Hiding In Plain Sight.

[FIND]

blah blah blah, personal attacks, ad hominem

I think so. It's worked out quite well for us and I believe in it. You couldn't have the enlightened period with Christianity.

Couldn't have the dark ages without christianity. Couldn't have the persecution of many of the greatest minds in history without christianity.

Do you have a better philosophical foundation in mind?

How bout making our own decisions based upon our own sense of right and wrong? How about honest study of history.

You've mischaracterized what Shag said.
Blah blah personal attack just so that you can try and appear superior to me

Oh, how have I mischaracterized what shag said? IIRC, Shag said that Christianity has been the dominant culture that has survived in place of others that came before it, and that it has done so for a reason, and that because of its survivability, it must be superior to other cultures. I just called christians conquerors. Two different ways to say the same thing. Do we have to be PC now?

By the way.... still at it with the insults. Like I said, insults are the first resort of the weak-minded, and it seems that you are furious tonight. You are just going nuts aren't you? Your anger is apparent in every one of your posts. Go take a xanax or something.

And for the record, you've now demonstrated that you are essentially PeteSweet's mildly retarded older brother.
Was wearing a dunce hat too subtle, you had to post that cliche picture?

But, if you want analyze it seriously, let's take a closer look at that chart. Of course, it's not scientific, but it does make a point.

See that dark spot where the advancement drops real fast?
Do you know what historically happened during the period?
ISLAM.
That's the period of Islamic domination and expansion.

See the part where it jumps back up?
That's right about the time of that the Islamic expansion began to collapse and the Muslim were pushed out of Europe and the Christian renaissance and enlightenment began. You might learn some day that Islam has never had a "renaissance" or "enlightenment." They just conquered people who were more cultured and educated and then broke their will through genocide or dhimmitude.

..you're just too clever by half, Find.

Ooh, good time to catch your edit. You fail again. Muslim culture in the middle-east was more technologically advanced at that time than European culture. You sure you know your history? Well, doesn't matter anyways, since your time frame is way off anyhow. Mohammed didn't even start "receiving revelations from god" until the 600s. Islam was not in wide practice until the middle 600s, the mid 700s began their "golden age" that lasted until the 1200s, and that was their real period of expansion. You think that the muslims were the ones who caused the persecution of intellectuals in Europe after the spread of Christianity in the 400s? Heck, in the middle-eastern part of the world, the earth was round during the dark ages, and they were using optics to see farther away.

You fail again.

 

[shagdrum]

So in other words, you don't like the fact that I come here with facts, while you want to say gay marriage caused the fall of Rome.

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

A: I never said that gay marriage caused the fall of Rome.

B: you hardly ever bring facts. Only contention. In fact, on this issue, specifically, I can say with confidence that I have forgotten more then you will ever know. I spent an entire semester researching the issue of gay marriage as prep work for a statistical study I did on the matter. Frankly, I am tired of the issue, which is why I don't jump right into it. However, the childish, specious arguments you and hrmwrm are perpetuating are aimmed at dismissing opposition to gay marriage instead of giving the argument any honest consideration. Actions like that, which serve to stifle discourse inherently offend me.

 

[FIND]

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

A: I never said that gay marriage caused the fall of Rome.

at worst, gay marriage did play a part. Either way, Rome is not a ringing endorsement of gay marriage.

B: you hardly ever bring facts. Only contention. In fact, on this issue, specifically, I can say with confidence that I have forgotten more then you will ever know. I spent an entire semester researching the issue of gay marriage as prep work for a statistical study I did on the matter. Frankly, I am tired of the issue, which is why I don't jump right into it. However, the childish, specious arguments you and hrmwrm are perpetuating are aimmed at dismissing opposition to gay marriage instead of giving the argument any honest consideration. Actions like that, which serve to stifle discourse inherently offend me.

Oh, is that why you have to keep dodging every issue in this thread and instead focus on dismissing what other people say by use of your petty insults?

 

[Calabrio]

Couldn't have the dark ages without christianity. Couldn't have the persecution of many of the greatest minds in history without christianity.

