Philosophy Now Forum

Nick_A wrote:When I read these responses I shudder and say to myself: "There but for the grace of God go I."

That's a huge mote in your eye.

Why are you singling out 'feminists' as not protesting about islam? I can't think of ANY group that hold rallies to specifically protest about islam. Could you post some links that show kristian groups protesting about islam? Individuals like (atheists) Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens criticise islam (or did), but apparently it's not PC for groups to do it. Kristians in general don't criticise islam; they are too busy hating women and probably secretly admire islam's open misogyny.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I can't think of ANY group that hold rallies to specifically protest about islam. Could you post some links that show kristian groups protesting about islam?

There won't be many. Christianity, properly understood, is apolitical. That is, it does not look to political means in order to achieve its moral ends. As Jesus so clearly said, "My Kingdom is not of this world...(John 18:36)." In fact, you'll note in the context that he said this in response to the political authorities' suspicion He might try fomenting political unrest (John 18:30, 33, 37).

So making political waves is not the ideal Christian pattern. Historically, it is true they have done it to good effect in things like anti-slavery and anti-segregation movements, women's voting, human rights, public schooling, hospitals, educational institutions, addiction rescue, social welfare and prison reform initiatives, and so on. But it's not their natural methodology, and you can't expect them to adopt it in all cases. Usually, their political impact more organic and indirect than any consequence of willful political action.

Meanwhile, Islamic persons are not regarded by Christians as inherently more problematic than other groups. They are a challenge in certain physical and political senses, it's true: for one thing, they are more vigorous in killing Christians at present. But secularists murder a whole lot more babies. In fact, Atheists and other religionists are not particularly fair or kind to Christians either. Stalinist Russia or Maoist China were secular...and their human rights records with regard to Christians were appalling. And the modern, secular West celebrates those who slander Christians, like Dawkins and Hitchens, and publicly vilifies anyone who claims to be a Christian -- depicting them in media as hypocrites, villains, fanatics and perverts, and denying all the good that has been done through them, and freely mocking and abusing them at all times. In fact, you will find nothing is easier to get away with in the PC West than deriding Christians. Apparently, no vaunted PC sympathy extends to them. Thus we find little kindness in the tender mercies of the political milieu in the West.

So from a Christian perspective, there's no reason to single out the Muslims as the only issue, though at present they're a serious problem for many people, religious and secular. While it's true they're a unique political challenge, they are not an incomparable religious and personal one.

Immanuel Can wrote:Christianity, properly understood, is apolitical. That is, it does not look to political means in order to achieve its moral ends.

You are joking aren't you?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Christianity, properly understood, is apolitical. That is, it does not look to political means in order to achieve its moral ends.

You are joking aren't you?

No, not at all. Read the text I cited, and you'll see.

Immanuel Can wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Christianity, properly understood, is apolitical. That is, it does not look to political means in order to achieve its moral ends.

You are joking aren't you?

No, not at all. Read the text I cited, and you'll see.

And of course that's 'real Christians' as opposed to 'not real ones'. Sorry, but as soon as I see 'John 3: or Mattew 666: or whatever I switch off. Your babble god-bothering means nothing to me.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Christianity, properly understood, is apolitical. That is, it does not look to political means in order to achieve its moral ends.

Very true. The trouble is that political Christendom or man made Christianity has become dominant in secular society as it must. Christianiaty must be denied by the darkness of the World as a whole so can only really be valued by a relative few in comparison to mass rejection.

Luke 20: 25 “Well then,” he said, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.”

Secular society cannot understand what this means. If it could, it wouldn't be secular. The value of Christian morality is made evident by the psychological life of Christians and the energy associated with it, not by followers of Christendom acting a part and unwilling to carry their cross.

Vege, it should be obvious that I'm emphasizing the hypocrisy of feminists loudly demonstrating in favor of women's rights becoming strangely silent in the face of the blatant condoned abuse of women by Sharia. Any person with even the slightest compassion who is not a slave to an agenda will be repulsed by such blatant hypocrisy. This will raise the obvious question "why." What is it about the human condition that turns people into the most offensive hypocrites? Only a few are willing to impartially ponder this question.

