Aren't we into a "no true Scotsman" type argument now?
I say, some countries try to implement laws in line with certian religions. You say, "but these are not _truly_ religious countries".
Meh. Not interested in this type of discussion.
All's Quiet on the Western Front
- Thread starter muhammad_isa
- Start date
Aren't we into a "no true Scotsman" type argument now?
I say, some countries try to implement laws in line with certian religions. You say, "but these are not _truly_ religious countries".
Meh. Not interested in this type of discussion.
It's exhausting, imo..
I apologise if I have sounded rude or abrupt
Apology accepted.
..yet it is you who start threads that exhaust you..
eg. What is God's law .. The Words and Actions of Jesus in the Quran ,
Did Jesus Die On The Cross? .. Did Most Early Christians Believe The Divinity of Christ?
You don't agree with Islamic religious law .. understood.
However, it is you who are citing the results of its implementation.
I am merely pointing out that your conclusions are based on today's world, which is far from Islamic.
If you would like to give me an example, I could explain further..
..but then you are not particularly interested .. OK.
PS I am aware that you dislike your present govt. in Germany. That is more of a political discussion, imo.
There you go again. Please re-read my last post. It's not discussion that exhausts me -- it is answering the same question yet again -- only to have my answer brushed aside and the same question repeated. You may not like the answer you get, but it's not going to change because you keep asking the same question.Apology accepted.
..yet it is you who start threads that exhaust you..
eg. What is God's law .. The Words and Actions of Jesus in the Quran ,
Did Jesus Die On The Cross? .. Did Most Early Christians Believe The Divinity of Christ?
This just becomes a loop from here on ... it's not discussion and it's not what people come to IO for, imo
The great thing about utopias is that they don't exist. Today's liberal democracies are not really liberal, so their failings can't be attributed to shortcomings in liberalism. "Actually Existing Socialism" wasn't really socialist, so it can't be used to argue about the shortcomings of socialism. Today's Islamic Kingdoms and Republics aren't really Islamic, so they can't inform us about any problematic points of Theocracy.
I'm pointing out that this is a lot like the "no true Scotsman" type argument:
Here's how our last few posts went:
So, no, it's not that I dislike Islamic Law in particular - and I intentionally used Germany implementing Christian "spiritual" law, as an example, so you wouldn't spring that one on me, but you did anyway, and tried to brush it away saying I don't like my government, so you missed my point entirely.
I'll repeat, so we can tick this one off for good: I dislike any and all "spiritual" law being passed by the law-givers of any country. It always starts out with an appeal to some otherworldly boon and ends up with people being discriminated against in all kinds of ways, in up to and including, in the worst case, death penalties for not believing or living according to some revealed text. Always happens. Consult any history book.
I'm pointing out that this is a lot like the "no true Scotsman" type argument:
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Here's how our last few posts went:
So, no, it's not that I dislike Islamic Law in particular - and I intentionally used Germany implementing Christian "spiritual" law, as an example, so you wouldn't spring that one on me, but you did anyway, and tried to brush it away saying I don't like my government, so you missed my point entirely.
I'll repeat, so we can tick this one off for good: I dislike any and all "spiritual" law being passed by the law-givers of any country. It always starts out with an appeal to some otherworldly boon and ends up with people being discriminated against in all kinds of ways, in up to and including, in the worst case, death penalties for not believing or living according to some revealed text. Always happens. Consult any history book.
I so honor you for this statement....this (to me) is the foundation of interfaith discussion.
If one cant start here....they are most certain to have issues here.
It identifies most who have left...as their form of discussion leaves no room for....discussion!
Yes, I know. The vast majority of members on this website agree with you. It doesn't make them right, though.
Do you really think that climate-change will be reversed by today's politicians? I don't .. for the reasons I
have already given.
Sorry, but this discussion lies in the "Abrahamic" section. [ God exists is assumed ]
Is @Thomas suggesting that he only believes in God as the Bible "says so" ? I very much doubt it.
Categorically proving something, and proving something "beyond reasonable doubt" are 2 different things, imo.
I don't see how belief in the Abrahamic God is a "leap of faith" .. unless the witnesses / authors of scripture are liars
It is also quite normal to think that "the theatre of life" has an author.
Most theatres do.
Belief in a certain creed is another thing entirely, obviously.
I know.
So we disagree on this.
Where do you want to go from here? Rather than always hinting that you think some spiritual solution to today's political challenges exists, you could go into more detail? It would at least give this particular topic of spirituality in politics some new direction. And if I understood in more detail what you had in mind, I might not just categorically disagree with the idea, but be able to give more differentiated responses.
(Compate to when a free-wheeling liberal proposes "less regulation" in general, I categorically disagree. If they can make a case for a specific kind of regulation that makes no sense any more, I might even agree)
Laissez-faire effectively means people can do what they like.
Yes, we all know that that doesn't mean that people can go around murdering each other.