No, you wouldn't have had the Dark Ages if not for the collapse of the Roman Empire. What does the "Dark Ages" mean to you. As I've recently mentioned, Islam came to power during the "Dark Ages."

And you wouldn't have had the greatest philosophers, artists, and scientist had it not been for the teachings of Christianity. The concept of an orderly universe, the empowerment and rights of the individual are all part of it. Those aren't universally accepted concepts.

How bout making our own decisions based upon our own sense of right and wrong? How about honest study of history.

And what do you base right and wrong on?
You might not even know it, but your perception of right and wrong is profoundly shaped by the society- and that society was shaped by judeo-christian philosophy.

It's hard to initially understand, but your right to not practice a religion comes from the fact that the society was shaped by Christian religious teachings. And those values are NOT universal.

By the way.... still at it with the insults. Like I said, insults are the first resort of the weak-minded

I agree. That's why you have chosen to respond to all thoughtful attempts at dialog with dismissal and insults. I'm long past the "first resort" responses this evening, if I jab now it's just for my entertainment and to publicly reinforce the perception of your ineptitude.

 

[FIND]

No, you wouldn't have had the Dark Ages if not for the collapse of the Roman Empire. What does the "Dark Ages" mean to you. As I've recently mentioned, Islam came to power during the "Dark Ages."

And you wouldn't have had the greatest philosophers, artists, and scientist had it not been for the teachings of Christianity. The concept of an orderly universe, the empowerment and rights of the individual are all part of it. Those aren't universally accepted concepts.

Christianity came before the fall of Rome. Christianity, in part, caused the fall of Rome. Islam came around 300 years after the fall of Rome.

Perhaps it was just coincidence christianity was there for those great intellectuals. Or maybe christianity was a good thing. Maybe god wanted many of the great intellectuals to have been born into christian cultures so that they could be put to death as heretics and gain enough notoriety through their deaths to be remembered and studied in the future. Now, why don't you tell me what philosophers, artists and scientists exist just because of Christianity? Rights of individuals? Wow, show me where the bible taught that.

How do you reconcile the view of the earth as a sphere with your theory that christianity automatically led to advancement. During roman times, it was accepted that the earth was round, by 700 ad Bishop Vergilius of Salzburg was being accused of teaching vile and sinful doctrines against god for saying the earth was a round.

Would you like me to list some more things that the church called a sin? Germ research? Anatomy? It would be quite a long list.

And what do you base right and wrong on?

IDK, what I feel instead of just what the flying spaghetti monster teaches.

You might not even know it, but your perception of right and wrong is profoundly shaped by the society- and that society was shaped by judeo-christian philosophy.

Yes, and it is constantly changing and evolving as I am exposed to more and more new things. I choose not to limit myself by saying that I have to adhere to the judeo-christian philosophy. Otherwise, I would still be going to church to pray to the flying spaghetti monster.

It's hard to initially understand, but your right to not practice a religion comes from the fact that the society was shaped by Christian religious teachings. And those values are NOT universal.

What christian religious teachings?

I agree. That's why you have chosen to respond to all thoughtful attempts at dialog with dismissal and insults. I'm long past the "first resort" responses this evening, if I jab now it's just for my entertainment and to publicly reinforce the perception of your ineptitude.

When did you respond with thoughtful dialogue? Nearly every post you have ever made in response to me has been you trying to insult me or state that you know more than me la la la and I suck.

 

[foxpaws]

And you wouldn't have had the greatest philosophers, artists, and scientist had it not been for the teachings of Christianity. The concept of an orderly universe, the empowerment and rights of the individual are all part of it. Those aren't universally accepted concepts.

Are you discounting the amazing contributions of the far east Cal? How about the little thing called Arabic numbers. I don't believe Aristotle was really into Christianity, neither was Confucius. Maya astronomers understood far more than Christian ones did until recently, without an inkling of Jesus.

Your western "judeo christian" world view is very narrow Cal.

 

[Calabrio]

Ooh, good time to catch your edit. You fail again. Muslim culture in the middle-east was more technologically advanced at that time than European culture.

And why was that?
Because the Muslim's conquered societies that were technologically superior to their own. But this period of tecnological superior was ultimately short lived.

