• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Just Plain Wrong

That would only be snobbery if they were wrong, or wrong to think so.

Of course they would be wrong. Any blanket statement of that sort is going to be wrong because it fails to understand the complexity of human existence and relies on sugar-coated versions of history.

In truth, there's always give and take. Some things will be better and some things worse. Even when comparing things like the modern day and the dark ages, there will be positives and negatives.

Those who love Fairy Tales always know that morality hangs by fragile threads.

And those who love history know that morality is ever-changing and generally absent on the large scale, no matter what time in history we are talking about.
 
I know, you prefer Hollywood movies to tell you what to think.

You're displaying what C.S Lewis called chronological snobbery, the arbitrary belief that the later someone lived the more profound and useful is their thought.

No actually. I am shaping my message for those listening to make fun of their attitudes.
 
Of course they would be wrong. Any blanket statement of that sort is going to be wrong because it fails to understand the complexity of human existence and relies on sugar-coated versions of history.

In truth, there's always give and take. Some things will be better and some things worse. Even when comparing things like the modern day and the dark ages, there will be positives and negatives.
I'm struggling to see how reminding people that something being contemporary makes it right means you must be saying something from the past must be right.

And those who love history know that morality is ever-changing and generally absent on the large scale, no matter what time in history we are talking about.
How would you know unless there were similarities for you to assess? Those who love history do not have to take the full historicist approach and take the historically particular for everything. In the extreme that doesn't even make sense, otherwise you wouldn't even know about other cultures, if there was nothing in common.
 
Of course it isn't. To you.
Is this birther then as well?

Newt Gingrich Goes to the Congo | Mother Jones

Come on, we all know Obama will have written an essay praising the Soviets or something stupid like that. In Australia the PM was part of a move in the 80s to twin Melbourne and Leningrad, it is nothing to hold you back these days, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
I'm struggling to see how reminding people that something being contemporary makes it right means you must be saying something from the past must be right.

I wasn't accusing you of that. It has happened in this thread with others though.

How would you know unless there were similarities for you to assess? Those who love history do not have to take the full historicist approach and take the historically particular for everything. In the extreme that doesn't even make sense, otherwise you wouldn't even know about other cultures, if there was nothing in common.

Where'd you get the idea that you couldn't even know about other cultures if there was nothing in common? Differences act as a phenomenal way to gain understanding as well.

I'm not saying there aren't similarities between other cultures and eras, I'm saying that your response is built on a false premise that the only way to gain understanding is through similarity.
 
Where'd you get the idea that you couldn't even know about other cultures if there was nothing in common? Differences act as a phenomenal way to gain understanding as well.

I'm not saying there aren't similarities between other cultures and eras, I'm saying that your response is built on a false premise that the only way to gain understanding is through similarity.
No, my point is there must be some shared premises or we couldn't gain any knowledge of these cultures at all, we wouldn't even know they existed if we were totally bound up by the historicist limits of our own culture. Can you imagine a culture that is completely different to ours? Already when you talk of culture you mean things, like living in our universe with all the conditions that demands, which are in common with our own. So to understand they are talking about morality, or where we'd see morality, and not cheese or the price of fried eggs, there must similarities.
 
Last edited:
No, my point is there must be some shared premises or we couldn't gain any knowledge of these cultures at all, we wouldn't even know they existed if we were totally bound up by the historicist limits of our own culture. So to understand they are talking about morality, or where we'd see morality, and not cheese or the price of fried eggs, there must similarities.

I'll ask the simple question here: Why? What makes you believe that is true?
 
I'll ask the simple question here: Why? What makes you believe that is true?
Well as I added to the above; Already when you talk of culture you mean things, like living in our universe with all the conditions that demands, which are in common with our own. Can you imagine a culture that has nothing, absolutely nothing, in common with ours? Even including the basic conditions and modalities of our state of existence or universe.
 
Well as I added to the above; Already when you talk of culture you mean things, like living in our universe with all the conditions that demands, which are in common with our own. Can you imagine a culture that has nothing, absolutely nothing, in common with ours? Even including the basic conditions and modalities of our state of existence or universe.

Ah, so by "similarities" you meant such similarities as being alive and existing in our universe, essentially.

