Inventing Moderate Islam

[Calabrio]

Lastly, my apologies for the lack of quote boxes - I'm still trying to figure this board out a bit..

Please, don't apologize for the lack of quote boxes, it is nice to read a coherent and articulate thought expressed without the interruption and gimmick of those boxes. I make that statement fully aware that I have frequently overused those boxes.

Welcome to the LVC board. I've very much enjoyed reading your recent posts.

 

[Federali Aundy]

Hi hrmwrm,

Thanks for giving us all that long list of historic events to read through. While I obviously can't reply to everything on it, I must say that you have made two fatal errors which undercut your entire post:

1) When I said "early years of Christianity" I was referring to the years between 33-381 AD, a period beginning roughly with the birth of Christianity and ending with the Council of Constantinople, the second ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. Thus by this dating criteria, the vast majority of your points simply do not apply.

2) I also said that Christian "theological disputes" where not "bloody" disputes. This is very, very important because I am NOT referring to how Christians and non-Christians interacted (e.g. Christians vs Pagans or Christians vs. Muslims) but rather Christians vs. Christians. In early Islam, when theological disputes arose between Muslims, one side litterally killed the other. Because Christianity is based on reason, Christians argued logically and then the bishops met at a council and made a theological decision as this is what the Apostles set down in Acts of the Apostles, chapter 15.

So please, if you plan on undercutting my argument, show me a list of Christians killing Christians over theological debates in the first, second, third, or fourth centuries. Christians are sinners like everyone else, but if we want to get an idea of what Christianity is all about - and what Islam is all about - let's look back at their origins and see what's there. What we will see is a Christian religion based on reason and an Islamic religion based on no reason and thus prone to violence.

 

[shagdrum]

The hrmwrm "wall 'o' text" post: a convenient tool for the simply minded to ratify their smug sense of superiority while subverting honest discourse and avoiding the risk of being shown for a fool.

 

[Federali Aundy]

I would also like to point out here that our argument regarding Islam really ought to remain about Islam. While I don’t mind discussing Christianity, it seems to me that when one is accusing Islam of ‘x’ - simply saying Christianity does ‘x’ as well sounds like a fallacious ad hominem attack on Christianity and does nothing to get Islam off the hook.

Of course, some may simply reject Islam and Christianity – but this is why my fundamental point about the two remains (and I have yet to see anyone refute it): Islam’s theological belief that God is so powerful that he is not bound by reason or logic make’s Islam impossible of true moderation. Christianity can ask for forgiveness when its adherents fail to live up to Christ-like action because Christians can use both faith and reason to say that a Christian, or group of Christians, have not acted morally. Islam has no ultimate theological grounding in reason whatsoever, so there can be no objective norm to criticize the behavior of jihadists who claim their actions are the will of Allah.

This is the point Pope Benedict XVI raised in his Regensburg Address a few years back. If Islam cannot base itself in reason, as Christianity does, it will always be susceptible to violent, terrorist activity.

 

[FIND]

Lastly, my apologies for the lack of quote boxes - I'm still trying to figure this board out a bit..

Hey, I only planned on hopping on for a little while tonight, so I'll read your post later, but I noticed this at the end and figured you would like a little help with that.

To enter something as a quote, you can surround it with this [ quote ] at the beginning (without the spaces) and [ /quote ] at the end.

it will look like this

If you want to make it even fancier [ quote = FIND ] text goes here [ /quote ] will look like this

text goes here

You can also use indent tags if you like, which are simply [ indent ] and [ /indent ] at the end. There should also be buttons at the top of the message box to do this for you.

It will end up looking like this
and will continue
for as many lines as you like
until you use the /indent tag​

Hope that helps, good luck with posting.

If you want to find out more, google vBulletin

The hrmwrm "wall 'o' text" post: a convenient tool for the simply minded to ratify their smug sense of superiority while subverting honest discourse and avoiding the risk of being shown for a fool.

You know.... that is the kind of post that really adds nothing to discussion and only seeks to destroy any chance at honest discourse.

