What is it that terrorists have in common?
Posted by AmericanGreatness 10 years, 1 month ago to Ask the Gulch
Hint: it's not that they're all named Bob.
- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Yet again, you bring up Christian armies on the march to slaughter innocents when NO such thing has happened, in particular not in modern history (even if you consider that the last 200 years). You've still not provided an example. When reality doesn't match your assumptions, it's time you reevaluate your assumptions.
You can want A to equal B all day long, but that doesn't make it so.
I agree there are some Objectivists who are cultists, but I am not one of them.
Further, it's richly ironic that you carp on Christians for the understanding of this principle, while you yourself cling to your personal religion of Objectivism.
While Brandon makes good points, to place his intellect above those of the greatest thinkers in human history is a bit of a stretch.
Additionally, you continually fail to rebut historical facts with anything other than brooming them as inconsequential. The basis for Western Civilization is not an inconsequential kink in your theory.
Furthermore, if there was not Creator, how were we created? By your own philosophy of Objectivism,, we must have had a creator. The mere presence of raw materials doesn't spontaneously make things happen. Would the Empire State Building have magically appeared given enough time simply because the materials were here? Would throwing the components of a watch into a bag and shaking it result in a functioning watch.
You argument may be stimulating in the faculty lounge, but it unravels quickly when mugged by reality.
In the meantime, the best I can do is recommend you listen to the “Basic Principles of Objectivism” course or buy the transcript. In Lecture Four, Branden says: “To discuss a belief which, at least since the time he emerged from the cave, has been singularly unbecoming to man. That the belief in god has not disappeared along with the belief in witches and demons, as it should have centuries ago, and the disastrous consequences of this belief are such as to necessitate our discussing the issue tonight.
“This is an analysis of an error, with the analysis of a belief that is not true. This analysis is necessary. I shall demonstrate that the faith in god implies and necessitates the invalidation and the undercutting of man’s consciousness.”
In Lecture Four, he presents an analysis of the error of a belief in a god, in a simple, non-technical manner.
The "separation of church and state" reference in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was intended to recognize their right to congregate and was in no way, shape, or form intended to extend across the entire government (this is widely recognized among Constitutional scholars).
As for your disdain for Christianity that another matter entirely. The irony is that the freedom and liberty you have to write such drivel is the direct result of Judeo-Christian principles that founded the foundation of Western Civilization, and the freedom which you now enjoy.
The alleged pregnancy of Jesus was supposedly god (the holy trinity are all one, right?), who had sex with another man’s fiancee and she covered it up by claiming (as did many during that time period) it was a virgin conception. Of course, the virgin idea did not hit upon the Christians myth writers for more than two centuries. Before that the preacher was never referred to as the child of a virgin. The virgin physical problem is this: Jesus was male. Where did the X chromosome come from? If she got pregnant from a god, the sperm came from his balls.
Besides, how does this relate to the Christian army?
And, you think celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, the most consequential being to ever walk the Earth is drivel? You are aware that what you refer to as "crap" is the foundational bedrock of freedom and liberty, that all men are created equal, and western civilization is based on his teachings, right?
You must have been out of the country when all those law suits against christmas trees, school pageants, anything that looked like a cross or a menorah were in the headlines. The ACLU lost but they did force by fear a lot of changes at the local levels and most easily in the schools.
And all it would have taken was providng the 25th for one celebration, and following the good sense of hte Brits Boxing Day for the children. along with standing up to the left wing fascists.
There are many ideologies (I include both religious and secular) which are willing to confine their differences to strictly persuasive verbal communications. Most are like this including Christianity. Islam is, however, not an ideology willing to confine itself to non-violent means. I have read the Qu'ran and had it explained to me by followers of Islam that the Qu'ran itself advocates for the spread of Islam regardless of the tactics used - including violence. That sets it apart from most others with the exception of military dictatorships and juntas, fascism and communism.
And yes, I agree that there is a significant difference (being not only the end itself but the means by which it is achieved) between freedom fighters and terrorists.
Best of luck to you as well.
The German Army had some assorted Christians in it (Klaus von Stauffenberg for one...and today is the anniversary of the July 20 plot), but the Wehrmacht and the SS were decidedly Nazi, and anything but Christian. And Nazism was a complete anathema to ANY organized religion, let alone Christianity.
Things are so much clearer, now.
Good luck, AG.
Gobsmacked means astonished, utterly astonished, flabbergasted, etc.
However, there are objectively right and wrong ideologies. While Christianity does seek to bring others to Christ, it does not seek this at this tip of the spear, but rather by voluntarily coming to Christ.
Muhammad himself was a warrior (and child rapist), who commanded followers of Islam force conversion, death, or absurd tax on non-believers.
We know the difference between the good guys and the bad guys, the freedom fighters and the terrorists.
Denying that fact is akin to denying gravity. You can personally choose not to believe it exists, but it's not dependent on your acceptance.
In my mind, there has never been a time in the history of mankind I am aware of where there has not been a contest of ideologies. The real question is whether or not any particular ideology espouses a restraint on the promulgation of its philosophies to strictly the voluntary exchange of ideas. Bloodshed happens when an ideology attempts to use force to "convert" people to their way of thinking.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone would even make such an assertion.
The unfortunate flaw is that an understanding of right and wrong can be achieved without a moral compass. The understanding of man's natural rights came as a result of his understanding that they (natural rights) were endowed by his Creator. It was this realization/understanding that formed the bedrock on which western civilization was built.
Freedom and liberty are inextricably tethered to morality (particularly Judeo-Christian principles), and it provides the ability to objectively discern what's morally/fundamentally right and wrong behavior.
The two of us may find ourselves on similar sides of an issue, but I don't think beliefs are a valid defense of war, even in cases where military action is warranted.
Load more comments...