Islam vs. Christianity
Is there really a big difference?
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). Or they could re-tell the parable of conflict resolution, which Jesus ends this way: “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me” (Luke 19:27).
One of the big accomplishments of the United States was separation of Church and State or "ethical philosophy and political philosophy", unfortunately many christians and many environmentalists want to break that wall down.
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). Or they could re-tell the parable of conflict resolution, which Jesus ends this way: “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me” (Luke 19:27).
One of the big accomplishments of the United States was separation of Church and State or "ethical philosophy and political philosophy", unfortunately many christians and many environmentalists want to break that wall down.
Both push group ahead of individual.
Both insist primacy over all competing religions.
Both initiate force for no rational reason.
So difference is more in degree than kind.
The broad brush does not apply.
Individuals are just that, and while they might follow a religion in general, rarely adhere to every specific.
Back to the points you raised as applied by the religion.
Christianity still pushes conversion, it is how they get new members. How hard they push varies by which sect you are talking about. Christianity no longer practices conversion at sword point, but that does not mean they do not use other means.
Christianity does attempt to control its adherents. It encourages specific behaviors, and discourages other behaviors. Behavior modification at base, and therefore exerting control. At the heart of their teachings are many many examples of this. Starting with the 10 commandments, and getting more specific the closer it gets to you. Going to Church (encouraged behavior) you receive a sermon/talk/term of choice. This sermon invariably includes a cause for you to support or something for you to do. Encouraged or discouraged behavior for this week.
Cloaking it in allegory and pretty words does not change the goal. A yoke wrapped in silk is still a yoke.
Islam does all of the same things but with a heavier hand and harsher, sometimes lethal, consequences.
You, as an individual, may not attempt conversion or control on others, the group you self identify with does as a group.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.” " Philosophy Who Needs It?-Rand
I am Christian, but do not believe I have any requirement to give a person a dime. It may even be wrong to give a person that dime, and if I had more time I could give you some references to that from my particular version of Christianity.
In my belief structure it is first free agency which is an Mormon term for individual choice as to what a person does. If you want to get X from the gospel you may have to do Y to accomplish that goal, but its your choice.
Altruism != Christianity.
A quick specific example. If I give my son $1,000.00 do I help him or hurt him? Any situation requires an evaluation as to what is best for the individual, and if the funds are voluntarily there to help the person. The same decision is made by LDS (Mormon) bishop each time they help someone. It is not required, and people are turned away. It is advised that the bishop require some action from the person to get help, often some service to the church or others in the word is required. As a general rule its frowned upon to give people help for free. That is viewed to as damaging to the receiver and the giver. Does it happen, I am sure it does and actually removed myself as a financial clerk because I saw things that were in my view against the teaching of my church going on.
If I choose to give my church money, its because I feel its in my best interest. The same is true of the beggar. I do not have a duty or owe either anything.
I exist for my sake. I will add to this that I do think it often is in my best interest to help someone around me, but only if they are helping themselves as well. A person who is doing nothing for themselves has not earned my help and charity is only charity when given freely of the givers choice. It is otherwise a form of theft.
Ultimately no matter what your belief it comes down to using your mind and experience to make a judgement. It is then by my mind and my judgement that i am confident I am right.
What do you need confidence for? If you have no faith/confidence a person does not act. I need faith/confidence in something because it gives me cause to act. If I have no faith or confidence in something I do not work towards that something as I have no belief in it.
I view that question of why god in the same light as asking why do you need a professor of physics to learn about physics?
My ultimate goal is to be like god based on my belief structure. Why would I not want a person with the skills I would like to learn to mentor and teach me?
The next question you will likely lead to is how do you talk to god. Just so you know I wont go into that here, that is going to far into a spectrum of religion for this forum. If you would like to take it up in email or a phone call would love to further discuss. You can PM me here if interested.
Confidence is based on judgement. Judgement can be based on faith or provable knowledge.Or a mix of the two.
To interchange the two words is to destroy language and make communication... difficult, at best.
Islamic suicide bombers have faith. A faith that guides their judgement, their confidence, and finally, their actions.How can you make any argument that they are wrong when their actions are rooted in their faith?
