| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
William Rees-Mogg in the TimesOnline (thanks to all who sent this in) addresses the fashionable moral equivalence that would see all religions as presenting more or less the same threat to generally accepted modern notions of human rights. I address the same question from a different angle here.
From the earliest days Christianity has been opposed to slavery. In his Letter to the Galatians, St Paul wrote: “As many of you that have been baptised in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. We were all one in Jesus Christ.” Undoubtedly Christians have compromised with slavery — as with other social evils — in the course of history, but the orthodox Christian doctrine is one of liberty and equality.The Christian belief was the inspiration in William Wilberforce’s long campaign to end the slave trade. His Bill received the Royal Assent on March 25, 1807, 200 years ago. That was the most important of all the great reforms of the 19th century; essentially it was a Christian reform, inspired by the Protestant conversion of Wilberforce himself. March 25 was the old New Year’s Day; it is also the feast of the Annunciation of Mary, the Mother of Jesus.
We live in an age when modernists regard religion with something approaching panic. It is like the Devil’s attitude to Holy Water. There was a comic example of Christianophobia in The Sunday Times yesterday. Michael Portillo, who used himself to be seen in Brompton Oratory, was hyperventilating at the idea of David Cameron going to church. “I worry,” he wrote, “because men of power who take instruction from unseen forces are essentially fanatics . . . I would be more reassured to hear that the Tory leader goes to church because that is what it takes to get a child into the best of state schools, not because he is a believer.”
Perhaps this neurotic response to Mr Cameron’s habit of going to church reflects Mr Portillo’s recognition that religion is again becoming an important influence on society. Many of the current news stories show that religion is back in public consciousness; for those who feel uneasy about religion, that is unwelcome.
Islam is, of course, the alarming religious issue that will not go away. In the 20th century the world failed to adjust to two major belief systems, nationalism and Marxism. Now we face a similar global challenge from Islam, which opposes Judaism in Israel, Hinduism in India, Buddhism in South East Asia, Christianity in Europe and America and modernism in the whole advanced world. We certainly cannot say that all religious influences are benign; al-Qaeda is a religious cult, but a perverted one.
Religion turned William Wilberforce into a Protestant saint, but Wahhabism has turned Osama bin Laden into a devil.
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at February 27, 2007 8:38 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
God bless you sir and i hope the western world wakes up and stop beating christianity over.
Posted by: ismail![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 27, 2007 9:49 AM
The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion... but it has, at its core philosophy a goodness and humanism and equality -- which islam stands in stark contrast to.
If there were such a thing as an anti-Christ, and one believed in such things, there is no person who would come close to fitting the laundry list like muhammad.
Posted by: Abraham_Lincoln at February 27, 2007 9:56 AM
Excellent article, Robert. Few realize that when Constantine I became Emperor, the pagan Roman Empire had a population that was majority slave. By the time Constantine died as a Christian, the overwhelming majority had been freed. A few years later, the Emperor Saint Theodosius the Great, not only made Christianity the state religion but he abolished slavery completely throughout Christendom.
It was not until the 1300s, under Islamic influence that slavery made a comeback despite the Catholic Church's excommunication of anyone involved in slavery. Protestantism (especially Calvinism) finally gave a "Christian" stamp of approval to this sinful institution until great men like Wilberforce sought to return to true Christian principles.
Incidently, Wilberforce's son followed in his father's footsteps in the struggle for human rights. This struggle led him into the Oford Movement and later into the Catholic church where he was a close associate of John Henry Cardinal Newman.
Posted by: Provoslavni at February 27, 2007 9:59 AM
typo: Oxford Movement
Posted by: Provoslavni at February 27, 2007 10:01 AM
"al-Qaeda is a religious cult, but a perverted one.
Religion turned William Wilberforce into a Protestant saint, but Wahhabism has turned Osama bin Laden into a devil."
-- from the article above
Is Al-Qaeda a "religious cult"? Does this mean that the members of Al-Qaeda believe something other than what is in the canonical texts of Islam? Do the members of this "cult" believe something that is not in the Qur'an and the Hadith (in the most authoritative collections), and the Sira? Would Rees-Mogg care to explain exactly how, ideologically, the members of Al-Qaeda are not true Muslims but the members of a "religious cult"? Why doesn't he say it otherwise -- that Islam is now strong enough so that the permanent doctrine of Jihad, that falls into desuetude at times of Muslim weakness, has been revived and put into practice, that the sources of Muslim strengh are three -- the OPEC oil trillions, the millions of Muslim migrants settled deep within the Lands of the Infidels, and the Western technology of every kind, but especially weaponry, and the means for disseminating propaganda (audiocassettes, videocassettes, satellite television, the Internet)for Daw'a (the Call to Islam) and for Muslim causes (Iraq, "Palestine," Kashmir, etc.) all over the world -- even unto southern Thailand or the remotest parts of the Sudan.