Why? Because of the Muslim culture.
Those who converted didn't create anything. And those that refused to convert to Islam were either killed or had their spirits crushed in Dhimmitude.

If the Islamic empire were so innovative, why do you think the the technological superiority came to such an abrupt stop? Why aren't the Islamic countries of the world leading the world in innovation and technology?

You think that the muslims were the ones who caused the persecution of intellectuals in Europe after the spread of Christianity in the 400s?

The era your talking about wasn't dominated by Christianity, nor was it defined by the "persecution of intellectuals." You're talking about the period of European history that is defined by the collapse of the Roman Empire, the rise of the barbarians, and the spreading and proselytzing of the religion through the region.

Heck, in the middle-eastern part of the world, the earth was round during the dark ages, and they were using optics to see farther away.

Yes, the Persians and Middle Eastern cultures were advanced UNTIL the Muslims conquered it.

In your example, it's true that the Assyrians had created the Nimrud lens thousands of years ago. But what happened to the Assyrians?

They were crushed by the Islamic conquerors, forced to convert or essentially become slaves.

And what religion did the Assyrians practice?
A form of Christianity.

You fail again.

you sure showed me....

 

[Calabrio]

Are you discounting the amazing contributions of the far east Cal?

No, I'm not discounting it.
Are you discounting the amazing contributions of Western Civilization?
But I understand where you're coming from, you always have had a soft spot for Mao and Marx, fowpaws.

Was your sole purpose to just confuse things?
We're not discussing Asian culture and I never said that Western Civilization had a monopoly on all wisdom.
But our society is NOT based on Shinto, Taoism, Buddism, or even communist philosophy.

 

[FIND]

And why was that?
Because the Muslim's conquered societies that were technologically superior to their own. But this period of tecnological superior was ultimately short lived.

Oh? Really? You are right, almost 700 years is just a minor blip in human history.

Why? Because of the Muslim culture.
Those who converted didn't create anything. And those that refused to convert to Islam were either killed or had their spirits crushed in Dhimmitude.

Really? Was this in your book too?

If the Islamic empire were so innovative, why do you think the the technological superiority came to such an abrupt stop? Why aren't the Islamic countries of the world leading the world in innovation and technology?

There are a lot of things that were happening then, most notably the crusades that led to Islamic xenophobia along with the destruction of much of the culture of that area. But, it is more convenient to blame it on Islam isn't it? They had their advanced technology for 700 years but one day just decided to throw it all out right?

The era your talking about wasn't dominated by Christianity, nor was it defined by the "persecution of intellectuals." You're talking about the period of European history that is defined by the collapse of the Roman Empire, the rise of the barbarians, and the spreading and proselytzing of the religion through the region.

Oh, I see. I was not aware that Europe was not dominated by Christianity between 400 ad and 1400 ad. Christianity must certainly not have been being practiced at all in Europe in the 600s when Islam first began. I bet Christians didn't lead "crusades" into the holy land at all, because no Christians were around during the time Islamic culture was technologically more advanced than European culture.

Yes, the Persians and Middle Eastern cultures were advanced UNTIL the Muslims conquered it.

Yeah, they lost a bit. Some of it was destroyed through war, some of the people were killed, much of it was even destroyed by their own people

In your example, it's true that the Assyrians had created the Nimrud lens thousands of years ago. But what happened to the Assyrians?

The same thing that happened to every culture christianity came into contact with.

They were crushed by the Islamic conquerors, forced to convert or essentially become slaves.

see above.

 

[foxpaws]

No, I'm not discounting it.
Are you discounting the amazing contributions of Western Civilization?
But I understand where you're coming from, you always have had a soft spot for Mao and Marx, fowpaws.

Was your sole purpose to just confuse things?
We're not discussing Asian culture and I never said that Western Civilization had a monopoly on all wisdom.
But our society is NOT based on Shinto, Taoism, Buddism, or even communist philosophy.

Cal according to you the greatest scientists, philosophers, artists, et al are western Christians.

Extremely narrow minded cal.

 

[Calabrio]

So we've established you don't know jack about history.
You know even less about religion.
And you're not demonstrating that you have no background in philosophy either.