Nick_A wrote:Vege, it should be obvious that I'm emphasizing the hypocrisy of feminists loudly demonstrating in favor of women's rights becoming strangely silent in the face of the blatant condoned abuse of women by Sharia. Any person with even the slightest compassion who is not a slave to an agenda will be repulsed by such blatant hypocrisy. This will raise the obvious question "why." What is it about the human condition that turns people into the most offensive hypocrites? Only a few are willing to impartially ponder this question.

It should be obvious I'm emphasizing the hypocrisy of kristians who pretend to have sleepless nights crying over blood-clots, yet are silent on the abuse of women in islam.

Vege wrote:

It should be obvious I'm emphasizing the hypocrisy of kristians who pretend to have sleepless nights crying over blood-clots, yet are silent on the abuse of women in islam.

It will take at least two double scotches to make any sense out of vege's post. But to further collective human knowledge, I may have to make the effort.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: And of course that's 'real Christians' as opposed to 'not real ones'. Sorry, but as soon as I see 'John 3: or Mattew 666: or whatever I switch off. Your babble god-bothering means nothing to me.

Okay, so just out to insult, not interested in understanding.

Gottit.

Have a nice day.

Immanuel Can wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:It is a Christian majority country and most murders happen within the family. So, I didn't expect that to be a very controversial point.

It should be. You made a completely statistically incorrect assumption: that Muslim and Christian belief entails the same actions, and that statistics you didn't check "must" exist. So you (inadvertently?) slandered all those poor Christians getting massacred in Syria, accusing them of being the same as the people who are killing them for being different.

No. I didn't make that assumption and I wasn't travelling in that direction. Have you read this thread?

Well, let's see EXACTLY what you said.

FlashDangerpants wrote:These abuses by muslims are given no lenient treatment by anybody in the USA, they go to prison the same as Christians who so often murder their families over there. Why are you demanding special treatment for muslims? Is every murder of one's wife daughter or sister not equally tragic to you?

So now, who are these "Christians" who are "murdering their families over there'? And you must know, because you assert it is "so often." And "often" things are much easier to prove than "never" things, or even than rare exceptions.

But you say you "weren't going there," which I suppose means you "weren't" about to accuse Syrian or other Mideast Christians of doing the same thing to their own families as the Muslims do to the Christians' families.

Sure looks like you "were travelling in that direction." In fact, it looks like you got there.

Immanuel Can wrote:Well, let's see EXACTLY what you said.

FlashDangerpants wrote:These abuses by muslims are given no lenient treatment by anybody in the USA, they go to prison the same as Christians who so often murder their families over there. Why are you demanding special treatment for muslims? Is every murder of one's wife daughter or sister not equally tragic to you?

So now, who are these "Christians" who are "murdering their families over there'? And you must know, because you assert it is "so often." And "often" things are much easier to prove than "never" things, or even than rare exceptions.

But you say you "weren't going there," which I suppose means you "weren't" about to accuse Syrian or other Mideast Christians of doing the same thing to their own families as the Muslims do to the Christians' families.

Sure looks like you "were travelling in that direction." In fact, it looks like you got there.

Not to mention all the kristians murdering muslims and their families in the ME.

Immanuel Can wrote:Well, let's see EXACTLY what you said.

FlashDangerpants wrote:These abuses by muslims are given no lenient treatment by anybody in the USA, they go to prison the same as Christians who so often murder their families over there. Why are you demanding special treatment for muslims? Is every murder of one's wife daughter or sister not equally tragic to you?

So now, who are these "Christians" who are "murdering their families over there'? And you must know, because you assert it is "so often." And "often" things are much easier to prove than "never" things, or even than rare exceptions.

But you say you "weren't going there," which I suppose means you "weren't" about to accuse Syrian or other Mideast Christians of doing the same thing to their own families as the Muslims do to the Christians' families.

Sure looks like you "were travelling in that direction." In fact, it looks like you got there.

I definitely wasn't going in the direction you are suggesting and I think that is because you haven't read the thread and seen the direction it has been travelling in. Please at least stop to get the gist of the discussion before taking snippets out of context.