Posted on 11/16/2005 3:40:35 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Given the false choice, I would call a medicine man (since I have lived with the “Indians”) and not some constipated old archaeologist...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
vegetarian--that's the Indian word for "bad hunter"
It is more of a word for “bad fisherman” in the tribes I lived with... ; ^)
Your totems and taboos carry no weight with me...
Morals and any ideals associated with them are all based on the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior.
An atheist saying something is immoral is no different than any priest or rabbi saying you are a sinner...
Now that is just unkind! Just 'cuz I belong to the SGA*, don't mean a thing.
* Society of Geriatric Archaeologists
I said "Please". Isn't that enough?
Only??
No. If I said that everything Creationists say is a lie, that would be hyperbole. Saying they lie all the time just means that they do it regularly.
Doing something in someones name when they tell you to do it is only those folks doing the same thing by proxy.
What zarqawi does, what Saddam did, is the very same thing.
Intimidation through threat of punishment for thought other than what is dictated. True there is a distinct difference in who is doling out the punishment. But, I think you would agree, the threat of punishment for differing thought remains the same from both zarqawi or Saddam and God.
I didn't equate the person to the god, I compared the threats from both for lack of belief and lack of following along. A book says ALLAH, a book says God. I wouldn't say Allah is God, but I would say they are both books written by man.
Are you to claim that differences negate similarities? I would offer that is an interesting angle. Let me apply that to another example and see if it fits.
One orange has seeds, one doesn't. You can say Both are oranges, but not that both have seeds. This angle you pose seems to point out that saying they are both oranges is incorrect because they have a difference when it comes seeds.
Nope, I don't understand what you were trying to convey to me.
Zarqawi et al. seem to think that they are self-deputized to kill all those who have not converted to Islam.
Christians and Jews do not currently believe and practice such things.
As evidence for this, you have sharia law in varying degrees, from the Sudan to Pakistan to (until recently) Afghanistan. Theocracy? How about fusion of church and state?
Here in the (mostly Christian, in cultural memory if not in daily practice) you get Michael Newdow suing to have "In God We Trust" removed from the currency, after it was added during the 1950's to draw a distinction between the US and Marxists, and NOT to shove Christianity down people's throats. (Not that it would have been shoving anyway, no-one was forced to convert).
If the US had really been the theocracy atheists love to worry about, Newdow would be in a torture camp in Northern Alaska, instead of mouthing off on the MSM.
As far as theology, yes, there are significant differences between Christianity and Islam. If you read Free Republic enough, you will come across the quotes from the Koran (or you can Google) that go approximately like this: The tree will say, "Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him."
Compare this to the Christian "I ask then, has God rejected His people [the Jewish people]? Of course not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin."
Or to put it another way, if you tell a Christian in a Christian country that "Mohammed died for your sins" he'll either snicker or remind you of 9-11. But if you tell a Muslim in an Islamic country that "Jesus died for your sins" you'll be lucky to escape prison.
As far as your fruit analogy, it is circular reasoning, since you stipulate at the beginning that they are both oranges. If you were looking at object-oriented programming languages such as C++ or Java, they WOULD be different; one would be a superclass of the other. The analogy to religion is that one might be an improvement on, or a heresy, of the other.
Of course both the Bible and the Koran were written by men. The relevant questions are how much of the contents were inspired by man, by God, or by other supernatural entity; the fidelity to the inspiration (as in "hi-fi" records vs. MP3); how corrupted the writings are compared to the original sources; and how cultural and language differences have affected the interpretation--there is reciprocal influence in some of these, too.
Cheers!
"1) Uniformity of ethics across cultures
2) The idea that the reputation of those attacking morality as more intellectual was an illusion."