Now, why don't you tell me what philosophers, artists and scientists exist just because of Christianity?

Let's just start with something simple and obvious. That way, when you chose to ignore it, I won't be so annoyed that I invested the energy in writing it.

Philosopher: St. Thomas Aquinas.
Artist/scientist: Leonardo Da Vinci.

Rights of individuals? Wow, show me where the bible taught that.

Are you asking me to quote scripture?
I don't do that.

But the bible teaches that we have free will. That the universe is government by laws that are observable and repeatable. Just those two simple observations change the world.

And they are two facts that ARE NOT universally taught. For example, they aren't taught in Islam.

How do you reconcile the view of the earth as a sphere with your theory that christianity automatically led to advancement.

That's not what I said. To elaborate, I've said that Christian philosophy made possible an environment were such things were possible. And that's been demonstrated.
You may want to condemn the West and Christianity, but once it managed to hold off the waves of invading Muslims long enough to really take hold, the West rapidly advanced past the rest of the world in almost every benchmark.

During roman times, it was accepted that the earth was round, by 700 ad Bishop Vergilius of Salzburg was being accused of teaching vile and sinful doctrines against god for saying the earth was a round.

The answer to this is because some in the church thought that the premise of a spherical earth contradicted what was written in the scripture.

But, you seem to be overlooking something, Vergilius of Salzburg was a BISHOP IN THE CHURCH. He was a respected Christian and that he the charges against him were essentially dropped.

And to be clear, I've also never said or implied that people who practice or promote Christianity are all good people. I've said, repeatedly, that human nature dictates that some people will attempt to corrupt and use any institution with authority to expand their own power. Be it government, religion, or anything else. Human nature can be very dark. And while I don't think that applies in this example, at some point your going to get lazy and mention the inquisition, so I'll just preempt that now.

It's also particularly evil when government and religion become one in the same, regardless the faith. Such was the case during the inquisition.

Would you like me to list some more things that the church called a sin? Germ research? Anatomy? It would be quite a long list.

And is that an attack on the failings of man or the philosophy of the religion?

IDK, what I feel instead of just what the flying spaghetti monster teaches.

Perhaps you'll move out of your parent's basement and marry a castrated man.

Yes, and it is constantly changing and evolving as I am exposed to more and more new things. I choose not to limit myself by saying that I have to adhere to the judeo-christian philosophy. Otherwise, I would still be going to church to pray to the flying spaghetti monster.

And fortunately, you live in a judeo-Christian society that protects your freedom to do that.

and I suck.

I just wanted to end our conversations in agreement.

 

[foxpaws]

Cal you chose daVinci? A man whose secular work is widely seen as his best? That somehow it took the christain faith to expose his genius of oil on canvas, tempera on plaster, ink on paper?
Oh chose Michelangelo instead. His religious work is by far his best - but then we are back to the whole homosexual thing again

 

[Calabrio]

Cal according to you the greatest scientists, philosophers, artists, et al are western Christians.

Extremely narrow minded cal.

No, I said they came from Western Civilization, a civilization that is based on judeo-christian values and principles. I never said they were all Christians. You're deliberate misrepresentation is insulting.

Are you disagreeing with the premise that Western Culture has been superior? Or are you going to embrace more cultural relativist nonsense, where all societies are equal- just in different ways?

Cal you chose daVinci? A man whose secular work is widely seen as his best? That somehow it took the christain faith to expose his genius of oil on canvas, tempera on plaster, ink on paper?
Oh chose Michelangelo instead. His religious work is by far his best - but then we are back to the whole homosexual thing again

What, are you some kind of homophobe?
I was asked for AN example, not all of them, not even the best one- especially if that was going to mean I'd have to explain to him who he was and what he had done.
As i expected, he ignored it anyway- that or he'll be busy tomorrow trying to look up another historically illiterate response.

Either way. I'm finished for the night.

 

[shagdrum]

Oh, is that why you have to keep dodging every issue in this thread and instead focus on dismissing what other people say by use of your petty insults?

You have yet to cite where I said that homosexuality was responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire. Apparently an appreciation of the nuance of a position is lost on you.