I don't need to ask how you talk to god. I was raised with it, and while I know many fine religious individuals, (maybe now, another) I don't think I could stay polite during that conversation so I appreciate the offer... But I have no capacity for faith, I have my mind.
full trust; belief in the powers, trustworthiness, or reliability of a person or thing:
Faith
confidence or trust in a person or thing:
Those are the 1st definitions of both at dictionary.com and the only ones I accept. I do not agree with your definition of faith. Since we cannot agree on a definition we cannot really discuss the term. Out of those two I actually prefer faith, confidence is a bit to absolute.
I wish you the best.
as an admirer of both Ben Carson and Orson Scott Card, perhaps ycandrea is not all bad.
Thanks.
If I wish to be a computer programmer I must give up something of myself to achieve that goal.
If I wish to be a great debater I also must give up something of myself to achieve that.
If I wish to achieve the goal of becoming a god and creating my own worlds, I must give up something of myself to achieve that goal.
Anything you accomplish requires you to make choices. I see no difference between developing skill within the context of religion and developing skill in the context of science, philosophy or economic pressures. Any require you to make a choice. In some cases its give up some TV time to get a skill. Other cases it pay for classes for an education, in others its give up some deserts I like to eat to loose weight....
Religion is no different. There is something people are attempting to achieve and they are willing to do what is needed to achieve it.
It is not altruistic to decide you wish to achieve something then work towards that achievement and pay the cost needed to achieve it.
Edit: BTW the same can be said of Objectivism. If you wish to reap the benefits it offers you must alter some of your viewpoints to do so, and that alters self, but again to accomplish a goal.
In my religion it is all about choice, you choose to follow or not, you choose to work towards your religious goal or not. No one is forced to stay, or do anything its all about goals and achievement.
I may have misinterpreted your use of the term as I see it in no other way than a trade of something I want more for something I want less.
Seig Me No Heils followers of Plato and his descendents. I do not serve Your Party.
I strongly agree.
True, but stereotypes don't sprout out of nowhere, either (one of my Laws...)
if you are peaceful, if you contribute value for value, and
if you harmonize. . otherwise, no thanks. . this is not arbitrary,
it is necessary as it is national defense and health. . we thrive
as a direct result of these actions.
and I will not vote you down for disagreeing. -- john
.
Audiology and geography are frequently confused...it happens.
In New York a proseletizing Muslim would be celebrated.
In Riyadh a proseletizing Christian would likely be jailed or worse.
Now anyway, in other times and places the outcomes would be different.
That is not the question we started with.
Granted, "radical" Christians could take the Old Testament view and become a terror similar to today's Jihadists. However, there has been little proof of that happening and, indeed, just the opposite has been happening with the attacks upon Christian values by our own government.
Christians may be our enemies, tomorrow, but today, they are our allies and we need to respect them as such, as we are going to need their help to fend off the Jihadists.
The Christians I know defy "Political Correctness" and hold onto the belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman. They believe that you ARE the sex you were born with and while they may abhor abortions, many feel that you should have the choice, but that they should not have to pay for it. They believe in helping their fellow man, but only to the point of helping them to their feet, where they can then return to self sufficiency.
Ayn Rand spoke of the "mystics" and I am, currently, in agreement with her opinion...being agnostic for most of my life. However, I refuse to alienate myself from Christians as, not only am I married to one, I also happen to agree with many of their better moral principles.
My profession is technology, not English grammar. I'll admit the possibility of a poor choice of wording, but my thoughts were correct, from my understanding of our country's history.
But, then, I did attend public schools.
"True Christians" (and they are few and far between) are individualists and believe that the annointing (meaning: the power of God on your life) is sufficient and you don't need the group nor man-made rules.
To live in this world, Islam advocates the group and rule of the consensus. The "rules" are more important than people. The "power" comes in the form of how well you can fit in or overpower others.
Most organized religions follow the same pattern: Rules and group think come first. It takes a strong person to break from that and find your own path
...and as Jesus said: "You will find the Kingdom, but it will be with many persecutions."
I too have been a Christian all my life and have never wanted to kill or harm any one from any other religion but this too is changing rather quickly!
The enlightenment never would have occurred if not for Christianity - Charles Martel, the Templars, the Magna Carta. Christianity (as brutal as some powers made it - Kings holding on to their position by using divine right, the Catholic church asserting their influence to assume dominion over all the kings) was fertile soil as people began to become educated (catholics) and the security of civilization reduced threats that fostered the enlightenment (it was only natural, an educated mind with idle time), and not in-spite of the Christian world.
