Subject:
|
Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:29:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
994 times
|
| |
|
|
The problem with John and Justin’s thinking here is that they want to be allowed
to show that different kinds of Xtianity may exist and that some of these
factions of Xtianity are not what they would really consider “properly” Xtian in
terms of John or Justin’s personal views. In a way, I don’t have a problem with
that -- they are questioning the basis upon which those factions consider
themselves representative of Xtianity. That would be in the way of a disgreement
between factions of Xtianity -- much like has existed in Ireland for too long a
time between the Catholics and the Protestants. It’s a pity that Xtian groups
cannot be more tolerant of one another’s views, but there it is. From the
outside we may see different Xtian groups as being very alike, from within they
argue passionately about their differences.
Again, more proof that organized religions are hardly the philosophical basis
for tolerance -- note how they fight amongst themselves!
My problem with John’s selective reasoning is that he very specifically selects
himself out of association with Xtian activity and history that he finds
objectionable. At the same time, he doesn’t allow that there may exist Muslims
that would do the same thing as regards certain factions within Islam and as
regards certain aspects of their own Islamic history. In other words, he demands
the right to distance himself from certain extreme Xtian activities and history
while insisting that Muslims can and must all be lumped together!
That which is barely good enough for Xtian John Neal is too good for your
average Muslim!
Outrageous!
Again, I call attention to the dictionary definition of a bigot: “One who is
strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is
intolerant of those who differ.” -- Excerpted from The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton
Mifflin Company. Etc, Etc, Etc...
I’d have to say that John was more than “strongly partial” to his own views --
I’d have to say that he was irrationally partial to his own views.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