I said, "at best, you can say that gay marriage didn't play a part in the collapse, at worst, gay marriage did play a part" which is a long way from saying that homosexuality was responsible for the fall of Rome. In fact, if you actually took the time to read and consider the post #91 (instead of skimming my posts for something to exaggerate and distort) that would have been clear:

Government is only one among many factors that make a thriving civil society possible. Naturally evolved social customs institutions, etc play just as big of a part in that.

***
Rome is a classic example of a society collapsing in on itself due to many of those customs and institutions being incrementally rejected.

Homosexuality was, at worst, one of many factors that lead to the collapse of Rome. I never said homosexuality was responsible for the collapse of Rome and to claim I am saying that is to distort and LIE about me.

But you are not here to actually understand opposing views, are you. You are simply here to be contentious of unfamiliar views as a means of stroking your own ego. FYI: you are not impressing anyone with your attempts at being clever. All you are impressing on others is your profound childishness.

How bout making our own decisions based upon our own sense of right and wrong? How about honest study of history.

Doesn't happen without philosophy.

IIRC, Shag said that Christianity has been the dominant culture that has survived in place of others that came before it, and that it has done so for a reason, and that because of its survivability, it must be superior to other cultures.

Well, you don't recall correctly. I never said anything about "dominance" or "surviving in the place of other cultures". It is not, and never was, an "us vs. them" issue and to characterize it as such is to either mislead or show your lack of understanding. In your case, it is likely the latter.

I just called christians conquerors. Two different ways to say the same thing. Do we have to be PC now?

And that is why you distorted what I said to be something about dominance; it is the only way it fits into your simplistic worldview. Is that the way you see the world; through a prism of exploitation, dominance of one culture over another, etc.?

If it is, your worldview has been shaped by philosophy and ideology in ways you are clueless about. Three words; Marx exploitation theory. That has been the prism that many leftists have seen the world and have interpreted history for generations.

By the way.... still at it with the insults. Like I said, insults are the first resort of the weak-minded, and it seems that you are furious tonight

YOU are the one who comes into this forum condescending to anyone with a different point of view and creating excuses to avoid honest discourse in favor of dismissing those opposing views. There is no chance of honest dialog with you. Cal, Fossten and I have all at different times given you the benefit of the doubt tried to get you to engage in honest dialog. Each time you have demonstrated that you are not capable and/or not willing to engage in honest, civil, productive dialog.

Don't blame us for being frustrated with your obtuse posturing and pointing out your habitual efforts to avoid honest, civil discourse. Stop projecting your flaws onto us.

 

[shagdrum]

Cal you chose daVinci? A man whose secular work is widely seen as his best? That somehow it took the christain faith to expose his genius of oil on canvas, tempera on plaster, ink on paper?
Oh chose Michelangelo instead. His religious work is by far his best - but then we are back to the whole homosexual thing again

Whatever it takes to subvert the conveying of any contrary viewpoint, eh?

Cal according to you the greatest scientists, philosophers, artists, et al are western Christians.

Extremely narrow minded cal.

So, are you simply narrow minded here, foxy, or are you just plain naive.

Your past few statements belie either a misunderstanding of what is being talked about, or an intentional unwillingness to take the time to understand the viewpoint mixed with a hostility aimed at delegitimizing it through whatever means necessary.

And to think, at one time you actually claimed to engage others in the political section of this forum because you were interested in understanding opposing viewpoints. That claim has sure been shown to be a lie.

 

[hrmwrm]

1- marriage has also been a union between a man and a woman in Western Civilization. And yes, you can argue that this has something to do with the Judeo-Christian belief system. And you'd be right to do so. But our society is based on the Judeo-Christian philosophy. That doesn't mean everyone shares or practices the religion, but the philosophy has shaped our culture and society.

i do see how narrow mindedly your setting the definition parameter.

2-You keep saying "before it was narrowly defined," but look how hard it is for you to find examples. Ancient civilizations, pagan tribes, backwards cultures, and we even have one person here who is using Emperor Nero as an example.

not hard to find examples at all. but i suppose you have some for your narrow definition in history, other than the ONE YOU cite?
are you going to use islam, that terrible religion, to back you up in example?
nahh. then you'd have to mention something good about it.