Still, this is just my observation from history.
Actually, the belief in God is separate from religion. One doesn't need to belong to a religion in order to see that something bigger than mankind is at work in the Universe.
Religions have often been co-opted by those who want to further their own power or sadistic leanings. Evil humans using religious tenets and quotes from books, created and written by men, to justify atrocities, isn't proof that God does not exist.
It's proof that there are evil people willing to justify atrocities using religious tenets and quotes from books.
Humanism has the same problem, which can be discerned from the intro of the article where it sites extremists groups that are known for humanism. Communist revolutionaries are not known for their religious fanaticism. They have, though, been known for their propensity toward burying people, who do not agree with their humanistic beliefs, in mass graves.
I find this article to be more of a humanism promo then providing insightful information about Islam vs. Christianity.
Radical Islam follows Allah and is on a very here and now bloody conversion tour.
Christianity follows Christ (and the other two thirds of the Trinity, who, all together, are one God - still trying to figure that one out) and is, presently, known to eschew beheading and crucifixion as recruiting methods.
I'd say that, since we are living in the here and now, is a pretty big difference between Islam and Christianity.
As far as the Trinity, I am a Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day saints. We do not believe that they are all one, but rather that the three are separate people that are one in the goals they work to achieve. They are not a single person. God is a perfected man, and after his resurrection so is Christ. The Holy Ghost is a being of spirit that will also have to go through this mortal life to achieve his own perfected state. We are all going through the same process as well. (I only bring this up since you mentioned it in your post, it may provide an alternate view of it that makes more sense, or not.)
I was raised Roman Catholic (Vatican I until the age of ten, then RC Lite with the advent of Vatican II.) We were told there is one God with three persons in the one God. This was to be taken as an article of faith. There were so many changes between the two ecumenical councils that it was difficult for my young mind to accept articles of faith. Suddenly there was no Limbo and anyone who ate meat on the following Friday could get into heaven but everyone from the previous Friday on back was condemned to hell for eternity. I assume purgatory still exists.
All I know is there exists a force far greater than I, or any other human, in existence. I can't go a day without appreciating something for which there is no explanation - it can range from being in awe of the sunrise to how was it that everything went eerily correct, when the odds were against it, all day.
Man has free will. He can choose between right and wrong. You don't have to be a humanist to do that nor do you have to follow a specific religion or philosophy.
Religion isn't an argument against God. It's an argument against man, here on the earthly plane, as God.
To me, it's only logical to assume that religion is a man made construct. Was it created to explain forces that can't (or couldn't at the time, such as storms) be understood? exert force and control? to have pot-luck dinners?
Maybe the seed of each religion is a gift from God to help simple humans, from all walks of life, know Him. This would explain the need for, and the why there are, multiple religions. Then Man, with free will, took each seed given him and did what man often does - corrupted it with his own bias and desires.
I am finding the number of theists within the Gulch to be much greater then I imagined.
As to the existence of a deity, I do not know, but lean no. One would think there would be some direct evidence in all this time. Faith is cited rather than evidence, and the picture painted is not a pretty one.
I have had certain experience that, while not proof there is a deity (a single being,) it is proof, to me, there is something else that exists beyond my five senses.
Sometimes we ignore evidence (that we receive on an individual basis) because it doesn't fit our stories.
Lordy, sometimes I sound like a tree-hugging, new ager. Well, I like to garden, feed the birds and have an odd (to others) concept of God - so maybe that's accurate :)
Thank you for your thoughts which, intellectually, I agree with wholeheartedly. Especially the last sentence. Faith, to me, is a term that is usually used in a manipulative manner.
you are correct. LDS believes that man is co-equal with god in the fact that everyone of us has always existed in some state. God is simply farther down the path than we are. We work towards becoming like him, the ideal/perfect person.
BTW, gaiagal has the alliteration that terrangal, or terragal, lacks :)
I always love it when third parties attempt to pigeonhole the beliefs of others and proclaim themselves authorities on the matter. Would an Objectivist allow Obama to tell them what an Objectivist believes? Of course not! Neither should a humanist be believed as authoritative on matters of anything other than humanism.
