-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Understanding the Enemy
- Thread starter bewitched
- Start date
Werbung:
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Depends on where in the world you are talking about.
How about 90%? You criticize Christianity for interpretations of doctrine that Ive never even heard stated, let alone followed by any % of Christians. Why the double standard? Are you a muslim?
bewitched
Well-Known Member
because American's are optimistic. this is what Stephen Coughlin says, our downfall and lack of strategy and understanding of the enemy is because we see the enemy as we wish to see them. which is peaceful. in the end we will find out that it simply not true.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
There is pretty sturdy following for the ideas represented in Christian Reconstructionism, so if you've never heard of it, it's because you haven't wanted to.
What double standard? The only one I see is yours.
Muslims are varied - they occupy hundreds of countries, 1st and third world, have a broad spectrum of what they believe and to what degree. In that sense they are like Christians - varied. Yet you continuously deny that variety and instead label them all with the most extreme interpretations of Islam - an interpretation that had it's birth in the most repressive societies of the Middle East. You use that as the "norm" yet if you go by population, those countries are in the minority. When I point out that there are extremes just as vile in Christianity you accuse me of a double standard.
So tell me again how it is you think that I have a double standard.
Reconstructionist? They advocate applying Christian ethics in their daily lives. If I were around when they essentially had a Christian theocracy that lead to the execution of witches, I would be the first to criticize their actions and the first to argue the illigitimacy of their theocratic government based upon biblical scripture.
Matthew 22:21...Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
1 Corinthians 5:12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside.
The double standard by which you criticize christian doctrine based upon tortured interpretations of that doctrine nobody has advocated, and other tortured interpretations that were advocated centuries ago. The double standard you apply to Islam, that somehow renders my criticism of Islamic doctrine as illigitimate even though it is based upon literal interpretations of that doctrine that is being advocated today, leading to the execution of thousands.
Thats why I limit my criticism to the doctrine in the Koran, which is the same among all Muslims, and the Buhkari hadiths which are second only to the Koran among the Sunnis who make up 90% of Muslims.... not that the shiites are any better.
Ive done no such thing. Makin the shiite up as you go along and strawman arguements, the substance of all your arguements.
Actually it had its birth in 632 with the first Caliphate. The interpretation that sustained the authority of that caliphate for 1300 years. The same interpretation that has fought to re establish that Caliphate since 1924. And as opposed to being a tortured interpretation, it is a LITERAL interpretation using the clear meaning of the words. If they were using a tortured interpretation of the doctrine, I would be critical of the interpretation, not the doctrine.
On the note of repressive caliphates -it was certainly not the case with the Ottoman Empire of around 1400-1600. They were one of the most free socities, far more free than any Chrisitan equivilant of the time. While anyone challening the church or worshipping other Gods was being whipped and burnt in a pot, Jews, Chrisitans and Pagans in the Muslim empire were free to worship who they liked and scholars made many techniological advances because they weren't at risk of being hacked up by the religious institutes like in Italy.
Look it up before you ramble arse about the history of Islam.
Look it up before you ramble arse about the history of Islam.
Odd that you attach Coyote's description of "repressive societies" to my description of the "caliphate" which I only described as having the authority of a LITERAL interpretation of Islamic Doctrine from its inception in 632, until its demise in 1924.
So, setting aside your strawman, was there anything specific in my assesment of Islamic history you wanted to dispute? Are you trying to argue that the authority of the Islamic Caliphate that ruled from 632 - 1924 was contrary to Islamic doctrine? That its not a literal interpretation? What is it exactly that you disagree with?
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Then you need to do some more research. Christian reconstructionists/dominionists advocate biblical law - theonomy - no more, no less - in everyone's daily lives. Including of course, traditional biblical punishments for traditional biblical "crimes".
According to Gary DeMar, a prominant reconstructionist author, the foundation of Reconstructionism is a combination of three Biblical doctrines:
1. Regeneration of the individual, through an intimate relationship with Christ
2. Individuals guiding their lives closely by following a specified subset of Biblical laws
3. Promoting of the world-wide Kingdom of God.
The double standard is doubly clear: you use extremist interpretations of Islam to paint the entire faith. If someone does the same for Christianity - you go on about "tortured interpretations" etc. etc.
In other words you are perfectly happy using extremist views to make your argument about Islam, but are unwilling to entertain a similar argument for Christianity despite evidence that there are Christian sects today who advocate those extremist views.
Hypocrisy.
??? They advocate that most of "everyone's daily lives" would be ordered by the church and family. With civil government left with minimal powers.
They advocate a separation of church and state.
Regardless, they advocate voting for electoral candidates who they think best support their views...... as opposed to waging a holy war to bring it about.
