Not Helping
Mar. 14th, 2006 03:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tealinWould someone please make Pat Robertson sit in the corner for a while?
Top US evangelist targets Islam
Top US evangelist targets Islam
tealintealin
Links
Page Summary
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Style Credit
- Style: Denim for Basic Boxes by branchandroot
- Resources: On the Down Low
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2006-03-16 03:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-16 07:30 am (UTC)-aside from the extreme hypocrisy in accusing Islam of wanting to convert/control the world, he does not take into account many, many Muslims worldwide who are horrified by the actions of the radical extremists among them, and who would never consider forcing their beliefs on others - certainly not by violence (regardless of the history of the religion or the region - i.e. one would hope modern Catholics would not be indentified with crusaders)
-While some Americans may be motivated to TRY to forcefully transform the Midle East (good luck!), the most likely result of his remarks is to make people angrier and crazier, which ultimately only serves one principality's purpose...
no subject
Date: 2006-03-16 12:17 pm (UTC)Whaaaa??
Date: 2006-03-16 10:22 pm (UTC)Really? I think you get the award for Most Ballsy, Inflammatory Remark of the Day! But before I start making unfair assumptions, I want to make sure I understand your reasoning here: What is it about modern Catholics that you despise? What aspects of the Inquisitors/Crusaders do you identify with? Because - don't get me wrong - I have a lot of respect for people who really believe they need to "save" the world and actually put everything on the line, risking ridicule to invite people to share in what they hold so precious - this shows that they put their love and concern for their fellow man above popularity or safe anonymity. Whether I think they're actually right or wrong, I still think it takes a lot of guts to act on your convictions (especially after proselytizing for 2 years myself)...to a point. There are obviously ways to do this that show and maintain respect for individual freedom of choice, that do not infringe on others' rights, that do not insult or HURT them. My admittedly limited understanding and impression of the Crusades, the Inquisition, (and stuff like the Salem Witch Trials) is that of political and military leaders who happened to also have power and authority in the Church (that was the only place you could go to have real power), who twisted and abused the faith, the trust, the religious beliefs of their subjects to expand their power and dominion (sound familiar?). Do you really think God was behind their actions? That He would have approved of FORCING the choice of "convert or die"? Or of the cruel torture used to extract information, to elicit false confessions, to needlessly punish, to inspire fear (again, this is sounding frighteningly familiar) - do the ends REALLY justify the means? Is someone who converts out of necessity really converted? You could argue that the millions of modern Christians in Central and South America prove that the Conquistadors succeeded in saving them all from paganism or human sacrifice or whatever (regardless of how the original victims felt about "converting") - but at what cost? I would argue that for every such "success", the Catholic Church, Christianity, and/or organized religion took a beating and lost ground, either in retaliatory military defeats or in the minds and hearts of those that paid attention to history, that hated and resented being forcibly robbed of their identities (or who saw it happening to others), and as a result are effectively "lost". In my not-so-humble opinion, a religion that cannot win converts through the sheer strength and appeal (and/or truthfulness) of its ideas does not deserve to thrive and ultimately (it may take time) will not survive.
Part 2 (it was too long to post together)
Date: 2006-03-16 10:25 pm (UTC)Well...good question. I probably deserve the wimpy title of "salad bar" Mormon (or Christian, if I'm allowed)(you pick what you're comfortable with and discard/ignore the rest) when I question the completeness, the authorship, the agenda behind and/or the accuracy of the translations of those particular passages, because they do not jive with my sense of right and wrong, or fair play, or with the image I have (or at least hope for) of a loving, caring God who loves all His children and values free will. Maybe that means I don't have the right to claim to truly accept the Bible or consider myself a true Christian. Maybe when I die I will realize I had this all wrong, that I foolishly allied myself with the wrong people, that I am truly a stranger to God. But I guess I have to act upon what seems and what feels right to me (at least for now), and allow everyone else the same privilege - until they start breaking the law or advocating violence, and then I will bust their chops. That may be a real cop-out in terms of failing to end my end of the debate with solid evidence or logic or reason, but I really believe it (and in the end, isn't that what religion must ultimately rely upon?)