I'm just know reviewing an exact description of the phenomena and feel another descriptive post building... hiow the USA was the first country to be founded on and by ideas and being unable after the founders passed to continue those ideas reverted to post Enlightment neo-European philosophies....and thus lost the idea and the country. Some of you will recognize the source from the description. the rest will be happy to know they were described two hundred to two thousand years ago - in minute detail.
The bigger problem I see is that due to the Twelfth Amendment linking the election of the President and Vice President to a single party, I don't see third-party runs becoming viable. Disappointing.
Vote None of the Above by not voting. any other way is a vote for left wing socalist fascism.
I'd rather vote for a Republican than allow my vote to be taken by a left-wing socialist voting for Hillary or Bernie. It's not the ideal option, but at least I can say I did something.
It's not an ideal solution but that's what you get in a closed candidate rigged winner take all system run by one party with two faces. Now what you going to do?
right now about 30 plus percent to as much as 45% refuse to give their vote to either of the leftist candidates. It's a vote of no confidence. A repudiation of the left wing socialists who are going further and further left each time - as long as they can sucker people into voting or until they can get rid of voting completely. So do something. Rand said it best. In any question there are three choices right, wrong and compromise. Which makes a total of two wrong and one right choice. You seen anything come out of voting for Rinos besides a police state in the making?
I view a non-vote as giving up, and I still think there is something to fight for. Now maybe I am still naive like Dagny before finding the Gulch. I guess we'll see in the next Presidential election, where for the first time in 20 years (since Ross Perot) people are going to have some real choices to make. I would note that of the leading candidates, two are outsiders and one is a political pariah - hardly a RINO. Once Jeb Bush and Chris Christie bow out (two I consider RINO's), I think that the choice won't be between socialism and socialism lite.
The one possible last chance the Republican version of Webb just resigned the race without having the balls t do as Webb did.
The rest continue to support the left and there is no difference between left wing of the left and right wing of the left..
You may call it socialist light if you wish as if that were something to be proud of supporting. i do not.
Instead I return to the one true hope left to those who have drifted beyond the pale and reach of the Constitution and joined the secular progressives and that is the slender hope the US Military will remember their oath of office, declare martial law and take over the country in a 'legal' counter revolution against the enemies domestic instead of voting for them.
Odds of that are very small. Why? Because you are not worth fighting for and never were.
Odds are greater they will refuse to be used as left wing cannon fodder any more....and just take over. That along with the Constitution and their legal counter revolutionary stratus IS worth fighting for.
Whether they give it back or not or institute a Heinlein qualification on voting and holding office remains to be seen.
That is what you are voting for. IF the US Military allows it.
Think the US Military is going to continue to wiling be sacrificed and fed into the grind of socialist wars without saying Fuck This Shit. No problem the draft can be turned on in an instant. There are all those newly discovered fascist college students to put in uniform in their place. If they allow it.
Not a chance and then too think about the fledgling Protective Echelon coming along slowly building it's own infrastructure. Vote Left you vote for DOHS Diss-ing you big time as the Directorate of Internal State Security. If the US Military allows it.
Still want to vote for the lesser of two evils? They all support that particular portion of evil every one of the Government Party candidates. If the US Military allows it.
That's the power you are handing to someone like Hillary Clinton or Comrade Trump and the choice you force upon the US Military.
Truism...Despots never take over they are handed the job of dictator by a willing electorate. If the US Military allows it.
Did that cobra ever turn up in Florida? No...but his family are all running for office.
And if they do allow it .....you are well and truly by your own choice ...fucked.
Now they can pull the plug on me - and let's see if I'm still posting tomorrow.
ISIS is the least of your worries. THe greatest danger you, this country and the rest of it ware facing can be found by looking in the mirror.
So...in the time left I will turn my attention to conducting a class on what happens then what do we do......On the conduct of revolutions that could have been won with ballots and now have to be won with blood.
Lesson Number one establish a series of safe havens outside the country and decide who can and who cannot be trusted. No revolution and not many counter revolutions were won without outside support.
Lesson Number Two if you have any family or friends of family whose members belong to a select group of military retirees, veterans, or active duty members. Use them to continue what I have started. Chief among them are those charged with conducting such operations which are of necessity political in nature.
