Empty words. As if Islam would tolerate any of those things without heavily armed zealots kicking down your door to kill or maim you for disagreeing with the faith. Go watch the news and find out just how intolerant and violent non-Christians can be.
Religion as socially-accepted mental illness
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
That was before the invention of the printing press. Crusaders didn't carry bibles and didn't know the teachings of Christ.
It took a Roman Catholic to reconcile the teachings of Christ, of peace, by establishing the Just War Doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War_Doctrine
You don't want to pull the string on that sweater, your view of tolerant and non-violent Christianity will soon be unraveled.
But they tell you to do so for an ultimate reward. I don't see that as altruism but as doing what you're told by a higher power. I think the actions are worthy, but the way it teaches them is not through altruism but through reward and fear.
To me altruism is about doing something beneficial for others with no thought for oneself. While there are undoubtedly passages that example it, the majority is a sale through force: "do good or no reward" etc.
Why are you attacking Christians for supposed violence, yet you say nothing when Islamic fundamentalists commit atrocities on a daily basis. What kind of hypocrite are you?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/06/g...ghter-convert-to-christianity-in-tunisia.html
Well, no, a hypocrite would say that it's fine for Muslims to be violent but not OK for Christians to be violent - which he hasn't said.
(Put it this way. There's a massive problem with violence towards women in India where most people are Hindu. Are you a hypocrite because you remain silent on those atrocities?)
Actually no kind of hypocrite at all. I condemn Muslims and Islam all the time, ask anyone. I was even banned for it once. Right, Tiassa?
The major difference between Islam and Christianity is time. Islam hasn't been tempered by a secular society yet. It enjoys full political power in many places the same way the Roman Catholic Church did when they were burning people for heresy.
I am trying so hard to not be snarky with you. Ugh! I've failed at it again. I take back the "hypocrite" comment. As for tempering of Islam, when are they going to start to think about what is a "Just war". Or more specifically: is it right to saw somebody's head off as a protest against your religion? Some kind of: Just Response Doctrine.
It's nothing different than Old Testament justice.
How impotent one must feel when they're so incapable of defending their own beliefs that they're reduced to arguing that they aren't the only ones doing bad things.
Sorry I come only every other day, so I'll first respond to those who responded to me.
Yes, mental illness is defined as a group that deviates from the norm, but not all groups that deviate from norm are defined as mental illness, that's what circular logic is. e.g. The ball is round. All round things are balls.
And whats with the one-sided bashing of islamic countries? The examples are skewed. Pick a country that already has a high rate of crime, you'll get a high rate of religious-related crime. There are a lot of islamic countries that are predominantly poor and with a corrupt and broken country infrastructure. Poverty and government affect the crime rate more than religion. But if you're so inclined to champion the effects of Christianity, you need only look at the christian country whose motto is "In God We Trust" - one of the highest crime rates in the world, and the worst crimes at that.
But then you might say, "Well hey now, that serial killer wasn't really christian." And you never bothered to ask any ordinary muslim if that head-chopping terrorist was "really muslim" either. So who really is ignorant and being hypocritical?
rodereve said:
Yes, mental illness is defined as a group that deviates from the norm, but not all groups that deviate from norm are defined as mental illness, that's what circular logic is. e.g. The ball is round. All round things are balls.
And whats with the one-sided bashing of islamic countries? The examples are skewed. Pick a country that already has a high rate of crime, you'll get a high rate of religious-related crime. There are a lot of islamic countries that are predominantly poor and with a corrupt and broken country infrastructure. Poverty and government affect the crime rate more than religion. But if you're so inclined to champion the effects of Christianity, you need only look at the christian country whose motto is "In God We Trust" - one of the highest crime rates in the world, and the worst crimes at that.
But then you might say, "Well hey now, that serial killer wasn't really christian." And you never bothered to ask any ordinary muslim if that head-chopping terrorist was "really muslim" either. So who really is ignorant and being hypocritical?
Again, no it's not. Are people with IQ's of 160 mentally ill? Are people who don't drink mentally ill?
OK, this is the last time I explain circular logic. All mental illnesses are a deviation from the norm. All deviations from the norm are not defined as mental illnesses. Ball is round. All round things =/= balls.
All mental illnesses (e.g. Bipolar disorder and Schizophrenia) are a deviation from the normal mental well-being.
All deviations from the norm (IQ of 160, people who don't drink) are not defined as mental illnesses.
OK - now just try to wrap your head around this before trying to respond to me again lol yes, circular logic might be hard to comprehend at times.
That's not what you said. You said "mental illness is defined as a group that deviates from the norm." That means that mental illness = deviation from the norm.
To use your ball example, if you said "balls are defined as things that are round" then you would be claiming that anything that is round is a ball.
If you are changing your definition, then you are now correct - all mental illnesses are deviations from the norm.
That is precisely what circular logic is! Thinking that when I said "balls are defined as things that are round" as meaning "anything that is round is a ball".
If you say "squares are rectangles" then you are correct. However, if you say "squares are defined as the group of rectangles" then rectangles are squares. In the first example, you have stated that squares are a part of the set "rectangles" but not the entire set. In the second example squares are defined as the entire set of rectangles. A rectangle that was not a square would violate the second statement.
Well then you are finally agreeing with me. Just like I said "squares are rectangles" and not "squares are defined as the group of rectangles" -
I said mental illness is a group that deviates from the norm and not "mental illness is defined as the group that deviate from the norm". a group, not THE group.
A is a member of category B, does not mean all of category B is A.