Re: Part 2 (it was too long to post together)
Date: 2006-03-18 03:05 pm (UTC)Re: Part 2 (it was too long to post together)
Date: 2006-03-19 02:15 am (UTC)My apologies for my sloppy wording ("modern" instead of "modernist" - you are right, a BIG difference!), and, although it took some initial wading and digging, I actually got a lot out of the article you kindly refered me to on Modernism! My simplistic grasp of the overall concept (allowing for variance and different degrees)is that it basically denies the possibility of true miracles, formerly documented or in the future, and asserts that only personal revelation is valid, that noone has the right to truly divine revelation on behalf of another (even if they are the appointed ecclesiastical authority) - obviously there's a lot more to it than that, but am I close? Anyway, since you must be dying to know more of my personal thoughts on this (Shh!!), I fall in the contemptible catagory of so-called Christians who do not deny the possibilty that any/most/all of the miraculous events described in the scriptures could have happened (although I strongly suppose, for example, that the Book of Job may be more of a divinely-inspired parable than actual history [that whole thing in "V for Vendetta" about how a so - called "lie" can help you understand a true principle]), and that church authorities may very well be divinely appointed and inspired to council and prophecy on my or others' behalf...but I reserve the right to personally question and/or accept the validity of each and every claim on a case-by-case basis, judging everything against personal study/research, experience, careful contemplation, and by seeking individual spiritual confirmation. Which, I fear, pits me with those who are "neither cold nor hot", but "lukewarm", fit only to be spued.(KJV, Revelations 3:15-16). But such is my perspective at this point in my life, and I reserve the right to revise it, in the face of new, compelling evidence, at any time.:)Yeah, I'm "solid as a rock"!
Although I really would like to know more about the Crusades and the Inquisition, I realize it isn't your job to educate or enlighten me, or anyone else, and you inspired me to to do a little research of my own on the subject (I suspect that a lot of your readers are similarly inspired to learn a lot more about everything, not just to find ammo to refute your assertions, but to have some clue as to what the CRAP you're talking about! For that alone, I dub thee Sir Awesome-Cool). Anyway, if you do ever have the time or inclination to expound upon these subjects more lengthily in your journal, please let me know - I look forward to reading
Re: Part 2 (it was too long to post together)
Date: 2006-03-19 02:26 am (UTC)I just spent, like, all day on a comment here, and just as I was typing the last couple of words, before I could proofread or spellcheck or anything, all of a sudden it says I posted the comment anonymously! I don't know if you got any of it at all, but if you didn't, please let me know, and I could try to summarize it, assuming you even care. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! (shakes angry fists in the air)
no subject
Date: 2006-03-19 02:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-19 01:13 pm (UTC)On Argument
Date: 2006-03-19 02:58 am (UTC)Even if you have no hope of actually bringing people around to your point of view (thus making your argument, as you consider it, 'wasted effort') I feel that such provocative statements must at least be backed up with an explanation. Even if no one agrees with you, at least we'll know why you feel what you do. Take your time, but some explanation would be greatly appreciated.
Re: On Argument
Date: 2006-03-19 03:04 pm (UTC)Re: On Argument
Date: 2006-03-20 05:51 am (UTC)Would it be presumptuous of me to suggest clarifying/amending your previous statement along the lines of, you understand and identify with the sentiments behind the original Crusade and Inquisition - to defend the Church and her members against serious attacks and persecution - that both were understandable responses (at least initially) to the attacks and outside pressures facing the Church at the time, even if you don't agree with or condone all of the actions committed by the Crusaders (i.e., the Sack of Constantinople, the indiscriminate massacre of the population of Jerusalem, as well as the sacking of many small towns along the way), or those directly inspired by the Crusaders (particularly the mass murder of Jews throughout Europe), as well as much of what motivated and occured in the several following Crusades and Inquisitions? Is that fair? Or have I misrepresnted your position? It's just that, the way you threw it out there before, the casual reader (particularly one without a detalied familiarity of history) might assume you were asserting that EVERYTHING about ALL the Crusades and Inquisitions was really noble and wonderful, which I don't think you intended.