They are by your own choice ....your only hope.
The only country that was founded on an idea not by force. Not the only country to be sold out.
If you have two big brass ones and not just hot whimpers and brown spotted diapers.
Back to the anti secular progressive series. I finish what I start. Least I can do for perhaps the only group left in existence worth fighting for.
Seig Me No Heils Comrade. The only party I serve is the Constitution.
I am more concerned about the fed-gov threat to life and liberty. Too much meddling.
Integral to humanism was the idea of l'uomo universale the Renaissance man who mastered many studies and skills. That was different from the traditional idea of a "calling." And even today, we tend to give mute acceptance to the idea that you go to college to get one skill which you employ for wages your whole working life until you can retire from work altogether.
(Today, we do have a different model, but the old model still holds sway. Politicians promise "a good paying job" and want people to be educated in college to get one ... one...)
As an aside William Howland Woodin was a financier who served as the Secretary of the Treasury for Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was because of Woodin that ordinary people could hold gold when the banks were ordered to transfer their stocks to the Federal Reserve. Woodin also wrote music, including "The FDR March."
Thanks db, nice find. I will add "everyjoe" to my list.
Which means facts are available if you choose to do due diligence but if you want to stick to dogma and false statements such as nothing in common variety not my problem.
You can lead a horse to water but......
Besides, like the 700 club this was getting boring... and like Kerry's State Department going nowhere. All talk and no solutions no action. Just like the Same Sex series.
Fortunately or unfortunately I've never watched a single episode of the 700 club, so I can't follow you there.
it went "Did you hear some reporter found (insert name of 700 version of Sally Strothers) with her make up off?"
"Really what happened?"
"Found out she was really Jimmy Hoffa."
My apologies to those who follow the evangelical TV people. I'm sure many of them are quite sincere and very nice people, but I can't get past the spoof enough to actually give any of them a good listen. At least today, good humor can be had regarding most Christians without fear of beheading.
Religion is for people who are afraid of the dark....but for some it's a needful thing.
Separation of church and state was to keep government out of the church. not the other way around. We can not have freedom with out virtue or what we call...self control, accountability, responsibility and mutuality with others.
islam or more specifically, islamism; does not have mutuality with the rest of mankind and mankind can not possibly have mutuality with islamism.
Never the twain shall meet. They are 180° opposed.
The teachings of Jesus was not about controlling others but about controlling one's self.
Giving those approaching a mind and a conscience some guide lines to be successful in consciousness.
Most do not know that mankind did not achieve tentative self awareness until about 3 to 5000 years ago.
Sadly...many today still haven't...most of which are in government and the churches...especially islam.
As I said this is my own take on the matter.
To see it I must have faith. To hear it my faith must be strong.
If I can do neither, my faith isn't strong enough.
The failure is not in the message. The failure is mine.
Guilt.
OK, seriously, touche. But are you really going to deny that guilt is a major tool for religions/religious people to manipulate followers/family?
The only similarity between Islam and Judaism or Christianity is that early in Islam, Muhammad pleasurized the old and new testament into his version to try to appeal to the "people of the book" to join him and convert to Islam. That's it. The "people of the book as well as many of his pagan tribe did not. Muhammad went bonkers worse than Wesley Mooch. The more violent Muhammad was, the more power he got, the more power, the more violent and so on. After 77 raids in which he personally participated in, he died after being poisoned. And so began the sectarian struggle within Islam. With that, I bow out of this topic.
Christs life was not about war, see anywhere that he forces anyone to accept the gospel? Nope. See anywhere where agency is removed from a person sealing to follow him? Nope. It was left to there free agency. I would go into it more but I do not have time.
Mohammad on the other hand did lead a war in his life and ministry.
If you attempt to live as they lived the two have nothing in common.
The gospel of Matthew was written, probably Matthew or someone close to him. The gospel of Mark was more than likely written by Mark, The gospel of Luke was written by Luke himself as well as book of Acts. The gospel of John was written by a writer close to him. Finally, where you got that Jesus couldn't read or write is really fantastic. He was a rabbi who often taught and read scriptures in the synagogues.
Thank you Mr. Stephen Hicks!