 

[FIND]

So we've established you don't know jack about history.
You know even less about religion.
And you're not demonstrating that you have no background in philosophy either.

Back to bare accusations.

Let's just start with something simple and obvious. That way, when you chose to ignore it, I won't be so annoyed that I invested the energy in writing it.

Philosopher: St. Thomas Aquinas.
Artist/scientist: Leonardo Da Vinci.

Religion had so much to do with Da Vinci's work didn't it? Hey, foxpaws wanted to mention about Michelangelo for religious art, and landed on the homosexual topic, but hey, let's stick with Da Vinci with the homosexual topic. Wasn't he charged with sodomy?

Are you asking me to quote scripture?
I don't do that.

No, I was just asking where the bible mentioned people's rights. It doesn't. Free will is not the same thing as rights. At least historically it hasn't been in christian societies.

But the bible teaches that we have free will. That the universe is government by laws that are observable and repeatable. Just those two simple observations change the world.

Yes, and allow me to defer to every thread where Foss has weighed in his opinion on science as taught by his bible.

And they are two facts that ARE NOT universally taught. For example, they aren't taught in Islam.

Oh really? Your book tell you that too?

That's not what I said. To elaborate, I've said that Christian philosophy made possible an environment were such things were possible. And that's been demonstrated.

If anything, those things flourished DESPITE christian society. Shall we go back to the list of those people and works who have been condemned by christianity?

You may want to condemn the West and Christianity, but once it managed to hold off the waves of invading Muslims long enough to really take hold, the West rapidly advanced past the rest of the world in almost every benchmark.

Christianity was the dominant religion in Europe for 300 years before Islam even began.

The answer to this is because some in the church thought that the premise of a spherical earth contradicted what was written in the scripture.

Yes.... that's kinda what I was saying

But, you seem to be overlooking something, Vergilius of Salzburg was a BISHOP IN THE CHURCH. He was a respected Christian and that he the charges against him were essentially dropped.

Are you familiar with the conditions under which the charges were "dropped" or should we just leave it at this?

And to be clear, I've also never said or implied that people who practice or promote Christianity are all good people. I've said, repeatedly, that human nature dictates that some people will attempt to corrupt and use any institution with authority to expand their own power. Be it government, religion, or anything else. Human nature can be very dark. And while I don't think that applies in this example, at some point your going to get lazy and mention the inquisition, so I'll just preempt that now.

Wasn't really going for the inquisition, they weren't really that out of the ordinary for the standard practice. Medieval inquisition wasn't much more than a blip on the radar anyways, especially given its timing in history, and the spanish inquisition came in the late 1400s, which is after the period of time we have been focusing on, the end of muslim expansion. My primary focus has been from the spread of christianity (300s) the spread of islam (mid 600s) islamic "golden age" (750s - late 1200s) aka their era of expansion, and the end of the middle ages (1400s) when the christian church started losing some of its power, greater organization of government advanced the power of nations, and advances in sea travel led to scientific "discovery" or as some would put it, the absorption of it.

It's also particularly evil when government and religion become one in the same, regardless the faith. Such was the case during the inquisition.

Weird how people can twist religion so they can do evil in its name.

And is that an attack on the failings of man or the philosophy of the religion?

I wonder.

Perhaps you'll move out of your parent's basement and marry a castrated man.

So you are back to calling me gay? I live in my parent's basement? Wow. You pwned me didn't you?

And fortunately, you live in a judeo-Christian society that protects your freedom to do that.

A society that was created to gain freedom from the more oppressive judeo-christian societies.

I just wanted to end our conversations in agreement.

yup, you pwned me

 

[FIND]

You have yet to cite where I said that homosexuality was responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire. Apparently an appreciation of the nuance of a position is lost on you.

I said, "at best, you can say that gay marriage didn't play a part in the collapse, at worst, gay marriage did play a part" which is a long way from saying that homosexuality was responsible for the fall of Rome. In fact, if you actually took the time to read and consider the post #91 (instead of skimming my posts for something to exaggerate and distort) that would have been clear:

​

Homosexuality was, at worst, one of many factors that lead to the collapse of Rome. I never said homosexuality was responsible for the collapse of Rome and to claim I am saying that is to distort and LIE about me.