Osama bin-Laden is not a "devil." He is an orthodox Muslim who takes his duties as a Muslim seriously. That is all. Not all Muslims, fortunately, take their duties quite as seriously. But many do. And he not only takes his duty to perform Jihad seriously, but also believes that the best instrument of Jihad is terror. There many Muslims differ. They think that "terror" for the moment is not necessarily the best way, especially in Western Europe. They are patient. They see the call to Islam, targetted at the economically and psychically marginal at first, and thence by degrees to othres, will win converts to Islam in the Dar al-Harb. They think they can continue to exploit the freedoms of Infidel lands in order to promote their own position and the cause of Islam, that is in the end to ensure the goal of all Muslims, encapsulated in Muhammad's remark that "Islam must dominate and is not to be dominated." They differ, where they do differ, with Osama bin Laden, on the means to that end. Some are more patient, just as Mahmoud Abbas is more patient than Haniya of Hama.s
Rees-Mogg has gone far, in Infidel terms. But he has not gone far enough. It would be too painful.
Posted by: Hugh at February 27, 2007 10:05 AM
And the idea that "religion isn't the disease, it's the cure" should perhaps be modified. After all, the most important apostates from Islam include many who are without belief: Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, Azam Kamguian, Irfan Khawaja. Among the keenest Infidel writers on Islam have been those without any faith: Oriana Fallaci, Pim Fortuyn, Geert Wilders all come to mind. And what, after all, is a Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslim if not one without any faith, but who perhaps insists on such continued self-identification out of filial piety, the remembrance, say, of humble parents who did everything for you (including sending you to Christian schools in, say, Cairo) -- surely that is behind Magdi Allam's continued self-identification as a Muslim rather than as an apostate. And the same, one would think, is true for Kanan Makiya (not liking attacks on Islam because he thinks at once of his pious, humble grandmother, and becomes defensive).
There is no one "cure" and perhaps there is no "cure" at all. But one could say, as we metaphorically continue to make our Grand Rounds, that some patients respond to one form of treatment, and others to another.
All are to be tried.
Posted by: Hugh at February 27, 2007 10:10 AM
beautiful
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at February 27, 2007 10:16 AM
Provoslavni
You say that Catholics did not practice slavery but that Protestants did.
Is that really true?
You sound like Hilaire Belloc - who may be an important writer but does tend to exagerate.
at February 27, 2007 10:24 AM
It was also a former slave trader who saw the light and wrote the hymn many of us know and love: Amazing Grace. It is quite telling that no such thing can come from someone who goes back to Islamic basics. It tells a lot about Christianity and Islam.
Posted by: wrathofasma at February 27, 2007 11:50 AM
"Religion isn’t the sickness. It’s the cure"
It is indeed THE sickness if that "religion" is Islam.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at February 27, 2007 12:19 PM
Hugh wrote:
"And the idea that "religion isn't the disease, it's the cure" should perhaps be modified"
It certainly should. Rees-Mogg (who is a Roman Catholic proselytizer) seems to think that all the ills of the world are the result of what he vaguely calls "modernism", and as a Catholic, he tends ro regard all unbelievers as being incapable of true morality. As it happens, I’ve just been reading an article in The Times by Larry Siedentop, where he makes the valuable point that “secularism” is often falsely equated by religious apologists with “consumerism, materialism and amorality”. Siedentop points out that “On the contrary, [secularism] rests on the firm belief that to be human means being a rational and moral agent, a free chooser with responsibility for one’s actions. It puts a premium on conscience rather than the blind following of rules. It joins rights with duties to others. This is also the central, egalitarian moral insight of Christianity.”
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1443878.ece)
(Incidentally, I'm no great fan of Siedentop generally, since he's too much of a friend of the European "Union" for my liking.)
Posted by: JFGR at February 27, 2007 1:33 PM
The truth is that the Christian faith has done so much good and much more for the western world in a special way, but also for the non-western world. This is why it is spreading in places such as the global south, because it puts not only love of God but love of neighbor into action. This article posted today about the fight to end slavery in England, which helped influenced America's fight to end slavery latter on in the 19th century.
My favorite hymm, "Amazing Grace" was just honored on a special Sunday, the Sunday before the start of Lent. This hymm became I believed, the best loved hymm in the history of Christian music because of the truth it spoke.