The Muslims seem to read the Quran quite literally. Whether this is cultural or the intention of the text is quite superfluous. In either case, the extremists and their sympathizers within the Muslim community are invoking a reaction in the Christians which is diminishing the West. The West is not equivalent to "Judaeo-Christian". It is, as you all have pointed out, a certain culture of individual rights, and this has predominantly meant America. (Europe's World Wars are evidence of this.)
The specter of fascism has located a body in the populist right of Europe (paraphrasing Yaron Brook). This is a kind of auto-immune response, or - per Yaron Brook - suicide due to the negative effects that the altruist creed has supplied to Europe in greater measure than the migrants themselves.
You cite two verses, not only out of context but forcing an improper context on them. You say you looked, so you should have seen that the Matthew quote compares peace vs sword in the context of whether someone values other people more than God. You can disagree with whether God exists, or is more important, but that verse does not tell anyone (today or then) to take up sword, anymore than a politician "targeting" an opponent means they are calling for someone to shoot them.
The Luke verse is the tail end of a parable about servants who are rewarded based on how well the manage a king's resources (an Objectivist concept - reward for production). It is not about conflict resolution, and does not tell anyone today to kill anyone. In the time it was written, slaying enemies was normal behavior for a king (if you strike the king, you must kill the king). A statement in a story, expressly introduced as a made up story, that underscores the authority of a king is not a command for anyone in the real world to kill anyone.
For clarity - I'm not arguing against separation of church and state, just against basing your arguments on such poor foundations.
When Jesus was walking along the road he was approached by a Pharisee and asked if it was lawful to pay the Roman tax. Seeing the trick question, he asked to see a coin and pointing out Caesar's image made the famous statement "Give unto Caesar...". Now zoom up in time just before He was crucified where Satan offered him all the kingdoms of the earth. Recognizing a "Brooklyn Bridge for sale" offer he turned it down. Now zoom a few hundred years after His crucifixion and it seems his followers (Christians) were offered the same deal and they took it. They became Caesar and to this day there are those professing to be Christians who are more resembling of a Caesar than a Jesus Christ. That's Christendom. If you read the words of Jesus Christ, do you really think He would approve the infamous Inquisition? A Caesar would.
There are likely many small and/or more recent sects of major beliefs that may be quite
different (and "better") than the average - and also not at all representative.
Different belief systems. Sure but with the same roots just different routes. One of the main winners was Salladdin - A Kurd. But the whole entire base reason was economic nonetheless. You are arguing excuses for just another economic war.
in my experience, the propensity to negative stuff is slight
in Christianity. . it is heavy in Islam. . they are different.
separation of church and state needs to be sustained,
though it is not a founding requirement ... just a principle
for healthy living. -- j
.
the other arguments are getting a bit dull so there's a new one to create some new sparks or should i just pour gas?
with the InGodWeTrusts all over the architecture, coinage, etc.
the founders apparently intended to avoid having the
church of england take root here -- they preferred
having God or a Deity or Providence available to the individual
personally. . and I agree that it's better to view God as an
individual decision rather than a church or state decision. -- j
.
Christian, Zorastrianism, Sikhism, Bahai, and others are under represented by the Obama administration in allowing immigrants or refugees. That thread going up now.
It was one of these facebook conversations with a fairly well educated man, amusing as it was to rile him up and get him to start blaming non-believers, was what helped me decide that I was not just agnostic.
"We had our religious fanatics – but we tamed them."
When I saw this, I wonder who are "we" since this happened before living memory.The article answers:
"The humanists taught – often against vicious religious opposition – that life on Earth matters and that we should enjoy it."
I'm happy to be a part of this we:
"They taught that we should be rational, using our senses and our reason to understand the world and ourselves. They taught, increasingly as the Renaissance made headway, that each individual’s life matters and that we should judge people according to their individual characters and actions. They taught that each person is responsible for his (and even her) life."
I agree with every part of this article.
It helps to have some background in Judaism to understand this remarkable parable. They (the Pharisees) knew that they had only one job (that Jesus was actually doing) and they were plotting and planning against Jesus. They were about to bury their "talent" (so-to-speak).
It's actually a poke in the eye to the "ruling class" of the day.
Which makes the US State Department and Side Deal Kerry and the Obama Administration's PC Pukes along with ISIS the biggest enemies of non-muslims
Load more comments...