The Difference

[cuchulain]

On 6/28/2017 at 10:49 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Extremists from both ends of the political spectrum, tend to look alike.  

On another forum, a person was railing against Islam with all the typical bigoted remarks, things like they are all terrorists, they all repress women and women's rights, they are all killers.  Then in a later thread he argued that bombing abortion clinics was alright because they were killers and it was preventing murder.  I asked him what the difference was between his views and extremist Muslims.  He never responded.

[Key]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

On another forum, a person was railing against Islam with all the typical bigoted remarks, things like they are all terrorists, they all repress women and women's rights, they are all killers.  Then in a later thread he argued that bombing abortion clinics was alright because they were killers and it was preventing murder.  I asked him what the difference was between his views and extremist Muslims.  He never responded.

He probably didn't understand the question. Trolls have limited capacity to rationalize.

[Dan56]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

On another forum, a person was railing against Islam with all the typical bigoted remarks, things like they are all terrorists, they all repress women and women's rights, they are all killers.  Then in a later thread he argued that bombing abortion clinics was alright because they were killers and it was preventing murder.  I asked him what the difference was between his views and extremist Muslims.  He never responded.

 

There no distinction between extremist, but I believe a radical Islamist kills for a different reason, which is to create terror. While Jihad is a war against unbelievers, a radical Christian usually doesn't kill others just because they don't share the same belief. Both are crazy, but at least the abortion clinic bomber has a reason, which is defending the lives of the unborn. Muhammad asks believers to kill in the name of Allah, while Christ taught that vengeance belongs to God.. So while there's a difference in the faiths, crazy is still crazy, no matter what religion is attached to it.. jmo

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

The Nazi Storm Troopers all had belt buckles that said -- "God is with us.".

 

We all know how that works.  "One nation, under god."  Or "In God we trust."

 

So intoxicating.  So self righteous.  Some things don't change.  

 

 

Edited June 30, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

There no distinction between extremist, but I believe a radical Islamist kills for a different reason, which is to create terror. While Jihad is a war against unbelievers, a radical Christian usually doesn't kill others just because they don't share the same belief. Both are crazy, but at least the abortion clinic bomber has a reason, which is defending the lives of the unborn. Muhammad asks believers to kill in the name of Allah, while Christ taught that vengeance belongs to God.. So while there's a difference in the faiths, crazy is still crazy, no matter what religion is attached to it.. jmo

Ah, but collateral damage is the same for both and accepted, as well, to fulfill their agenda. Meaning, they either don't care or allow innocents to be harmed and/or killed by their act, as long as they eliminate their target. (Even if they don't achieve their goal, the method is accepted.)

[cuchulain]

I tend to think those who identify as Christians should follow the example of Christ.  He could have hid before the Romans came.  He could have escaped at any point.  He could have wiped out all those who persecuted him, at least according to the mythology.  Yet he didn't strike back with violence.  I think that pretty well sums up the Christian argument about self defense as well.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, Key said:

That is a good comparison! 

 

There are others:

 

If religion is music, then Atheism is silence.

If religion is hair color, then Atheism is bald.  

 

[Dan56]

8 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I tend to think those who identify as Christians should follow the example of Christ.  He could have hid before the Romans came.  He could have escaped at any point.  He could have wiped out all those who persecuted him, at least according to the mythology.  Yet he didn't strike back with violence.  I think that pretty well sums up the Christian argument about self defense as well.

 

Except that Christ came for a specific purpose, and when the time arrived, self-defense wasn't an option. Prior to that ultimate sacrifice, Jesus did evade persecution; "Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59). So prior to fulfilling prophecy, he didn't willingly let others interfere with his mission; "Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come" (John 7:30). Yes, Jesus could have wiped them out, but that would have defeated his purpose (salvation). The  'wiping out' comes at his second appearance. Jesus also had his disciples carry a couple swords (Luke 22:38), so he obviously didn't oppose self-defense.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Dan56

[Dan56]

1 minute ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

Edited July 1, 2017 by Dan56

[LeopardBoy]

On 6/29/2017 at 7:49 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

From time to time, I will see a Christian insist that Atheism is a religion.  It is said as an insult -- like having a religion is something shameful.  

 

When this was said -- as an accusation -- to Bill Maher -- he replied that Atheism is religion the way that abstinence is a sex position.  

 

Atheism in itself may not be a religion, but there are atheist religions, and religious people can be atheist.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, LeopardBoy said:

 

Atheism in itself may not be a religion, but there are atheist religions, and religious people can be atheist.

 

Which  Atheist religions did you have in mind?  

[LeopardBoy]

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Which  Atheist religions did you have in mind?  

