• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Archaic, Barbaric Beliefs

Cephus said:
Yes there was. What there wasn't was fundamentalist Islam running the country. In fact, where you really started to see that change in Afghanistan was when the U.S. started to support and fund the Taliban in their fight against the Russians. They came to power and brought their fundamentalist Islamic ideas with them.
Click to expand...

Anything to stop communism, the great evil. But at the same time, was it a bad idea to check the spread of the USSR?
 
stonewall50 said:
Anything to stop communism, the great evil. But at the same time, was it a bad idea to check the spread of the USSR?
Click to expand...

And I don't want to go into how stupid that was, and is, to this day. I'm not saying it was good or bad to do, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend is clearly a bankrupt policy, the Taliban didn't turn out to be our friends, any more than Saddam was, even though we spent years bankrolling him. Shortsighted American foreign policy is shortsighted.
 
Cephus said:
And I don't want to go into how stupid that was, and is, to this day. I'm not saying it was good or bad to do, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend is clearly a bankrupt policy, the Taliban didn't turn out to be our friends, any more than Saddam was, even though we spent years bankrolling him. Shortsighted American foreign policy is shortsighted.
Click to expand...

Agreed, short sighted, but the only way of thinking really at that time. We had underestimated Islamic extremism and terrorism was kind of a joke then.
 
stonewall50 said:
Agreed, short sighted, but the only way of thinking really at that time. We had underestimated Islamic extremism and terrorism was kind of a joke then.
Click to expand...

It killed two birds with one stone. Saudi Arabia was able to export it's most dangerous radicals, and the Americans received an army to fight a proxy war against the Russians.
 
stonewall50 said:
Agreed, short sighted, but the only way of thinking really at that time. We had underestimated Islamic extremism and terrorism was kind of a joke then.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we've never stopped doing that. It's what we do. We support anyone who says they'll do what we want and they always turn out to be despotic dictators and murdering animals that we eventually have to go in and take care of. When are we going to learn our lesson?
 
calamity said:
This came up in another thread. So, instead of derailing it with off-topic discussion, I created another thread.

Most people in the West have given up on believing the rather insane edicts proposed in the Old Testament. However, as we see, many in places, like the Middle East, have not. In fact, they have actually doubled-down on it by following a prophet who espoused even more draconian measures for those who did not obey the Word as laid out in Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes or whatever. It leads me to wonder...Why?

How did we in the West abandon the O/T while those in the Middle East and Africa cling to them? Is it open access to information and debate...call it free speech, that helped us see the light?
Click to expand...

Well, there are two rather 'insane' and horrible biblical concepts that haven't been given up on: original sin, and predestination.
 
Andalublue said:
Well, there are two rather 'insane' and horrible biblical concepts that haven't been given up on: original sin, and predestination.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget the biggest one, eternal punishment for temporal "crimes".
 
Andalublue said:
Well, there are two rather 'insane' and horrible biblical concepts that haven't been given up on: original sin, and predestination.
Click to expand...

I heard of the first--and, of course think it's nonsense. But, I never heard of predestination being in the Bible. I thought they had that free will thing? Oh, that's right. We have free will, but God knows what we are going to do. I forgot. Yeah. More nonsense.
 
What the USA and Euro's failed to realize is, there are many factions of Islam, and many are very aggressive towards others. The USA, Russia, and the Euro's didn't take into account the hatred between many of the factions.

Sunnies, Salafies, Wahabis, Shi'ites, Ahmadiyans, Kadianis, Sufis, Hanafis, Shafis, Aghakhanis & even Modernist Reformed Muslims.
 
The times of the OT were indeed rough but we've traded one radical set of beliefs for another. Just because our immediate surroundings don't seem all that barbaric compared to a couple hundred years ago doesn't mean our civilization is not committing acts of barbarism. In order to support our luxurious way of life we rape and plunder the entire world, often putting religious radicals in power who are willing to prop up our agendas. Fundamentalism itself is the problem. It bellies all dogmas, whether they are religious or not. It drives people to the most radical policies.

A lot of the Christian evangelism being seeing in Africa (like in the Congo) is due to American missionaries going to the most lawless regions and exerting religious authority over the people there. Hence we are now seeing homosexuals killed wholesale there, along with women who try to abort pregnancies. There is absolutely no end to the scummy behavior that religion won't sink to in order to control people in the name of "saving" them.

The OT hasn't faded that much in America. The evangelical sect, as a political force, is quite prominent. The reason why they can't just takeover like they want to is because secularism stops them, and secular government has more power than they do. That's all. And we learned to put secularism first because we suffered 1000 years of Church insanity in its absence.
 
Most people in the West have given up on believing the rather insane edicts proposed in the Old Testament. However, as we see, many in places, like the Middle East, have not. In fact, they have actually doubled-down on it by following a prophet who espoused even more draconian measures for those who did not obey the Word as laid out in Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes or whatever. It leads me to wonder...Why?

How did we in the West abandon the O/T while those in the Middle East and Africa cling to them? Is it open access to information and debate...call it free speech, that helped us see the light?
Click to expand...

I think we can trace most of the problems in the ME directly back to when the Ottoman Empire came to an end after WW1 and the Balfour Declaration. Imo, the ME really started to go to crap after the House of Saud and their extremist Wahhabist pals took control of Arabia in 1932. Interestingly enough, Wahhabism was a revival movement that occurred around the same time our US Constitution was getting ratified. Wahhabism doesn't seem to have anything to do with the OT.