More of your usual, BS srtawman arguements because you cant address the real ones. The "entire faith" does not consist solely of written doctrine. My criticism is of the doctrine, which is only a part of the "entire faith". If you are going to insist otherwise, I am going to insist you focking copy and paste my focking words that could lead even the simplest of minds to believe that I "paint the entire faith" with anything, other than having the same written doctrine.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Hardly. That's mostly sophistry. Church and state would effectively be the same because the laws would be biblically based. Look at the whole of what they are advocating and tell me honestly if you think seperation of church and state is part of it.
Taken from Wikipedia:
Christian Reconstructionism is a religious and theological movement within Protestant Christianity that calls for Christians to put their faith into action in all areas of life. The beliefs characteristic of Christian Reconstructionism include:
1. Calvinism as the basis for personal regeneration that is required to change people before changes occur in the broader culture,
2. Theonomy applying the general principles of Old Testament and New Testament moral law and case laws in the appropriate family, church and/or civil government,
3. Postmillennialism, the Christian Eschatology belief that God's kingdom began at the first coming of Jesus Christ, and will advance throughout history until it fills the whole earth through conversion to the Christian faith,
4. The presuppositional apologetics of Cornelius Van Til which holds there is no neutrality between believers and non-believers, that the Bible reveals a self-authenticating world-view and system of truth, and that non-believing belief systems self-destruct when they become more consistent with their presuppositions, (Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic, pp. 145-6, 97, 315-6) and
5. Decentralized social order resulting in minimal state power.[1]
The social structure advocated by Christian Reconstructionism would have the clergy, laity and government, individually and corporately, to be in ultimate submission to the moral principles of the Bible, including the Old Testament, while retaining their separate jurisdictional spheres of authority and roles in society as inferred from principles of biblical law, both Old and New Testaments.
Christian Reconstructionists describe their view of public ethics by the term, "Theonomy" (the Law of God governs); while their critics tend to label them "Theocratic" (God governs). The notable differences are that "theocracy" is usually thought of as totalitarian and involving no distinction between church and state, while Reconstructionists claim that "theonomy" is broadly libertarian and maintains a distinction of sphere of authority between family, church, and state.[2] For example, enforcement of moral sanctions under theonomy is done by family and church government, and sanctions for moral offenses is outside the authority of civil government (which is limited to criminal matters, courts and national defense). However, in some areas the application of theonomy could increase the authority of the civil government; prominent advocates of Christian Reconstructionism have written that according to their understanding, God's law approves of the death penalty not only for murder, but also for propagators of idolatry[3][4][5], active homosexuals[6], adulterers, practitioners of witchcraft, and blasphemers[7], and perhaps even recalcitrant youths.
Written doctrine is interpreted and acted upon in majorly different ways. When this point is brought up - you appear to insist that there is only one interpretation of that doctrine and that is a literal translation - stripped of context - of passages. What you appear to say is that is the only valid interpretation and that it taints the entire faith. You simultaneiously ignore passages that mention peace, justice etc. You discount the more moderate views of doctrine by Islamic scholars and clerics. It certainly appears as if you are painting the entire faith with an extremist's brush. My view is that extremism (or fundamentalism) is the enemy. Your view appears to be that the doctrine itself is. I disagree.
Blah blah blah, your making my point, and like I said, they advocate voting for candidates who support their views as opposed to waging jihad to bring it about.
There is usually one literal interpretation, supported by the context. There are countless other interpretations. What appears to you has nothing to do with my statements.
I was not attacking a strawman, I was launching a pre-emptive strike before you began rabbiting about the history of Islam
The Caliphate under the Ottomans for example traded with Venice and had an alligence with the French for a long time against other European powers. They never forcefully converted entire nations who became their subjects. It hardly sounds like they were chasing out the infidel and enforcing their religion upon everyone.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Sophistry.
It doesn't matter exactly how it's brought about if the end result is the SAME as the end result of Islamic extremism.
Try again and explain how they support a separation of church and state when they are advocating strict biblical law.
You are wrong and wrong for a variety of reasons.
You can have literal verbatum interpretations, but how accurate are they when you have documents translated from a different language and a different culture (the two are inseperable). You have passages in the bible that are not meant to be interpreted literally such as parables yet they could be. Context becomes blurry when a thousand years have passed and a document has been translated, added to, subtracted from.
To say there is usually one literal interpretation is foolish and blind and characteristic of a fundamentalist mindset.
Werbung:
bewitched
Well-Known Member
I was not attacking a strawman, I was launching a pre-emptive strike before you began rabbiting about the history of Islam
The Caliphate under the Ottomans for example traded with Venice and had an alligence with the French for a long time against other European powers. They never forcefully converted entire nations who became their subjects. It hardly sounds like they were chasing out the infidel and enforcing their religion upon everyone.
ahh, but the new Caliphate has a new plan, which includes more world donimation... according to records ceased from Saddam's computer, Gadaffi's and AQ sources.
