frankie wrote:Equestrian: Humility isn't one of your strongest points is it?
Get off your "high horse" Equestrian,it doesn't fit well with your (alleged) Christian background.
Another sanctimonious reprimand? Perhaps I did not make myself clear the first time--I take baseless reprimands with a grain of salt.
Have I argued that all those who do not subscribe to my world view are indoctrinated? No, I do not possess the bloated ego to make such ostentatious claims.
Had you reflected on this for just a moment you would have realized that your rebuke is sorely misplaced. The person that ought "get off" the high horse is precisely the person you feel obligated to defend.
Sum's "indoctrination argument" is glaringly condescending. Sure, sum is affable in expressing his argument, but that does not revoke the condescension inherent in his view. One can certainly be polite while expressing arrogant points of view. Explicit in his argument is the assumption that all religious people are stupid. One must be perched high upon his horse to make such lofty claims. Yet you felt compelled to rebuke me for merely pointing it out. This speaks poorly of your attitude frankie, not mine.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" ~Carl Sagan
I'm going address your scattered rant point by point to demonstrate the absurdity of your cynical accusations. I will not revisit this trite conversation again. So if in the future you feel ill-abused by my tone of language such that you are once again compelled to spitefully cast aspersions, I will simply ignore them like I have your duplicitous "do you love me as a Christian?" question.
I will then follow with a response to your rebuttal concerning the thread topic.
Sum: "When it comes to hyperbole you are the king."
The term hyperbole describes the deliberate use of gross exaggeration to emphasis or illustrate a point. The exaggeration is not meant to be taken literally. Consider the following examples:
1. I'm so tired I could sleep for a year
The statement above is not meant to be taken literally. It's simply illustrating ones overwhelming sense of exhaustion.
2. The nearest gas station is a million miles away
Here the statement is emphasizing the point that no gas station is located nearby.
These are examples of hyberbole. I fail to see how this in any way applies to me. I don't use these kinds of literary devices. Now lets consider another example:
All religious people are indoctrinated
This gross exaggeration looks vaguely familiar. Wait a minute, this hyperbolic statement is the crux of your argument! But you really intend for the exaggeration to be taken literally. Take a bow King Hyperbole, the tarnished crown belongs to you.
Sum: "Your post indicates a person who is niggled and so lashes out."
You seem to suggest that I had taken offense to your argument which prompted me to explode into a tirade. But a tirade is exactly what I am responding to now. Your post contains the very meaning of one who "lashes out". Nevertheless, this is to completely ignore what I had previously stated:
Equestrian wrote:A secular indoctrinated bloke postulating senseless conjectures on social indoctrination. How thoroughly amusing.
Equestrian wrote:I'm not the slightest bit offended by your misguided claims, as I previously stated I'm very much amused by the rubbish peddled by you secular hardliners.
Clearly I did not take offense to your argument. To the contrary, I am genuinely amused by the casual manner in which you express such an arrogant point of view.
I admit that I was a bit vexed, but not for the reasons you suggest. In fact, it should have been obvious from my response that which had "niggled" me.
It is annoying to me when time and again you ignore the very reponse you request. Throughout this thread you've repeatedly requested an answer to the question delineated in the thread topic, to which I repeatedly replied, of which you had repeatedly ignored.
To your credit, you have finally addressed my response. But this practice is not uncommon. You have a history of ignoring or refusing to address anything that challenges your narrative. You have an aversion to respond to any criticism directed at your world view. It seems that you actually think that your secular world view requires no justification and is therefore immune to scrutiny. But this only goes to show that the faculty to critically examine your belief is something you lack. I find this remarkably ironic given the explicit assumption that undergirds your claim, which essentially is:
Everyone that does not espouse my secular world view lacks the intellectual capacity to critically examine their own beliefs
Sum: "You seem to imply that the critical thinking of secularists is inferior to that of theists - in your case, Christians.
Again, the irony confounds! intellectually inferior is exactly how you characterize all theists, yet you are to take umbrage because you THINK I've implied it of secularists? You are accusing me of the very thing of which you are guilty.
Nowhere have I said or implied that secularists are intellectual inferiors. I do not think in such hackneyed sweeping generalizations. You, on the other hand, do. Your argument entirely depends on it. Explicit in your claim is the blanket assumption that all theists are intellectually myopic. Your impression of me is a psychological projection of your own arrogance.
sum wrote:It appears that you are only concerned about the abhorrent secularists and level your vitriol against them whereas FFI is first and foremost an anti-Islam site. I am yet to see your criticisms of Islam despite its followers slowly but surely exterminating Christianity from the Middle East. Where is your concern and your condemnation? It almost makes one think that you are a muslim in disguise masquerading as a Christian because your reasoning and position are the same and would apply to equally well with Christianity/secularism and Islam/secularism. So far, it could be said that by defending Christianity you are really defending Islam against secularism.
This is where your diatribe takes a sharp turn to lunacy.
The malicious accusations above are patently absurd and nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to my previous post. I will not dignify them with a response. I will, however, speak to your complaints.
Sum: "It appears that you are only concerned about the abhorrent secularists and level your vitriol against them whereas FFI is first and foremost an anti-Islam site."
Before you self-righteously lecture me on the purpose of FFI, take a good hard look at the title of this thread. Does the topic of this thread, you have created, serve the purpose of an anti-Islamic site? It serves no purpose other than to advance your hardline secular views.