In reference to #1, CS Lewis wrote of the DAO or "the way" from which very ancient cultures seem to draw similar views on Ethics, this "way" being far older then all established religion...he also wrote of the "Logos" as being of the same substance as the "Way". John chapter one uses the term "Logos" which the translators define as "Word". John 1:1-3 states..."In the beginning was the Word(LOGOS or DAO...the underlying schema which patterns and undergirds all the has been created into existence"), and the Word was with God and the Word was God". Notice most of the world could accept that part.
Now, here comes the part that has Darkness hating Christianity.... verse 14 "And that WORD was made FLESH..."(God's thumbprint into matter)
"Light has entered darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it" "The entrance of THY WORD bringeth forth Light!"
As for #2,...It started in the Garden..."And the Serpent said, you shall Not surely die, for God knows that when you eat of the tree, you shall become as the Gods, knowing Good from Evil!" Notice the implied insult, and the flattery of potential personal enhancement to a higher level. ("You are scum, God has been lying to you, he is afraid to share his power with you, but if you do what he doesn't want you to do, you'll throw off his impotent yoke and indeed become as God himself...indeed you could throw him off his throne if you really wanted to...your potential is limitless...come on just take a biiiiittttte![insert appropriate whispered sedutive echoie sound effect here])
An atheist has no absolute reference from which he can coherently utter positions of morality and ethics, or even to accuse the hated religious of various inconsistencies and hypocrisy....at least priests and Rabbi's draw from a theistic reference point...whether others believe in the theistic or not!
You'll note that EVE wasn't around yet to 'hear' God tell Adam not to eat.
Was it's Adam lack for either NOT telling Eve about what God had said; or not making sure she understood it?
HE seemed to make no protest at ALL when she offered HIM a bite!
Sure he does!
His own self is as much as he needs!
They were both told, they were both responsible...Eve told the serpent that she wasn't supposed to "eat of the tree or even touch lest ye die".
My posting wasn't about the evils of "womyn", it was about the deceptive means used to cajole folks to accept an otherwise loathsome point of view. Ergo, you insult a person for their ignorance but then slyly suggest that if they go along with the "latest fashion", or the latest PC correct thought, that they shall then have "grown" into the ranks of the "enlightened"!
When we come to Christ, we are in a sense accepting responsibility for "eating of the forbidden fruit" of prideful hubris by acknowledging God as our true king and Lord...our various mental and spiritual "fig-leaves" are cast away and we are clothed in the blood bought righteousness of Jesus Christ.
You missed the whole point of my postings to Grey whiskers; that God has existed from old and even cultures who had not the full truth of Christ and his love, never-the-less lived under the shadow of the mountain of God, as shown by similarities in laws, ethics and standards of morality. God indeed had "winked at such cultures as Paul states until such time as the Anointed one could be revealed to the world.
But who would listen to such a man who refers to himself as a source of morality that others should emulate? Indeed such men who do so to a certain extreme become candidates for the insane asylum, unless they have come into power then they become absolute tyrants indeed.
While certain religious leaders have "crossed" over into such megalamania under the guise of religion, they are far easier to isolate and deal with then those who profess no strong religious belief, yet argue the positive morality of the utilitarian world view. They can seem reasonable in there insistance that men discard tradtional virtue in the name of of the "greatest good for the greatest number. Such folk may love their cats or lovingly tend to their gardenias while advocating the slaughter of an unwanted population. They are without virtue, they are "men without chests"!
But who would listen to such a man who refers to himself as a source of morality that others should emulate? Indeed such men who do so to a certain extreme become candidates for the insane asylum, unless they have come into power then they become absolute tyrants indeed.
While certain religious leaders have "crossed" over into such megalamania under the guise of religion, they are far easier to isolate and deal with then those who profess no strong religious belief, yet argue the positive morality of the utilitarian world view. They can seem reasonable in there insistance that men discard tradtional virtue in the name of of the "greatest good for the greatest number. Such folk may love their cats or lovingly tend to their gardenias while advocating the slaughter of an unwanted population. They are without virtue, they are "men without chests"!
Cheers!
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.