So.... you said at worst homosexuality was a cause for the fall of rome but you never said homosexuality was a cause for the fall of rome? Gotcha.

But you are not here to actually understand opposing views, are you. You are simply here to be contentious of unfamiliar views as a means of stroking your own ego. FYI: you are not impressing anyone with your attempts at being clever. All you are impressing on others is your profound childishness.

Yeah yeah shag. Cut paste done.

Doesn't happen without philosophy.

Yeah. If you hadn't noticed. What I was saying is that the least narrow philosophy is preferable.

Well, you don't recall correctly. I never said anything about "dominance" or "surviving in the place of other cultures". It is not, and never was, an "us vs. them" issue and to characterize it as such is to either mislead or show your lack of understanding. In your case, it is likely the latter.

No, I summarized what you said. You want to avoid the harsh definition that I gave, but in the end, it is the same thing. If you believe it is not, why don't you do something other than wasting post after post crying that you have been misrepresented.

And that is why you distorted what I said to be something about dominance; it is the only way it fits into your simplistic worldview. Is that the way you see the world; through a prism of exploitation, dominance of one culture over another, etc.?

see above

If it is, your worldview has been shaped by philosophy and ideology in ways you are clueless about. Three words; Marx exploitation theory. That has been the prism that many leftists have seen the world and have interpreted history for generations.

yup shag. That's gotta be it.

"If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” ~ John F. Kennedy, 1960

YOU are the one who comes into this forum condescending to anyone with a different point of view and creating excuses to avoid honest discourse in favor of dismissing those opposing views. There is no chance of honest dialog with you. Cal, Fossten and I have all at different times given you the benefit of the doubt tried to get you to engage in honest dialog. Each time you have demonstrated that you are not capable and/or not willing to engage in honest, civil, productive dialog.

Don't blame us for being frustrated with your obtuse posturing and pointing out your habitual efforts to avoid honest, civil discourse. Stop projecting your flaws onto us.

yeah yeah, your standard cut paste projection. You still have nothing to say but your petty ad-hominem argumentation.

 

[foxpaws]

Whatever it takes to subvert the conveying of any contrary viewpoint, eh?

So, are you simply narrow minded here, foxy, or are you just plain naive.

Your past few statements belie either a misunderstanding of what is being talked about, or an intentional unwillingness to take the time to understand the viewpoint mixed with a hostility aimed at delegitimizing it through whatever means necessary.

Shag - no one should have let Cal's statement stand...

And you wouldn't have had the greatest philosophers, artists, and scientist had it not been for the teachings of Christianity.

The world is full of examples of amazing men and women who had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity who were great, and some who certainly would gather the mantle of 'greatest'. Aristotle comes to mind. Perhaps the greatest philosopher of all time (debatable I know - but certainly in the 'greatest' category). Hokusai's work is amazing - equal or above any 'greatest western artist'. Indian classical music goes back thousands of years, with composers that are certainly in the 'greatest' category, such as Amir Khusrau and Tansen.

To narrowly define that to be 'the greatest' the teachings of Christianity had to be involved is very closed minded.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - no one should have let Cal's statement stand...

Why? There is a lot of truth in that statement, even though it offends your secular humanist sensibilities.

 

[shagdrum]

So.... you said at worst homosexuality was a cause for the fall of rome but you never said homosexuality was a cause for the fall of rome? Gotcha.

I said that homosexuality may have been a factor. I never said that homosexuality was the cause. They are two very different things. Not that you are capable of recognizing that distinction.

Yeah. If you hadn't noticed. What I was saying is that the least narrow philosophy is preferable.

What is that supposed to mean?

"If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” ~ John F. Kennedy, 1960

Are you really such a moron that you cannot distinguish appealing rhetoric from a substantive, logical explanation?!

How are you even capable of knowing which philosophy is "the least narrow" if you are unable to distinguish rhetoric from reality? You have shown an utter ignorance of philosophy, worldview and/or ideology (and they are not the same thing), and an unwillingness to learn about them. Whatever your naive, simplistic perceptions of them are is all that matters. Nevermind that your perception is built on misleading, one sided rhetoric.