..but an unregulated society means that people are free to be involved with immoral activity.
This has an effect on everybody.
They say that "money is the root of all evil", but it is not money itself, but people's love of it.
Some people will DO ANYTHING [ prostitute themselves .. lie / cheat ], in order to obtain it.
Unregulated Capitalism has become global. It is this that is mainly responsible for climate-change.
Is any politician doing anything about this? I don't think so. Most people "want their cake and eat it".
How can that achieve what is necessary to save us from our doom?
I dont know many people who don't sell their body in exchange for money.
And your lectures on decorum almost fold and put away my clothes with irony.
What do you suggest instead?
Fear God, and take heed of his guidance.
Warn others, regardless of the fact that they don't want to hear .. politely of course.
We can't pick & choose the bits we like or don't like.
What do I suggest?
There is little I can do about it. Governments are of the nature you favour .. irreligious, broadly speaking.
When I was a lad, most ordinary people received their wages in cash on a friday.
..whereas nowadays, if you haven't got a bank account, you won't get paid
21st. century schizoid man.
Money first, morality second.
Last edited:
I hear you, there is little I can do to change my government, either, but I can still say what I'd like to change. And so can you!
In what ways would you like to incorporate spirituality into government action to address today's challenges? Should politicians be encouraged to report on their spiritual life, for example? Should there be religious functions integrated into proceedings? Should another power be added to the three (executive, judicative, legislative)? Or another chamber to the legislative? Should we get rid of centralized government in favor of federalism? More direct democracy?
It would be interesting to know your views in detail, rather than you always hinting at something but only as a critique of status quo.
No.
These are all political changes. I'm not talking about tinkering with the political system, really.
It isn't just the politicians that engineer unregulated capitalism, it is what the vast majority of people want.
Many people might disagree with me on that, but I would say that most people "vote with their pocket"
i.e. put the economy first
Obviously, to me anyway, the financial sector needs more regulation and careful monitoring.
Promotion of small businesses and loopholes in company law [ eg regulation of umbrella companies ] resulting in huge monopolies plugged.
It's the system as I say. There are too many hypocrites who claim to believe in God, for example,
but are quite happy with govts. acting corruptly as they deny the role of religion in govt.
..as long as "they are alright Jack"!
It's not that I think govt. should change. It is the people who need to change [i.e. us], as those who
represent us are "from us" .. one of us.
I would say that most of us want to "go to heaven" ..
If mankind continues on its present course, we are all heading for doom.
That is a contradiction. Jesus did not teach a philosophy that would result in worldy catastrophe.
I therefore conclude that the vast majority of the world's population are irreligious and / or ignorant.
Blaming politicians is easy. People are fond of passing the buck. We are all responsible, in as much as we deny the truth. We want our cake and eat it.
Rich people are causing climate-change. It's all about wealth and power.
Psychologically, human beings usually want to believe that it is always somebody else's fault.
We can squabble over whether Jesus is divine or not .. but how does that help?
It doesn't.
Yes, we can wait until Jesus returns and "waves his magic wand", but meanwhile..
Last edited:
Yes.
By George he's got it!
Yes – exactly – the expression of the relation between Father and Son (in particular) and the Three Persons (in general) are there for our education. Jesus' disposition towards the Father is not for His own benefit, everything He said and did had a pedagogic reason behind it.
In the broader Christian Tradition, there is a distinction between what the scholars call the 'economic Trinity' and the 'theological Trinity'. The terms are complex and not really helpful, especially the first, which derives from the Greek 'oikonomia' (oikos meaning 'household' and nemein meaning 'management') and is the term used for Divine Revelation in human history with a regard to salvation.
The second from the Greek theologia (theos meaning God and logia meaning study, discourse, explanation).
I personally favour the terms 'Immanent Trinity' and 'Transcendent Trinity', that is God manifest towards us, and God in essence, which is essentially beyond our comprehension, and thus 'a mystery'.
I know you'll probably regard this as more philosophical gobbledegook, but if you took the trouble to think about it, you'd find that all your references to the doctrine as 'irrational', 'illogical', etc, can be resolved.
If Jesus were just a good man or a great teacher, He would not be able to die on the cross and save us. He would have just been another created being.
But, Jesus can make atonement for us because He is fully God. Jesus can stand in the gap for us because of His deity.
That is really what it's all about .. how God saves us.
I believe that God saves us by sending a prophet to teach / reform us.
You believe that God saves us by dying on a cross.
Yes, you're right
I consider it to be highly political. It is a way to make Caesar's law triumph over Jewish law, imo.
It emphasises that we are saved if we believe what the council of Nicea established, and any other creed heretical.
So handy you don't have any such dogmatic approach to belief systems!
Well you haven't addressed the main point, so I take that as acceptance
No we don't, but then you know that.
Thanks!Yes, you're right
An opinion, but one which no scholarship supports, however.