Re: On Argument
Date: 2006-03-20 09:32 am (UTC)Re: On Argument
Date: 2006-03-20 09:39 pm (UTC)Well, maybe not, but, speaking for myself, it would be nice.
Generally, it is true that most people wouldn't hold your feet to the fire for voicing support for the WWII allies, or Lincoln (though I essentially agree with you, you might not get as much of a free pass with the Irish struggle, depending on who you were talking to) - you generally won't be forced to explain yourself, but thoughtful (and humble;)) people like myself will always appreciate it when anyone bothers with such caveats, however obvious they may seem, particularly in an age when the justifications for and methods of war are getting particularly murky and complicated (maybe they always were, but at least we're more willing to acknowledge that, nowadays), and there are plenty of people who really DON'T have a problem with the caveats you mentioned, and who are defending/advocating the use of similar tactics right now.
Not having nearly the grasp you clearly do of history,it's impossible for me to confirm/deny your contention that Holy Wars (undertaken in the name of God) are generally more humanely conducted than unapologetically secular wars (or are you confining this statement to the wars influenced by the enlightenment?), but it does seem (unfairly or not) to me that an awful lot of conflicts were perpetrated by people (not always Catholic or Christian) who claimed to be acting in the name of God, and who felt that, because they had a divine mandate, they had carte blanche to ignore the laws or rights of the unbelievers (which is, unfortunately, what scares a lot of secularists - the fear that religious people can justify any action, as long as they are convinced that God told them to do it, or just that He is on their side, no matter what)
For what it's worth, your example from Nicholas Nickelby is excellent; clearly war, however awful, is sometimes the best available option. As someone who actually liked a lot of the aspects of Clinton's administration, I still think it's absolutely shameful that he and other world leaders did not orchestrate a swift military intervention into the Rwandan genocide, for example.
Re: Part 2 (it was too long to post together)
Date: 2006-03-19 01:23 pm (UTC)My apologies for my sloppy wording ("modern" instead of "modernist" - you are right, a BIG difference!), and, although it took some initial wading and digging, I actually got a lot out of the article you kindly refered me to on Modernism! My simplistic grasp of the overall concept (allowing for variance and different degrees)is that it basically denies the possibility of true miracles, formerly documented or in the future, and asserts that only personal revelation is valid, that no one has the right to truly divine revelation on behalf of another (even if they are the appointed ecclesiastical authority) - obviously there's a lot more to it than that, but am I close? Anyway, since you must be dying to know more of my personal thoughts on this (Shh!!), I fall in the contemptible catagory of so-called Christians who do not deny the possibilty that any/most/all of the miraculous events described in the scriptures could have happened (although I strongly suppose, for example, that the Book of Job may be more of a divinely-inspired parable than actual history [that whole thing in "V for Vendetta" about how a so - called "lie" can help you understand a true principle]), and that church authorities may very well be divinely appointed and inspired to council and prophecy on my or others' behalf...but I reserve the right to personally question and/or accept the validity of each and every claim on a case-by-case basis, judging everything against personal study/research, experience, careful contemplation, and by seeking individual spiritual confirmation. Which, I fear, pits me with those who are "neither cold nor hot", but "lukewarm", fit only to be spued.(KJV, Revelations 3:15-16). But such is my perspective at this point in my life, and I reserve the right to revise it, in the face of new, compelling evidence, at any time.:)Yeah, I'm "solid as a rock"!
Although I really would like to know more about the Crusades and the Inquisition, I realize it isn't your job to educate or enlighten me, or anyone else, and you inspired me to to do a little research of my own on the subject (I suspect that a lot of your readers are similarly inspired to learn a lot more about everything, not just to find ammo to refute your assertions, but to have some clue as to what the CRAP you're talking about! ;) For that alone, I dub thee Sir Awesome-Cool). Anyway, if you do ever have the time or inclination to expound upon these subjects more lengthily in your journal, please let me know - I look forward to reading your insights.