What a difference between Christianity and Islam, like day and night.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 27, 2007 2:29 PM
"And the idea that "religion isn't the disease, it's the cure" should perhaps be modified. After all, the most important apostates from Islam include many who are without belief: Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, Azam Kamguian, Irfan Khawaja. Among the keenest Infidel writers on Islam have been those without any faith: Oriana Fallaci, Pim Fortuyn, Geert Wilders all come to mind. "
Well said, Hugh. Nobody should feel forced/pushed to pretend to believe - a real god should be offended by false worshippers anyway.
That said, if muslims are desperate to believe in a deity, conversion to buddhism or a non-fundamentalist form of christianity might do them and world a lot of good. In that way religion could be the cure.
Posted by: Lili at February 27, 2007 4:49 PM
We cannot turn our society around until we have a strong moral basis to do so. Atheistic principles are too self-centred, devoid of any consciousness of the community, and the transcendence of a higher power. Without a community based on moral principles, there can be no cohesive nation.
A year or so ago, I met a lady in church who had recently arrived from India. She was shocked to see the moral uncertainty and confusion in Britain. This confusion had led to moral equivalence, which led to equating Islam with Christianity - as if anyone with any sense or knowledge would ever think that Mohammed the child molester, mass murderer, liar and brigand, could ever be compared with the sublime nature of Jesus. My Indian acquaintance was shocked. Then she said something that made me sit-up," When the British people believed in God, the blessings of God flowed on Britain like on no other nation. As it abandoned God, God's blessings left Britain as well". It is worth noting that the banning of slavery, all the reforms in labour for workers, peasants, separation of religion from state, liberalism, charity, tolerance, Florence Nightingale, all came about in Britain because of devout Christians following the message of Jesus. Institutions such as the Red Cross and even the radical concept of a “Just War” came about because of devout Christians. These then spread throughout the world.
We need to admit that we made a serious mistake in thinking that we had suddenly invented a new moral and civil order, better then the experienced evolution of a thousand years, and return to those principles that made Britain the leading industrial, scientific and libertarian power in the world. What would Western art and music be without the transcendent belief in God that made it possible for artists to seek the divine in their work?
I cannot but fail to see the moral confusion and disarray that has been caused in Britain and the West, by the abandonment of Christianity as our central guiding principle. We abandoned God, and the spiritual and moral vacuum left behind is being taken over by Islam. Its a piece of cake filling a vacuum. And our helpless young, indeed a spiritually disarmed and helpless Europe, has no idea how to combat the invasion. The immunity has lapsed and we are at the mercy of an invading parasite.
Posted by: DP111 at February 27, 2007 5:03 PM
I think Hugh and JFGR are right. We are opposed to the beliefs held by radical Muslims about how societies should be organised and regulated. That is we are for democracy, free speech, individual rights etc., against stoning of adulterers, execution for apostasy, a collectivist organisation of society, etc. The occasional digs at atheists and gays do not help this site. They could tend to alienate a not inconsiderable constituency. Christians (Catholics???) do not have a monopoly on ethics. You refer to Hindus, Buddhists, Judaism approvingly, and yet refer to Richard Dawkins as if he is in the enemy camp. Richard Dawkins is right to point out that hatred and intolerance can be found in all religions. The reconstructionists and dominionists are there. They exist. They are few in number and unlikely to have any real influence for the foreseeable future. That does not mean they never will. The difference between Islam on the one hand and Christianity and Judaism on the other lies in the explicitness and centrality of certain principles and doctrines as understood by clerics today. Anyone who has read Thomas Mann's Der Zauberberg (The Magic Mountain) must realise that a Christian, basically Catholic defence of a reign of terror can be made. Naphta, the character who argues in favour of this is a Jesuit with marxist sympathies. I would point out also that it was only with Vatican II that the Catholic church ceased to consider the Jews collectively a deicide nation. The Catholic church - at least until the end of the 19th century was opposed to democracy. I am not sure when this view changed. There was little official Catholic opposition in Germany to Nazism. There again, anyone who has read Thomas Mann's novel will understand the emotional appeal of Naphta's position versus the seemingly insipid arguments of his adversary, Settembrini. I write as a gay atheist, for whom Western culture is Graeco-Roman Judaeo-Christian. Christianity is largely an 'Abrahamic' religion repackaged by a Graeco-Roman society.
Posted by: kevin at February 27, 2007 5:07 PM
"Atheistic principles are too self-centred, devoid of any consciousness of the community, and the transcendence of a higher power."
I try to live by the golden rule, as do my gay friends and other people 'living in sin' by christian standards.
Just face the simple fact that people can't force themselves to believe in your deity. But they just might agree to many of the principles Jesus taught. And christians might just you respect other peoples' right to live their own lives as they wish (e.g. living in a same-gender relationship or not marrying).
Anyway, the question always remains unanswered: if god created the universe, who created god? If you answer is that 'he' created 'himself', then you might as well just believe the universe created itself/just happened.
Posted by: Lili at February 27, 2007 5:17 PM
"We cannot turn our society around until we have a strong moral basis to do so. Atheistic principles are too self-centred, devoid of any consciousness of the community, and the transcendence of a higher power. Without a community based on moral principles, there can be no cohesive nation."
Agreed about the moral principles, but why do you think atheists CANNOT have moral principles? They might argue that if there is nothing after death, there is even more of a moral imperative for us to do good to one another, if we believe in a good society. I can't see that morality NECESSARILY entails belief in a divine creator.
Posted by: JFGR at February 27, 2007 6:16 PM
I probably shouldn't pipe in here, but I can't resist -- largely because I become weary with hearing and reading about how atheists are all supposed to be amoral, unspiritual, shallow-minded dopes.
Fact: You don't necessarily lose all your love of life, love of humanity or sense of awe at life's mysteries just because you don't believe in god.
Maybe some atheists do, and I dare say that some believers do too, but there's nothing automatic about it.
Fact: Man cannot live well without a pro-life, pro-man morality with absolute and rational standards of right and wrong.
Fact: There are philosophical alternatives to believing in G-d, God, Gods or what have you, that supply the proper philosophical and moral support for a good and full human life.
Fact: The various religions of the world have had a virtual monopoly on the philosophy of morals and ethics, in the market place of ideas, world wide and historically. That doesn't mean that they have the only ideas, or even the best ideas.
Fact: The claim, or even the fact of being a religion doesn't confer any special value on a body of ideas. The Carthaginians sacrificed their infants as part of their religion. The Hawaiians and Aztecs sacrificed teenagers as part of their religion. Numerous other religions around the world practiced various forms and styles of human sacrifice and other brutalities.
Fact: The comparatively benign and humane outlook of Christianity, especially in the last two centuries and especially in Britain and America does not prove that there is any special value in religion in general, as such.
Fact: Religions must be evaluated as good bad or indifferent, just like any other body of thought.
Fact: It has been said, I think correctly, that history is philosophy's laboratory. We learn the value of Marxism from Russia, China, North Korea, East Germany, Cambodia and Cuba etc... I.e. Lousy. We learn the value of mohammedanism from the poor, backward and oppressive mohammedan nations. I.e. Lousy.
Fact: Belief in any religion requires forcing your mind to accept things for which there is no perceptual evidence. Gods, angels, miracles, saints with supernatural powers, the spirits of the dead, etc...
You cannot make yourself believe in things that your senses can never validate for you without some associated intellectual or psychological cost. You can't tell your own mind -- OK mind, we're only going to believe in the practical, observable and sensible, except for this one subject, and on this one we believe in miracles -- without some cost. Mental inconsistencies are never free.
You may get away with it, if the bulk of your ideas are basically good. A strong body can take a few injuries. A strong, well organized and equiped mind can take a few inconsistencies. But an injury is an injury and an inconsistency is an inconsistency. There's no free lunch in mental life.
Western Christianity has been an enormously benign influence in certain matters over the last century or two, but that doesn't mean that more religion is necessarily the cure for anything.
It means that pro-life, pro-man philosophies that offer absolute standards of right and wrong and hold the individual human life as an ultimate value are what is best for man.
Atheism does not automatically imply moral relativism, hedonism, subjectivism or any of the other imbecile philosophical aberrations of our time.
And religion doesn't automatically imply peace on earth and good will toward man.
Posted by: joeblough at February 27, 2007 7:35 PM
joeblough,
At least from this Christian, you will get no threats. On the issue of faith for me, at least it gives me mental peace.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 27, 2007 7:55 PM
Gagdad Bob weighs in daily over at One Cosmos on earthly, horizontal matters from a higher vantage point:
Many metaphysical dullards -- I saw a Hot Air video clip of Bill Maher blowing hot air about it just yesterday -- object to the Old Testament on the grounds that it depicts a "psychotic" or "bloodthirsty" God who is constantly killing people. This is like someone seeing -- I don't know, let's say, Saving Private Ryan -- and saying, "what a stupid film. Just a bunch of sociopathic killers shooting at each other."
By this insane logic, the greatest men who have ever lived -- including America's founders -- must either be nut cases or just plain ignorant. If Bill Maher had been there at the constitutional convention, he would have set them straight. He would have courageously spoken politically incorrect truth to power:
"What's this nonsense about 'endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights?' Please. You're not going to ground our rights in that psychopathic killer God, are you? I have this idea -- I've been corresponding with this brilliant fellow over in France -- Robespierre's the name. He says we have to put the kibosh on all this religious BS altogether and get a fresh start. Forget about re-enacting the exodus from Egypt. That's a stupid myth anyway. We have to go back to the real beginning and reinvent man on totally logical grounds. C'mon people, let's be unsentimental about this. As Max says 'virtue without terror is destructive, and terror without virtue is impotent. Terror is only justice prompt, severe and inflexible.' Doesn't that make more sense than saying the purpose of government is to protect rights granted by a quote-unquote God whom -- let's be honest, people -- we all know doesn't exist? Arianna, you agree with me, right?"
In the same serious, but more somber tone Bob writes:
The scientific rationalist believes that something is true because it is logical, but it is the reverse: something is logical because it is true. Naturally, what is true of one transcendental is true of the other two: for example, something is not virtuous merely because it is legal. This is another one of the fallacies at the heart of contemporary -- which is to say, sophisticated -- liberalism, in that it reduces morality to legality and in so doing strips man of his moral soul.
There is nothing intrinsically deep in the world, there are only deep souls who make it so. Animals do not experience cosmic depth, only surfaces. And quite obviously, "depth" is a thing entirely apart from mere intelligence. The presence of depth is one of the first clues of the awakened mind as it journeys back to God, who is obviously the ultimate source of the depth. There can be no depth without God, if for no other reason that there can be no interior without God.
If you were to be cornered into a conversation with Maher,
[and the joeblows] you would immediately become uncomfortably aware of the "narrowness" of his soul horizons -- or shall we say the "thinness" of his being. For depth of being is not only the measure of soul, but soul is the very measure of depth in the Cosmos.
at February 27, 2007 8:46 PM
To: bigcatgirl13106
As I tried to imply above, there is much in Christianity, particularly as it is understood today in the west, which is pro-man and pro-life, and teaches that there is a sensible standard of absolute right and wrong in life. Above all, Christianity values the individual human soul above all as a it's supreme value -- after all, it was for the sake of saving all those souls that, if I have my quote right, "God gave the life of his only son".
These are inevitably beneficial ideas. And their beneficial effects are obvious in most places and times where christian values are celebrated, even in passing.
You will note that I also said "A strong, well organized and equiped mind can take a few inconsistencies.". So it is no surprise to me that you find "no hassles at all" in your belief.
On the contrary, the comforts of living in an orderly and benevolent universe are (as I expect they are for most Christian believers) adequate psychological counterweights to the friction caused by internal contradictions in the matter of how-do-I-know-what-I-know -- i.e. observation vs faith.
I said there was a cost. I didn't say there was an obvious and chronically painful cost.
Moreover, I think that the notion of order and benevolence in the universe projected by many Christian thinkers is, well ... plainly realistic.
Just because it's a tenet of a religion doesn't make it wrong.
My overriding point however is that the benevolence of Christianity is not a proof that religion in general is necessarily good for you -- to which point I provided a few examples.
To get real obvious, saying "it's my religion" doesn't give you a license to murder -- and plenty of religions in humanity's history have done just that.
We need to shatter the idiotic ideological bond of religion=good.
Posted by: joeblough at February 28, 2007 12:40 AM
"Religion isn’t the sickness. It’s the cure" should be changed to "islam is the sickness. Christ is the cure."
Ultimately, as much as I hate to say it, great anti-jihadists like Oriana Fallaci and Pim Fortuyn are in hell if they did not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior before they died. And so will Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, Azam Kamguian, Irfan Khawaja, Geert Wilders, and everyone else if they die in disbelief.
Fighting against the jihad will not save your soul anymore than blowing yourself up in jihad will net you 723 blacked eyed virgins.
Don't get me wrong, I still prefer Oriana Fallacis to osama bin ladens, but I would prefer it more if they both got saved.
Posted by: senatortombstone at February 28, 2007 1:16 AM
To: Malinois
I don't generally answer ad-hominem arguments, as there is usually no point, but my original posting was such, and so I feel compelled to continue for consistency's sake.
I take extreme umbrage at being lumped in with Bill Maher who I consider a fop, a fool and a smug leftist tool.
To your assertion:
If you were to be cornered into a conversation with Maher,
[and the joeblows] you would immediately become uncomfortably aware of the "narrowness" of his soul horizons -- or shall we say the "thinness" of his being. For depth of being is not only the measure of soul, but soul is the very measure of depth in the Cosmos.
You know nothing about me. And your uncomfortable awareness 'of the "narrowness" of his[my?] soul horizons' is happening in your imagination.
Your notion that "depth of being is not only the measure of soul, but soul is the very measure of depth in the Cosmos" is very poetically evocative, but actually has no meaning, no referents in reality. What is "depth in the Cosmos"? It is an emotion you have, not something out there in the world.
Your remarks can only mean that you would be psychologically crippled and arid without your belief in whatever it is you call God. Well, so be it. I'm not telling you what to believe or not.
But the arrogance of imagining that you can read a post on a primarily political website and on that basis pontificate about what goes on in the core of my mind is really infuriating.
The core meaning of your post is that you are incapable of imagining a healthy, juicy psyche that doesn't include a belief in your God. Newsflash --- That's your problem.
I have a further newsflash, and this is, in part, what prompted me to write the first post -- There are millions, count 'em, millions of perfectly vibrant souls in this world that have nothing to do with your God. Poets, artists, doctors, authors, philosophers, business magnates, teachers -- hell, soldiers, sailors, butchers and bakers.
There's been plenty of soul food produced by the artists and scientists of this world that have had nothing to do with your God.
And in a fight with the mad jihaddis who will kill you for denying their cockamamie god, you had better learn to speak a little more respectfully of the atheists who are at your side in the trenches.
Posted by: joeblough at February 28, 2007 1:18 AM
PS - To: bigcatgirl13106
I can't resist asking about the name.
You are a girl who likes cats alot?
You are a girl who likes big cats?
You are a big girl who likes cats?
You are a girl who likes 13106 big cats?
It's goofy I know, but I just couldn't resist asking.
Posted by: joeblough at February 28, 2007 1:50 AM
joeblough, Malinois' quote from Gagdad Bob --
For depth of being is not only the measure of soul, but soul is the very measure of depth in the Cosmos.
-- was likely harking back to Heraclitus:
You could not find the limits of the soul, even if you travelled every path; so deep is its logos. (Fragment B 45)
To further understand what this might mean, one could have recourse to Voegelin, as explained in this excerpt of an essay by Steven D. Ealy (though whether this applies to you as Malinois seemed to imply, is not for me to say):
VII. The Experiential Sources of Order in Hellenic Philosophy
According to Voegelin, Heraclitus was the Hellenic philosopher who first explored and articulated the order of the psyche and differentiated the problem of psychopathology. For Heraclitus a man can augment his psyche by exploring it. He states, “I explored [or: searched into] myself.” (B 101) [30] That exploration is both an activity of the logos and a means of increasing a man’s participation in it: “The soul has a logos that augments itself.” (B 115) The process is unlimited because the logos itself is without limit: “You could not find the limits of the soul, even if you traveled every path, so deep is its logos.” (B 45)
Heraclitus saw participation in the logos as the basis for community among men. “Heraclitus speaks of the logos as what is common (xynon) to all men, in which they all participate qua men, and thus it demands of them conscious homologia,” or agreement. [31] For Heraclitus the community of homologia includes the moral order, which is nourished by the divine. The logos “is common to all men who understand (phronein).” With the latter term Heraclitus anticipates the phronesis, the prudential wisdom in ethical and political matters, of Aristotle. Heraclitus takes from his predecessors Xenophanes and Parmenides the symbol nous as that by which a man partakes of and speaks truly about the logos, and links the nous to the divine nomos or law. The logos nourishes the nous as the laws of the polis are nourished by the divine law: “Those who speak with the mind (nooi) must strengthen themselves with that which is common to all, as the polis does with the law (nomos) and more strongly so. For all human laws nourish themselves from the one divine—which prevails as it will, and suffices for all things and more than suffices.”
A man’s success or failure in actualizing his participation in the logos determines whether he is capable of existential communication and life in human community. When those who listen to Heraclitus agree with him, they listen to and agree with the logos itself. The many who do not listen to and agree with the logos are “fools” who “act and speak like men asleep” and “live as if they had their a wisdom of their own (idian phrosein).” (B 34, B 2) Heraclitus differentiates the pairs of symbols common-private and awake-asleep and uses them to characterize order and disorders of the psyche: “Those who are awake have a world (cosmos) one and common, but those who are asleep each turn aside into their private worlds.”
Posted by: remote_control at February 28, 2007 2:25 AM
Glad that you're here, Joeblough.
When I was at sunday school, we were told that it wasn't wrong to kill people if god wanted you to.
That why it was alright for the Jews to kill the Philistines or Caananites or whoever it was they exterminated.
What we were being told that committing genocide was alright as long as god wanted you to do it.
Even though Islam is infinately worse than any other religion, I see shades of it in the Christianity that I learned as a child.
at February 28, 2007 5:00 AM
To senatortombstone, I guess that the 6 million Jews who died in the holocaust are in hell as well for not accepting Jesus.
Posted by: Voltaire at February 28, 2007 5:01 AM
To senatortombstone, I guess that the 6 million Jews who died in the holocaust are in hell as well for not accepting Jesus.
Posted by: Voltaire at February 28, 2007 5:01 AM
"Don't get me wrong, I still prefer Oriana Fallacis to osama bin ladens, but I would prefer it more if they both got saved."
OK, that's your personal opinion, but it matters not one whit in the fight against jihadism. The question at issue is, Do you need to be a Christian to oppose Islam? The answer is undoubtedly "no" -- in fact some Christians seem to be going out of their way to try to "understand" Islam and Islamism, just because it is another faith, and that can be dangerous in encouraging dhimmitude.
Joeblough, you've explained the philosophy all much more eloquently than I could. Well done.
Posted by: JFGR at February 28, 2007 6:45 AM
Sing for Your Supper
from a musical by Rogers and Hart, not known for
rambling lyrics that lacked any logical consistency
Hawks and crows do lots of things,
but the canary only sings.
She is a courtesan on wings-
So I've heard.
Eagles and storks are twice as strong.
All the canary knows is song.
But the canary gets along-
Guilded bird!
Sing for your supper,
And you'll get breakfast.
Songbirds always eat
If their song is sweet to hear.
Sing for your luncheon,
And you'll get dinner.
Dine with wine of choice,
If romance is in your voice.
I heard from a wise canary
Trilling makes a fellow willing,
So, little swallow, swallow now.
Now is the time to
Sing for your supper,
And you'll get breakfast.
Songbirds are not dumb,
They don't buy a crumb
Of bread,
It's said.
So sing and you'll be fed.
at February 28, 2007 9:36 AM
When I was at sunday school, we were told that it wasn't wrong to kill people if god wanted you to. Voltaire
Gee, no wonder you hate religion! I had a horrible experience as a child in a Baptist Church, which turned me against religion for half my life. I was convinced for years that "church" was just a place where fanatical, fire and brimstone rhetoric scared people into buying their way to Heaven (through the collection plate).
But as I got older, I realized that the kind and gentle aspects of Christianity far outweighed the bellicose, cruel, and frightening rhetoric I heard in that Baptist church in Alabama when I was about six years old. I began to see God as kind, loving, and compassionate, qualities that would definitely improve much of mankind.
I have never in my life heard a Christian minister sanction murder. The Ten Commandments forbid killing and no legitimate cleric would condone murder or genocide. Is it possible that you misinterpreted or misunderstood a Sunday School lesson? We are all affected by disturbing experiences, especially when they occur at a very young age. I was too, but fortunately, maturity helped me open my mind and discover an entirely different perspective on religion.
One can be spiritual and believe in a supreme being without being a raving fanatic. Religion, or the belief in something greater than one's self, can balance one's life in many ways. If the belief in God can comfort, reassure, offer hope, and instill values and morality in people, which I believe it can and does, that's a good thing and harms no one. OF course, islam does just the opposite but that is no reason to condemn all religions just because islam is a destructive, malevolent force of evil. Christianity's positive contributions to the world far outweigh the injustices and atrocities committed by mortal men in its name.
Posted by: Susanp at February 28, 2007 11:14 AM
"You say that Catholics did not practice slavery but that Protestants did.
Is that really true?"
asked Odyessus above.
No, What I wrote is that the Popes of Rome consistently condemned slavery as contrary to Christian morality and Christian Europe had eliminated chattel slavery from the fifth to fourteenth centuries. Unfortunately after that, Catholic France and Spain were some of the worst offenders in the slave trade acting contrary to their professed religion. Nor did ALL Protestants support slavery. Roger Williams was outspoken in his opposition as were the Quakers.
However, when Europe was still Christendom, both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches saw slavery as an Islamic and pagan vice and believed that only GOD was the rightful possessor of humanity. It is sad that many secular authorities (including self-professed Catholic and Orthodox rulers)too often put mammon before God. As Saint Paul wrote: "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
Posted by: Provoslavni at February 28, 2007 2:33 PM
Yes, my Christian brethren.
I see this piece targeted at Christians rather than everybody under the sun. In a PC like fashion, it promotes Christianity. I agree with it that Christians need to get back to their roots, and become hinged to their faith again. No! To those ignorant among us, it doesn’t mean pushing the clock hand backward, but moving forward with a new faith of devotion and dedication to Christ.
This piece is not evoking a call for the abolishment of secularism. We Christians like secularism, but there is no doubt secularism has failed us in critical ways. No, I am not attacking the idea, but the people who manoeuvre themselves into positions of leadership in secular institutions, specifically the atheist humanists. Those who view religion (a.k.a. Christianity) as a mental disease, and feel it is their duty to undue all inherently Christian aspects of Western societies; when in fact, it is these atheist humanists that are the diseased parts of secular societies.