 

[Calabrio]

You know.... that is the kind of post that really adds nothing to discussion and only seeks to destroy any chance at honest discourse.

Neither did Hrmwrm posting it.
That's a piece of widely circulated, unattributed, historically inaccurate and misleading internet rant that is embraced and circulated by radical atheists and Muslim propagandists....

-like this guy:
http://te-in.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=18901237714&topic=13976

 

[FIND]

Neither did Hrmwrm posting it.
That's a piece of widely circulated, unattributed, historically inaccurate and misleading internet rant that is embraced and circulated by radical atheists and Muslim propagandists....

-like this guy:
http://te-in.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=18901237714&topic=13976

IDK, I haven't taken the time to read it. I just get tired of seeing shag post that same thing over and over again. If he doesn't want to respond to what someone is typing, then he should quit responding, especially if his only response usually tends to be something dismissing another persons post based upon their "character", or what shag wants to portray that person as.

 

[shagdrum]

You know.... that is the kind of post that really adds nothing to discussion and only seeks to destroy any chance at honest discourse.

Actually, it was simply an attempt to shine a light on hrmwrm's effort to subvert honest discourse by throwing an overwhelming number of "facts" that would be impractical to respond to.

It is a technique hrmwrm has habitually utilized on this forum over the years...when he isn't simply calling those who disagree with him "@$$holes" or "dipsh!ts".

I think you are confusing efforts to highlight subversion of discourse with attempts to subvert discourse. They are not the same thing.

 

[shagdrum]

either respond to them, as federali did, or keep your mouth shut.
apparently it's only you incapable of honest discourse.
if you can't properly respond to a post, then stop coming off as a flaming troll.

Tell me, what is the "proper way" to respond to habitual attempts to undercut discourse, bait people of faith and disparage anyone who points out that incivility?

I have tried to engage trolls and propagandists numerous times in civil discourse on this forum and it simply gets thrown back in my face with increasingly nasty and defensive posts that impugn me and/or intentionally distort what I have to say instead of taking the time to first understand and then confront the merits of the arguments that I present.

In fact, this thread serves as a prime example of that. Here is an image from post #66 of that thread.

And from post #122 of the same thread:

These images, in no way further honest, productive dialog or serve to highlight someone's attempts to subvert that dialog. They are simply expressions of vitriol that have no place in civil discourse.

What is the "proper way" of dealing with that? How can there be honest dialog with someone like that?

 

[shagdrum]

assertion doesn't equal proof.

Yet that is all your post offers.

Again, no shame in dishonestly shifting the burden of proof instead of attempting to logically meet it.

 

[fossten]

These images, in no way further honest, productive dialog or serve to highlight someone's attempts to subvert that dialog. They are simply expressions of vitriol that have no place in civil discourse.

What is the "proper way" of dealing with that? How can there be honest dialog with someone like that?

Are you being rhetorical? Is this a trick question?

 

[Federali Aundy]

Thanks Calabrio and thanks FIND for the quote tips. I believe I'll give them a try right here!

i see you missed the heretics section then. i don't think the gnostics and a few other christian sects are properly represented in there either

Actually, I didn't miss the heretics section. It's just that they all fall out of the period of time I spoke of (i.e. 33-381 AD). When violence is seen between Christians in the few centuries after 313 AD (when Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire) it is usually not direct violence between Christians but state-run persecution of dangerous, heretical sects claiming to be Christian. This was particularly the case in the Byzantine Empire because the Empire had a difficult time not overly involving itself in the affairs which the Church itself was to govern. This problem of secular power has had very negative effects on Eastern Orthodox Christianity and has even helped block a restoration of unity between them and the Catholic Church.

In the West, heresy was by and large settled through counciliar decree and the leadership of saints. However, the Albigensians (in the latter middle ages) were first slaughtered by civil authorities who sought their land - and the Catholic Church stepped in with the Inquisition to protect the innocent and give all a fair trial. In some cases, the death penalty was given for good reason because the Albigensians believed that all humans needed to die in order to free their souls from their wicked material bodies. Thus even infanticide was practiced among them and both Church and State authorities saw the Albigensians as a truly legit threat to the human race.

