticket? Strange days indeed.. Haven't we been here before...on slavery? I have a problem with "human rights" as cast in stone. Whatever rights we give ourselves depend on our consciousness and the culture it creates. If we do not give ourselves "rights" sometimes hoary from past times, who gives them to us? I have never heard a declaration from GO-do on the subject. Sure we have commandments, but we know society's need rules. Hamurabi's list was in existence longer than most, but did Moses get from G-d when he come down the mountain the ten rigid rules for man to obey or get zonked? Those were tribal rules, anyway, they did not include those to whom this G-d was not G-d...er...."the stranger" If G-d decided we had "common human rights" wouldn't all peoples everywhere since man's beginning have some notion of that? One would think - but I suppose that at least some of the apologists for universal human rights would say that they do. Whatever "rights" others see as engraved in stone, a million occasions of not seeing any rights just from being born human have occurred.Now Greek and Roman citizens seem to have had some rights at home, but not among the Barbarians who ran amok.The Chinese of old had rules of etiquette for how the monarch was to be treated, but for the rest of humanity it still depended on rank, strength and wealth. Who said? Well, it seems to me, it is us, as we grow more aware who have decided to allow everyone the same "rights" at least intellectually. WE as a young nation decided to write them down , not just chant them as most revolutionists did. Then we covered our a.....by putting qualifications around most of them until we were besieged with 14 amendments to add...by ourselves. I know no religion which champions rights first. First come responsibilities to those of our community, of our faith, of our country, of our color, of our level of standard of living. The League of Nations and the U.N. were written by "modern" somewhat conscious people who thought if they had some rights so should everybody. That helped a lot, since most of the world continued to do exactly what they had always done.( as late as the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Europe's rulers decided only they had rights.) So, old buddy, I agree. We were not encoded with rights by our Creator at birth...and all those tiny baby girls laid out to die after birth would have to agree. We enlightened few ( my tongue is in cheek) made rules about other people's rights and called them divinely inspired. Then we proceeded to break everyone. Today we are barbarians again and torture and inflict harm as did the Inquisition...but at least they wanted to save souls... The pursuit of happiness? gotta laugh? No reason to think that the average modern democratic citizen is any happier than the medieval peasnat or the roman or greek citizen ( or even many slaves, as far as that does). One car and three cars. How many people is our government grinding into the dirt to find money for bombs? The right to health? excuse me?...ask 45,000 small American children with no health care and no food in their tummies. I blame the parents. Here, not in Darfur. And the respect due a human being? is that before or after we put them on a dog chain and lead them around naked, or rape everyone of them as in Bosnian war? Or sell them as sex slaves? or pay them wages they cannot live on? Who does this to human beings who have human rights? Not other human beings???? We do obey some rules. The human right in which "might makes right", Arbeit macht Frei, Rather dead than Red, Kill in the name of Allah, and oh....lets export democracy to the poor benighted folks...at the end of a rifle. yeh, we have one human right...the right to fear and live in fear, or to become, what .." enlightened" No one can take that right away, not even death.And yes, we have the right to change our attitude to whatever befalls us. That too no one can take away. And yes, we can listen to that small voice within and treat others as we want to be treated...will we remember that when we are being abused? And as you pointed out, slavery is alive and well in many countries. Why do we never take them into account? Because "we" want to beleive in "progress." Best, dan Toni slavery >> >> Dan says: >> >> Indeed, it is news to me that slavery has been abolished even now. I >> think it is still practiced in various Arab countries, perhaps in others >> as well.<< >> >> --It's true that the Christian world had the good sense to abolish >> slavery only 1800 years or so after its scriptures were written, and that >> there are some holdouts in various parts of the world that consider >> slavery if not moral, at least profitable. Of course, a modern Christian >> would say that a Christian who owns a slave isn't a "real Christian", >> while Muslims would be condemned as a group. The Bible and the Quran are >> both violent and "soft" on some human rights violations. Sins of >> scripture should be exposed, because they have, in the past, been used by >> large numbers of religious people to justify atrocities like slavery and >> persecution. It takes some time for the minority within a religion who >> has a more ethical perspective to turn the tide, and it can't be done >> just by appealing to scripture. It has to become a wave of moral >> revulsion and anxiety over participation in systemic evil. Inevitably, >> the Islamic world will denounce terrorism forcefully enough to put a stop >> to the >> death cults. Most Muslim mothers don't want their kids going to hell for >> murder. It's understandable that mothers of suicide bombers would find it >> impossible to believe their sons went to hell, knowing that it was in >> part a gesture of loyalty to them and their suffering. They would almost >> have to believe their sons were heroes or martyrs, rather than murderers. >> But Muslims who have not fallen into the magnetism of the Jihadists are >> more than aware of what terrorism is doing to the image of Islam in the >> world, and when a large number of people are cowed into silence, there is >> always a watershed moment when their voices become known and felt. >> >> I'm not sure if most slavery is practiced by Muslims, I hear there's a >> human trafficking problem that's more of a criminal industry than a >> religiously justified way of life. I've never actually heard a Muslim >> endorse slavery, but I've heard a number of Christians justify slavery in >> Biblical times ("It wasn't so bad for the slaves" they say) or failing to >> condemn Moses for his acts of genocidal retribution (Numbers 31, and >> others). I wouldn't say Christianity is inherently evil, but I do believe >> that "sins of scripture" have to be discussed by modern Christians and >> Muslims alike, if they want to avoid being left in the position of >> Pharisees or slavery apologists, fearing that any deviation from dogma is >> a betrayal of God (and to hell with compassion when hell is at stake, >> right?) >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.