Let me ask the most glaring question, then: What the hell does that have to do with what I posted?
 
Ah, so by "similarities" you meant such similarities as being alive and existing in our universe, essentially.

Let me ask the most glaring question, then: What the hell does that have to do with what I posted?
You're making points about the particular and the universal. We're never going to settle that in this setting, nor can I be bothered to make a head long argument in favour of a more universalist view than you have adopted. So I thought why not explore some of the assumptions, such as by pushing the historicist viewpoint to the extreme. That seems a far more interesting, and better way, to get you to consider the premises behind your position.
 
Last edited:
These religions do not have the same focus on sin that the Abrahamic ones do, their focus tends to be on diminishing desires and one's attachment to worldliness, but treating this more as a impediment to one's self-realisation than a crime against God.

Same thing with Christianity. Are you sure you understand your religion? Do you understand what Jesus did? As a Christian, are you under the law?
 
Same thing with Christianity. Are you sure you understand your religion? Do you understand what Jesus did? As a Christian, are you under the law?
I'm a Platonic Christian and a great reader of mystical thought and theology, so I know quite a bit about the inner aspect of virtue and sin. I simply making a very simplistic, but still broadly valid comparison.
 
I'm a Platonic Christian and a great reader of mystical thought and theology, so I know quite a bit about the inner aspect of virtue and sin. I simply making a very simplistic, but still broadly valid comparison.

You'll agree that Christianity is not based on the Law and sins against God, but upon forgiveness and striving to live in the Spirit so as to improve oneself and be more like God. In this sense, Buddhism and Hinduism are the same; it's not about what you do but what you try to do. Right?

I think there are far greater similarities between Christianity and the other mentioned religions than differences. If you want to contrast, you're gonna have to go with the Jewish religion - where sins against God (not the Spirit or Journey) determine salvation.
 
What would those be?
I was referring to the three largest deity based religions__christianity-judaism-islam

And you're basing your views on the proclamations of books teeming with fairy tales?
What part of my post was too difficult for you to understand?!

As a matter of fact the bibles of all three major religions warn against homosexuality as well as beastiality.

Although religion is not the motivating factor of my opinion, its billions of followers do help to validate me.

I don't know what the homosexuals are so worried about, they're winning the perversion vs morality war.
Attention Redress- Now can you understand why I highlight and underline pertinent information?!

Because, like I have said before, explaining the simplist things to liberals is like teaching quantum physics to 1st graders.
 
Nor am I interested in playing your inane birther game. Shouldn't you be watching Fake News about now?
So, are you saying you could post a link to the information I requested but you refuse because you're not "interested in playing your inane birther game"???
 
You're making points about the particular and the universal. We're never going to settle that in this setting, nor can I be bothered to make a head long argument in favour of a more universalist view than you have adopted. So I thought why not explore some of the assumptions, such as by pushing the historicist viewpoint to the extreme. That seems a far more interesting, and better way, to get you to consider the premises behind your position.

Ah, I see that you have failed on three counts:

1. You assumed that you understood the premises behind my position despite the fact that you clearly did not (You apparently don't even know what I was specifically referencing with my comment, therefore you can't possibly know my premises).
2. You assumed that I have not considered the premises behind my position, which is false since I always analyze my premises in great detail prior to reaching a conclusion
3. You failed to seek clarification on a position you clearly did not comprehend fully.

Now, if you are interested in a discussion of what was actually meant instead of a strawman of your own design, I will gladly clarify that which has confused you so that we can actually have a meaningful discussion devoid of arrogance being used to mask ignorance.

Whereas if you are interested in continuing to pretend that you had a clue about what I was getting at, please feel free to continue to mask your ignorance with unfounded arrogance.
 
I was referring to the three largest deity based religions__christianity-judaism-islam

What part of my post was too difficult for you to understand?!

As is the case with your typical offerings, every bit.

Attention Redress- Now can you understand why I highlight and underline pertinent information?!

No. It looks like something right out of 6th grade. I can see why you;re attracted to the idea.

Because, like I have said before, explaining the simplist things to liberals is like teaching quantum physics to 1st graders.

That would be funny, if only somehow it was?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom