Posted on 01/09/2015 9:29:39 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Secondly, a person being British isn’t synonymous with them being Christians.
Hair splitting. Their entire form of government was based on the Divine right of Kings and having God at the top of the chain of command was a necessarily acknowledged part of their system. What do you mean not synonymous with them being Christians? As far as they were concerned, they were.
Third, there were non-Christian areas of the world that were well beyond “Christian” Europe during the time of the Dark Ages.
I assume you mean China, which had not progressed much technologically in a thousand years. That they were ahead of the Christianized nations during the dark ages is immaterial. They started a lot longer ago. Most of their advancements lay in the distant past. What is remarkable is how the Western nations caught up and passed them so quickly.
That is a very amusing statement. I can think of two quotes right off the bat that demonstrate how silly it is.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
-Leon Trotsky-
.
The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were one half deprived the use of them . . .--- Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775
Honestly, what do you propose to do about the fanaticism from the Islamic side? Negotiate like reasonable men or something? :)
Adam Smith is good for the economic side of the argument, but Edmund Burke needs to be leading the social side of the argument. You may or may not know that Adam Smith and Edmund Burke were not just contemporaries, but they were close personal friends who discussed Philosophy together, and their ideas are synergistic and meant to be taken together.
Why do Rush Limbaugh and Paul Ryan utter hardly a peep about Adam Smith, but act likes Ayn Rand’s works are the best thing since sliced bread?
Argumentum ad Populum. Argumentum ad Verecundiam.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3245869/posts
You will not be left alone by the Islamists.
The second part is a hasty conclusion from you (as I proffered no logical fallacies) - I only asked a question about why Rush Limbaugh and Paul Ryan utter hardly a peep about Adam Smith.
Yes, I did say that Ryan and Limbaugh utter hardly a peep about Adam Smith but do act like Ayn Rand is the best thing since sliced bread, and this can be seen by merely listetning to Limbaugh's radio show and to what Ryan has said in person, but these facts were still framed within a question.
Again, we must be careful when dealing with monsters that we do not become monsters ourselves.
What good would it do to win in battle and lose ones soul, just like the person who gains the whole world but loses their soul. Jesus Christ warned us of this...
In addressing the last part about atheists losing Western civilization, I cannot make such an absolutist statement, as I am not an Absolute Being. Perhaps you are? Do you know with absolute, infinite certainty, that they would have lost Western Civilization?
I would think that in accordance with an Atheist perspective on things, a Monster which survives is better than a Monster which does not. In a Darwinian society, the worst crime is extinction.
Why? By what moral basis do we conclude that someone is a "monster"? What does that even mean in context? It is completely a subjective moral call, and without some objective moral standard the term is meaningless.
Do you know with absolute, infinite certainty, that they would have lost Western Civilization?
Without the means to motivate followers to fight for something greater than themselves, I do not see how it would have been possible to defeat the Muslims. The absence of a belief engenders no great passion in anyone.
By what compulsion would an atheist want to give up his life for others, and why? Without the belief that there is something more, it is a pointless sacrifice, and one which I think the vast majority of people would balk at making.
“As far as they were concerened, they were.” [Christians]. So if they declared themselves to be Christians then they therefore were?
The Bible says that “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked - who can know it?”
A person can even say “In my heart I know that I am right with God” and/or say “God is telling me in my heart that I am right with Him,” and the whole time it is their wicked, deceitful heart that is deceiving them in to believing either of these.
Secondly, it takes more than an acknowledgment of the divine right of Kings and a belief that God is at the top to make a person a Christian.
1.) Democracy/Representative Republic were a product of the Greeks and theses concepts were revived during the Enlightenment/Age of Reason and found their fulfillment in the U.S. Constitution.
2.) The divine right of Kings was the antithesis to this, and thus...