Again, it seems we're talking more about Christianity than about Islam here. I don't mind it, but the real question is whether or not any reasonable discussion of faith is found in the early history of Islam. History tells us their faith was spread through invasion, war, and violence. If it wasn't for the successful Chrisitan *defensive* victories at Byzantium in 717 AD and at Tours in 732 AD, Europe would have been an Islamic stronghold. I think we owe a great deal to our Christian defenders.

 

[FIND]

Tell me, what is the "proper way" to respond to habitual attempts to undercut discourse, bait people of faith and disparage anyone who points out that incivility?

I have tried to engage trolls and propagandists numerous times in civil discourse on this forum and it simply gets thrown back in my face with increasingly nasty and defensive posts that impugn me and/or intentionally distort what I have to say instead of taking the time to first understand and then confront the merits of the arguments that I present.

In fact, this thread serves as a prime example of that. Here is an image from post #66 of that thread.

And from post #122 of the same thread:

These images, in no way further honest, productive dialog or serve to highlight someone's attempts to subvert that dialog. They are simply expressions of vitriol that have no place in civil discourse.

What is the "proper way" of dealing with that? How can there be honest dialog with someone like that?

How long are you going to rely on that excuse? If you don't want to talk, then quit talking. Simple as that. How about instead of continuously relying on telling everyone how dishonest and unqualified to speak your opponents are, why don't you actually try debating issues instead of ad hominem. Jeez, you are linking to a thread over a year old where you acted like an ass and got called on it. Grow the hell up. Move on.

You never try to engage anyone civilly. The moment you are disagree with, you begin ad hominem and incredibly long proof by verbosity posts or posts quoting nearly every blog you can find that supports your worldview. Facts are irrelevant to you in most cases, and you accuse anyone of misrepresenting you or lying anytime they call you on your BS.

 

[shagdrum]

FIND, why are you on this forum? It is clearly not to engage in honest discourse, to question your own views or to understand and critically examine views you are unfamiliar with. In fact, you habitully reject opposing views out of hand, especially when they call into question your own viewpoints. You also tend to lie about those who attempt to engage you in a way that would necessitate critical examination of your viewpoint.

If your focus here is not honest inquiry, what is it? What do you gain out of this forum?

 

[fossten]

applies the same.

Took you 4 days to figure out how to change somebody's quote?

 

[FIND]

FIND, why are you on this forum? It is clearly not to engage in honest discourse, to question your own views or to understand and critically examine views you are unfamiliar with. In fact, you habitully reject opposing views out of hand, especially when they call into question your own viewpoints. You also tend to lie about those who attempt to engage you in a way that would necessitate critical examination of your viewpoint.

If your focus here is not honest inquiry, what is it? What do you gain out of this forum?

so..... Going back to that because you got called on your crap?

 

[shagdrum]

so..... Going back to that because you got called on your crap?

I take it you have no answer to what I asked.

 

[cammerfe]

Response

As has been said, "Poo-Poo Face".

KS

 

[shagdrum]

and you no answer to what i asked.

???

What are you talking about?

 

[FIND]

I take it you have no answer to what I asked.

I am not going to answer your childish argumentative "questions" that are no more than another one of your pathetic and worthless insults. If you want to start a flame war, go somewhere else. Your questions are better suited for /b.

 

[fossten]

I am not going to answer your childish argumentative "questions" that are no more than another one of your pathetic and worthless insults. If you want to start a flame war, go somewhere else. Your questions are better suited for /b.

Overreact and whine much? Yep, FIND, there's a monster under every rock. You stick with the angry and paranoid persona - it works for you. You keep angrily fighting for your right not to have to answer questions.

Sheesh, what a waste of time. No wonder so many people ignore you.

 

[FIND]

Overreact and whine much? Yep, FIND, there's a monster under every rock. You stick with the angry and paranoid persona - it works for you. You keep angrily fighting for your right not to have to answer questions.

Sheesh, what a waste of time. No wonder so many people ignore you.

right....