I have never seen anyone who so relishes in, and aggressively defends their ignorance.

 

[foxpaws]

Why? There is a lot of truth in that statement, even though it offends your secular humanist sensibilities.

There is a lot of misunderstanding in that statement. Not only does it negate anything that non-christian societies have given to humanity, you also need to explore that without Christianity, and, at times, its narrow minded hierarchy, there could have been far more 'greatests' in the world. In the name of Christ who has Christianity (the religion) silenced? Without the church's stifling of anything that didn't meet with their ideals du jour, think of what could have flourished during the middle ages. What we could have had instead of the inquisition, the crusades, the conquistadors raping of the new world.

Balancing out what and who Christianity may have destroyed, although a long and lengthy 'what if' discussion, could certainly negate any 'good' that Christianity has done.

The truth doesn't lie with just 'this is what Christianity has given us', but, rather, 'this could be what Christianity has taken from the fabric of mankind'. An unanswerable question, but as Cal would say good food for thought.

 

[fossten]

There is a lot of misunderstanding in that statement. Not only does it negate anything that non-christian societies have given to humanity, you also need to explore that without Christianity, and, at times, its narrow minded hierarchy, there could have been far more 'greatests' in the world. In the name of Christ who has Christianity (the religion) silenced? Without the church's stifling of anything that didn't meet with their ideals du jour, think of what could have flourished during the middle ages. What we could have had instead of the inquisition, the crusades, the conquistadors raping of the new world.

Balancing out what and who Christianity may have destroyed, although a long and lengthy 'what if' discussion, could certainly negate any 'good' that Christianity has done.

The truth doesn't lie with just 'this is what Christianity has given us', but, rather, 'this could be what Christianity has taken from the fabric of mankind'. An unanswerable question, but as Cal would say good food for thought.

Your entire argument is based on a fiction. Cal never said what you are claiming he said. I would chalk it up to poor reading comprehension, but clearly you've been scolded about this oversight already, and you continue to ignore it, which thus raises your argument to the level of lying propaganda.

You.

FAIL.

 

[shagdrum]

Not only does it negate anything that non-christian societies have given to humanity...

No it doesn't. But misrepresenting it as such does facilitate the distortions you are setting up.

Can't look beyond that Marxist exploitation narrative can you. It has to be an "us vs. them" thing, doesn't it. Recognizing the contributions of and inspired by Christianity has to mean negating the contributions of non-christian societies. No other possibility will be entertained.

Why are you so hostile to Western Culture and to Christianity?

you also need to explore that without Christianity...

Whenever Foxy starts talking about "exploring" something, she is aiming to avoid the truth and to distort.

The truth doesn't lie...

But you do and everyone knows it.

Whenever a proven liar, demagogue and propagandist starts talking about the truth, one should be wary.

Foxy, you really are getting quite nasty lately. the mask has been discarded I see.

 

[foxpaws]

Your entire argument is based on a fiction. Cal never said what you are claiming he said. I would chalk it up to poor reading comprehension, but clearly you've been scolded about this oversight already, and you continue to ignore it, which thus raises your argument to the level of lying propaganda.

You.

FAIL.

really - his quote

And you wouldn't have had the greatest philosophers, artists, and scientist had it not been for the teachings of Christianity. The concept of an orderly universe, the empowerment and rights of the individual are all part of it. Those aren't universally accepted concepts.

Not 'some of the greatest', not 'the greatest in the western world', not 'the greatest in the modern age', simply 'the greatest'.

Christianity may be credited with many things - but to 'blanket-ly' state that without it we wouldn't have had the greatest philosophers, artists and scientists is a very narrow viewpoint Foss.

Maybe in a very narrow modern, western view of the world that could be true (but even using those parameters it is difficult to look at that statement and still not question it).

Cal, in his effort to espouse all good comes only from a western Judeo-Christianity society, is showing how really narrow minded he is. His world view has such blinders on it that it appears he can't see the genius represented by religions, cultures and societies outside his experience.