Ergo Sum: If you say that the divine right of Kings was a Christian/Judaic construct, you would be wrong, and you yourself would then posit (although unwittingly) that Democracy/Representative Republic do not have to have a Christian foundation or basis to work, as shown (again) with India and how it is still flourishing there.
A monster which survives may still very well end up losing their soul. “What would it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?” (Matthew 16:26).
This losing of ones soul can occur in more just the mere accumulation of wealth. Men sell and have sold their souls for other reasons, too.
And I am surprised that you are using a Darwinian argument at all... How does that line up with what Jesus Christ said?
Maher would have gotten on famously with Stalin...until Stalin had other ideas.
You looked to Darwinianism in post #88 in positing that in a Darwinian society the worst crime is extinction, but in a Darwinian society there is no moral call and all is subjective.
To look beyond the subjective, we must look to One who said he was the ultimate, objective source -— Jesus Christ. Everyone is free to either believe or disbelieve what He said about Himself, but in the end, He said that it would not profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul.
Thus one, in battle back then, could become a Christian fanatic (which you posited earlier was needed to win at one time), but doing so could cost one his soul.
In their own minds, yes. Whether or not they accurately followed Christian doctrine is another matter, but they certainly thought they were.
They had "Christian" ideas about such things as burning Widows and such, and they imposed these ideas on India.
1.) Democracy/Representative Republic were a product of the Greeks and theses concepts were revived during the Enlightenment/Age of Reason and found their fulfillment in the U.S. Constitution.
The founders had no use for "Democracy" and considered it to be as bad as Monarchy. Though their ideas on Representative Republic may have been initiated by the Greeks, their more immediate sources of their ideas came from the philosophers on Natural law.
Ergo Sum: If you say that the divine right of Kings was a Christian/Judaic construct, you would be wrong, and you yourself would then posit (although unwittingly) that Democracy/Representative Republic do not have to have a Christian foundation or basis to work, as shown (again) with India and how it is still flourishing there.
And yet the foundation of India's government was based on what the British did. Would it be different had it been run by China? Would China have objected to the burning of Widows and the Caste system? Would the Chinese have wiped out Kali worship along with the Thuggees?
I have to go for now. Just wanted to pop in a for a while. I will be back later, sometime...
Good discussion, Diogenes! I look forward to more.
The idea for a Representative Republic (although in a semi-tyrannical form) was initially the thought of the Greeks.
This idea for representative govt was brought back by such Enlightenment thought luminaries as Locke, Rousseau and later Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin Thomas Jefferson and many others.
A Representative form of govt was antithetical to the scriptures and they full well of this.
Typical LIBERAL a$$hole behavior.
You're gonna get it from one side whether you want it or not. As Trotsky said: "You may not be interested in war, but war is certainly interested in you."
At the very least you need to match ferocity with ferocity.
And saying that nothing but Christian fanaticism would have thrown back the fanatical Muslims is using a conclusionary leap.
Don't see your point at all. According to what I've seen of the historical record, no other form of fanaticism was available at the time.
I also noticed the point is being made in this thread.
Why would someone use a religion based argument on someone who is arguing on behalf of atheism? You must answer an argument within the framework of the person you are trying to convince, not within the framework of concepts in which they don't believe. It would be begging the question don't you think?
I think we can objectively conclude that the losers are inconsequential because they have no further influence and so by default, any measure of success must apply to the winners.
It isn't a "moral" call, it is a recognition of a continuing effect.
Thus one, in battle back then, could become a Christian fanatic (which you posited earlier was needed to win at one time), but doing so could cost one his soul.
I don't think it was explained to them in that way, in fact I think it was the very opposite. It was more like "Be a martyr to the Christian faith and your eternity in paradise is secured."
Whether it is true or not is only relevant if God really exists or not, don't you think? If he doesn't, it's still a good tactic for motivating people to commit the ultimate sacrifice. If he does, I suppose they thought they would be forgiven if they had incorrectly understood what their religious leaders said. (Or if their religious leaders misled them.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.