No doubt these atheist humanists like feeling superior because they feel they know something that the religious don’t. I’m sure the more they bring in of the worst kind of religious, the more superior they feel. The reality is, the worse a religion gets (relative to Christianity) the more compatible it becomes with atheist beliefs. This can only explain why there has been mass importation of non-citizens into the West, while the leftists and anti-Christians have been their most ardent advocates. Their attitude has overwhelmingly been: who cares if we bring in large numbers of the worst religion into the country, if the only harm they do is hurt the Christian faith.
at February 28, 2007 4:43 PM
joeblough,
"I can't resist asking about the name.
You are a girl who likes cats alot?
You are a girl who likes big cats?
You are a big girl who likes cats?
You are a girl who likes 13106 big cats?
It's goofy I know, but I just couldn't resist asking."
The nic came about because it honors the day I joined the JW/DW as a member, January 31, 2006 and I am a tall woman who loves cats ( plus has four of them ).
Thanks for asking.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 28, 2007 4:46 PM
"No doubt these atheist humanists like feeling superior because they feel they know something that the religious don’t."
Where do you *get* such ideas! Why should I feel superior just because I can't bring myself to believe something that you do believe? Why should you feel superior just because you have the good fortune to believe something and presumably thus be part of a supportive community, whereas I would be lying if I pretended to believe?
Why can't religious people accept that whether one believes something or not is not a matter of choice!
Posted by: Lili at February 28, 2007 5:31 PM
"Their attitude has overwhelmingly been: who cares if we bring in large numbers of the worst religion into the country, if the only harm they do is hurt the Christian faith."
This smacks of paranoia to me.
Posted by: JFGR at February 28, 2007 8:00 PM
From the original post:
'From the earliest days Christianity has been opposed to slavery. In his Letter to the Galatians, St Paul wrote: “As many of you that have been baptised in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. We were all one in Jesus Christ.”'
Unfortunately this no more indicates an opposition to slavery than it does to the continued existence of sex differences. Rather it is implying that slaves, women, etc., are all of equal value to other Christians on some other-worldly level. Such an attitude may have developed into abolitionism later on, but it didn't constitute abolitionism.
Posted by: Mr. Spog at March 1, 2007 6:19 PM
Christian didnot end slavely. When Christian became the state religion of the Roman Empire slavely didnot end in the Roman Empire and slavely was still legal in the Dark Age and the Middle age for than very good economical reason called CHEAP LABOR, Islam official discourge slavely one any mistreaten of than slave report to the autherity can lead for the authority freeing that slave. Under Islam law than slave was allow to earm money without hand it over to his owner than was allow to buy his freedom
from his owner. The Koran stated that the act of freeing than slave earm a very great award from Allah in the Hereafther.Under Islam law than slave of than other religion was free to workship that religion. In compareing in America slave where often mistreat by they owner, they where not allow to earm they own money to buy they freedom, many where muslim and other non-christian force to convert to Christian. Many Southern states have law saying that not even than owner can free his slave while he or she was alive but only after they death by than will.
at March 2, 2007 3:16 AM
On the current stata of slavery in Islam
The Arabian peninsula in 1962 became the world's final region to officially abolish slavery, yet even afterward Saudi Arabia alone was estimated to contain a quarter of a million slaves. As many as 20 million Pakistanis (mainly Christians and lower-caste Muslims) are now being held in bondage. Arab Muslims in the northern Sudan have been systematically starving the Black African adherents of traditional African religions and Christians in the south; raids have also been taking slaves, a practice Sudan had once abolished.
Britain abolished slavery approximately 200 years before Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Odyessus at March 2, 2007 6:21 AM
Tsk tsk DefenderOfI. HA! HA! HA!
Your ME gives us the result of such…“policy.”
at March 2, 2007 7:49 PM
joeblough
welcome to JW
great posts, but spare a thought for the people from a Christian background/heritage who may not be especially religious who are concerned about the constant denigration of their culture by the multiculturists. Yes it (Christianity)is flawed but I think it is essential that it is retained as the basis/building block of European society. There are a lot of people from different political/religious persuasions who post here, and what brings them together is the desire to expose fascism (whether religious(Islam)or political from the left (Communism) or from the right(Nazism). The political elite are doing a very good job of convincing most people that all religions are morally equivalent. People who visit here know that this is not the case.(and is demonstrable)
This whole ugly thing is about culture, and as the younger generation in the West get lost in the idea that their heritage is worthless / cruel / corrupt we are loosing site of what brings us together.
I go along with Oriana Fallaci when she described herself as a Christian-Atheist. I see myself more as an Agnostic but a Christian one. Please don't hate me.
at March 2, 2007 9:01 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)