 

Atheistic Satanism, certain types of Buddhism, certain types of animistic religions which don't involve deities, and a handful of modern pagan religions which don't involve deities.

 

Atheism really only refers to a lack of belief in deities.  One can have a religion complete with ritual practice, discipline, and organization without deities.

Edited July 1, 2017 by LeopardBoy

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, LeopardBoy said:

 

Atheistic Satanism, certain types of Buddhism, certain types of animistic religions which don't involve deities, and a handful of modern pagan religions which don't involve deities.

 

Atheism really only refers to a lack of belief in deities.  One can have a religion complete with ritual practice, discipline, and organization without deities.

 

This is all true.  The problem is, it gets difficult to make a simple statement, without coming across liker a lawyer.  It really impedes simple conversation.  IMO.  

[mererdog]

On 7/1/2017 at 10:18 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

This is all true.  The problem is, it gets difficult to make a simple statement, without coming across liker a lawyer.  It really impedes simple conversation.  IMO.  

On the other hand, we know there are people who think that atheists "believe in nothing," cannot be spiritual people, and are all strict materialists. Taking the time to hammer out the details can help prevent that sort of confusion and the prejudicial treatment it spawns.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

14 hours ago, mererdog said:

On the other hand, we know there are people who think that atheists "believe in nothing," cannot be spiritual people, and are all strict materialists. Taking the time to hammer out the details can help prevent that sort of confusion and the prejudicial treatment it spawns.

 

Funny man.  Yes.  I know what you just said.  

[AmberLF]

On 6/25/2017 at 6:42 PM, mark 45 said:

maybe.of the philosophies/religions you listed,buddhism is the only one that does not teach a deity.and if i understand correctly,the norse and greek gods weren't worshiped as they were meant to be emulated.but i could be wrong.as far as wicca,i'm not 100%sure,but you can be wiccan and not worship the goddess/god.

In the case for Traditional Wicca, you are correct. There are some eclectics that claim Wicca who might not.  But they would be more eclectic pagan than Wiccan specifically.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 6/25/2017 at 6:42 PM, mark 45 said:

maybe.of the philosophies/religions you listed,buddhism is the only one that does not teach a deity.and if i understand correctly,the norse and greek gods weren't worshiped as they were meant to be emulated.but i could be wrong.as far as wicca,i'm not 100%sure,but you can be wiccan and not worship the goddess/god.

 

i guess if one finds something that is true to them,then it really doesn't matter what others think.but if they find something else that changes what they think,then so be it.

 

 

 

I have an authentic Tibetan Buddhist initiation to Medicine Buddha.  It's one of the advantages to life in New York City.  There are opportunities here, not found elsewhere.

 

To my understanding, Medicine Buddha is a personification of healing.  I was given a mantra and a ceremony so that I might self identify with Medicine Buddha.  In this way, becoming a focal point for healing.

 

Part of my instruction was that physical healing is low level.  To truly reduce the amount of suffering in the world, I was to spread Dharma.  

[ULCneo]

On 3/24/2017 at 5:52 PM, cuchulain said:

To me, religion has connotations of deity.  Philosophy is an idealogical practice, and does not necessitate deity, although it does not exclude the possibility either.  A church is a little more complex, I suppose.  It could reference the building itself, or perhaps the congregation.  Or it could reference the governance behind the church, the people in power of that particular church.  Practice is something I hear referenced to Christians who don't.  I suppose it should be related to all philosophies and religions.  A person can have a good idea of what they think they should be doing, and then not do it anyway.  I could claim the title of stoic, and then focus on material possessions if I desired to.  On the same note, someone could say they are Christian.  Perhaps even in THEIR idea of what constitutes Christian they are.  But someone else might say they aren't practicing Christians because they don't follow such and such or so and so philosophy, which is CLEARLY outlined in the bible...isn't it funny how many can say that, but can't see anyone else's interpretation as being possible?  

Many religions like to emphasize charitable works, but the practitioners rarely actually practice charity, outside of the precincts of their church that is.  In philosophical terms, there are those who claim perhaps to be pacifists.  Maybe they've never been up against it, where they absolutely had to choose whether or not to stick to their guns.  

A lot of this relies upon judgment of course.  Something a lot of religion claims to be against.  How does a Christian reference what a REAL Christian is, without judging what a real Christian isn't?  How does someone determine whether they are really practicing or not?  Does the church determine what is and is not Evangelical Protestant?  Or is it a personal interpretation of the scripture that matches that description?

 

[cuchulain]

5 hours ago, ULCneo said:

 

Are you deliberately baiting and being rude?