I challenge you to review all of the threads created on this board and find just one that I had created that criticizes or ridicules secularism. Let me save you the trouble, you won't find any. You will, however, find that this board is inundated with threads that do nothing but criticize, ridicule and mock Christianty, Christians, the Catholic Church and theism, none of which serves the purpose of this site.
The question then is--If you feel so strongly about the purpose of this site, then why do you have absolutely nothing to say about the abundance of criticism and vitriol levelled at Christians and theism? The answer is right before your very nose, because you are a part of it.
That I defend the Christian world view on this board does not make me antagonistic or a "muslim in disguise masquerading as a Christian". This is just spiteful rethoric on your part.
Sum: why are you not spending as much time and effort on criticising Islam which is a far greater threat than secularism?
There you go again. I have already given you my response. Once more, here it is:
Equestrian wrote:Secular society is wedded to relativism. Relativism holds that the cardinal value that there is no cardinal value. In other words, no value is truer than the other. Of course, from this principle flows all kinds of absurd and contradictory philosophies that have solidified into societal orthodoxies, such as:
Muliculturalism : all cultures are greater than your own. Cultural Guilt : your culture is to blame for all the strife in the world. Political Correctness: you're a racist! Collectivism : group rights over individual rights, so Muslims have the right to institute Sharia. Socialism : behavior modification by endless laws. Social Justice : Your money is not yours to keep. Ethnic Diversity : out with equal opportunity, in with racial privilege. Inclusivism : all religions are the same so lets sing kumbayah, nevermind jihad. Religious Diversity : take down that offensive cross! build the mosque!
The gifts of the post-modern secularists.
These orthodoxies are characteristic of the West, especially Europe. The more secular the region the more mainstream the orthodoxies. The more mainstream the orthodoxies the more dimminished the culture. Islam is not the problem, its merely the symptom. The problem is the weakness of the West and thy name is secularism. It is only through the value void of secularism that Islam is able to make in-roads. All you have to do is observe the most secularized regions in the West and there you will find the death knell of a once thriving culture. Destitute cities, sharp demographic declines, economic stagnation, ethnic/religious segregation, ethnic/religious motivated crimes, and a blossoming Muslim community. Secularism is cultures silent assassin.
The following paragraph is the "strategic goal" for the North American operation of the Muslim Brotherhood:
"The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions."
Even the Muslim Brotherhood understands that secularism is the Great Allah Bomb with which they will use to sabotage Western civilization from within. And the secular leftists (A.K.A. useful idiots) are the hands that will unwittingly help them.
Do you remember how you replied? No? well let me remind you:
sum wrote:...your post is irrelevant to this matter and is an unnecessary distraction from the topic of this thread.
Ignore, dismiss, divert. You simply refuse to respond to any criticism of your secular world view. One world be justified to say that you lack the intellectual capacity and honesty to be critical of your own beliefs.
Now as for your rebuttal to this thread topic, I will createv a thread on the debate board and respond to it there this week end. I no longer have the patience for addressing the same tired arguments and objections over and again. The next time this topic comes up, I'll simply refer you to the specific thread on debate board. If you have something more to add, I will be more than happy to respond.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" ~Carl Sagan
You clearly had several nerves touched and then spent time on a response regarding everything but the most important points that I raised. Why is that?
I gave you two quotes - one from a Christian source and one from an Islamic source - both of which stressed the importance of indoctrination in childhood. I do not regard your suggestion of how to create a Christian society as anywhere near practical or realistic. You did not respond. Why?
I maintain that to create a Christian society mass indoctrination through childhood is the only practical way. However, I do not know who will do it or where this will be done. If the parents are atheists or agnostics then there will be little support in the home environment for rearing a child with Christian beliefs.
Having used your rant to respond to my "rant" please now address the important points that you seem have overlooked. It would also interest me to know if you were brought up in a Christian environment throughout your childhood or whether you decided through critical thinking that of all the religions Christianity was the one for you.
I will ask you if there is any point in trying to create a Christian society when the Christians, and especially their authorities - the Pope etc, do absolutely nothing to oppose, criticise and expose Islam for what it is. The present global Christianity is sealing its own fate as well as those who are not religious by doing absolutely nothing to oppose Islam. Islam is walking over every religion and culture and no-one is lifting a finger. So far you have not criticised Islam and the quote that you presented was useless in defending against Islam.
sum wrote:I am disappointed. I thought that the Christians would have some suggestion regarding the creation of a Christian society. I am at a loss to know how you can get people to believe the unprovable and abstract theology apart from indoctrination from birth onwards. This is a genuine query. It is very clear that Islamic indoctrination from birth onwards leads to a programmed mindset that will brook no criticism of Islam and will accept all the inhumanity of Islam and its absurdities without batting an eyelid. Perhaps intense indoctrination from birth onwards is the only way to create a Christian society.
What you posted was not the teaching or example of Jesus - Christianity. It was most reprehensible but not Christianity. This would never happen in the present times by so-called Christians. On the other hand, muslims did far far worse in India and would still do the same today according to Islam and given the chance.
It might be a good idea to address this matter to Equestrian who is a devout Christian.
A forummer with the nick 'Humanist' had it in his signature that decent people have a good sleep in their homes only because there exist others who do all the dirty work needed for them (knowingly or unknowingly).
So even if whites are the least racist of all the people in the world,what does that mean.
Ali Sina wrote: All the white supremacist say is that the white culture and race should be protected and immigrants should stay in their home countries. They are not even saying the whites are better.