...Wahhabism is named after an eighteenth-century preacher and scholar, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).[16] He started a revivalist movement in the remote, sparsely populated region of Najd,[17] advocating a purging of practices such as the popular "cult of saints", and shrine and tomb visitation, widespread among Muslims, but which he considered idolatry (shirk), impurities and innovations in Islam (Bid'ah).[5][18] Eventually he formed a pact with a local leader Muhammad bin Saud offering political obedience and promising that protection and propagation of the Wahhabi movement would mean "power and glory" and rule of "lands and men."[19] The movement is centred on the principle of Tawhid,[20] or the "uniqueness" and "unity" of God.[18] The movement also draws from the teachings of medieval theologian Ibn Taymiyyah and early jurist Ahmad ibn Hanbal.[21]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism


If any regime deserves toppling, it's the Saudi's.
 
Last edited:
FreedomFromAll said:
I forgot to mention the Jefferson bible. Christians today would be all up in arms if a former President cut out all the supernatural parts of the New Testament. My take on reading what he left in, I would have weeded out much more than he did. But it is noteworthy that Jefferson didnt think that the four gospels were trustworthy.
Click to expand...

Jefferson believed in the supernatural. And he believed that God is active in the affairs of men and nations.

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have
removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the
people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are
not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my
country when I reflect that God is just; and that His justice
cannot sleep forever.” (Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781)

“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we
are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their
native land and planted them in a country flowing with all
the necessities and comforts of life.” (Monday, March 4,
1805, in his 2nd Inaugural Address)

Jefferson was a great political leader, but his theology left a lot to be desired.
 
Moot said:
I think we can trace most of the problems in the ME directly back to when the Ottoman Empire came to an end after WW1 and the Balfour Declaration. Imo, the ME really started to go to crap after the House of Saud and their extremist Wahhabist pals took control of Arabia in 1932. Interestingly enough, Wahhabism was a revival movement that occurred around the same time our US Constitution was getting ratified. Wahhabism doesn't seem to have anything to do with the OT.
Click to expand...

It wasn't that they "took control", they were put in control by the west who wanted a single group to negotiate with and just picked that group, seemingly at random, to be in charge.
 
Cephus said:
It wasn't that they "took control", they were put in control by the west who wanted a single group to negotiate with and just picked that group, seemingly at random, to be in charge.
Click to expand...

Years after the British reneged on their promises to King Hussein, the Saudi's took control of Arabia by force. They weren't put in control...they took it and the British let them.
 
Logicman said:
Jefferson believed in the supernatural. And he believed that God is active in the affairs of men and nations.“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have
removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the
people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are
not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my
country when I reflect that God is just; and that His justice
cannot sleep forever.” (Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781)

“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we
are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their
native land and planted them in a country flowing with all
the necessities and comforts of life.” (Monday, March 4,
1805, in his 2nd Inaugural Address)

Jefferson was a great political leader, but his theology left a lot to be desired.
Click to expand...

Jefferson didn't believe in the 'supernatural'. But he certainly believed that others did.

Jefferson was a Deist....

"...The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct.

....belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).

Deism | Define Deism at Dictionary.com​


Your knowledge of Jefferson leaves a lot to be desired.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Fundamentalism itself is the problem. It bellies all dogmas, whether they are religious or not. It drives people to the most radical policies.
Click to expand...

I think we really need to beware of liberal fundamentalism.

Liberal Fundamentalism « The Righter Report

Excerpt:

"It is certainly arguable, then, that “progressive” liberal fundamentalism substantially undermines the basic effectiveness of the government and other societal elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of liberalism, attempts to build a utopian liberal society in America have only led to heightened outbreaks of AIDS, VD, porno-related crime, social divisions, divorce, abortion, drug addictions, deficit spending, the welfare state, a crushing tax burden, the breakdown of the family unit, moral depravity, and numerous other such scourges which have resulted in enormous societal suffering and discontent. As a result, liberal fundamentalism is strongly associated with left-wing fanaticism, reverse-racism, anti-intellectualism, elitism, nihilism, godlessness, and societal violence."

Northern Light said:
And we learned to put secularism first because we suffered 1000 years of Church insanity in its absence.
Click to expand...

And along came corrupt liberals like Obama, Hillary, and the rest of that corrupt administration.

Also, the Supreme Court previously put secularists on notice that their secular agenda can be construed as being unconstitutional itself:

In the landmark case School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that "the State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus 'preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." - Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963)
 
calamity said:
This came up in another thread. So, instead of derailing it with off-topic discussion, I created another thread.

Most people in the West have given up on believing the rather insane edicts proposed in the Old Testament. However, as we see, many in places, like the Middle East, have not. In fact, they have actually doubled-down on it by following a prophet who espoused even more draconian measures for those who did not obey the Word as laid out in Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes or whatever. It leads me to wonder...Why?

How did we in the West abandon the O/T while those in the Middle East and Africa cling to them? Is it open access to information and debate...call it free speech, that helped us see the light?
Click to expand...

The Enlightenment and science brought down the archaic beliefs of old religions and will do so to all religion eventually...
 
Moot said:
Jefferson was a Deist....

"...The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct.

....belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).

Deism | Define Deism at Dictionary.com​


Your knowledge of Jefferson leaves a lot to be desired.
Click to expand...

Ha!

No, Jefferson wasn't a deist. Here's the definition of deism / a deist:

“Deism has come to denote the theological belief that God created the universe according to scientific laws, but does not interfere in its daily operation.” – The New World Encyclopedia

Deism: “[From Latin Deus, God Deity] The doctrine or creed of a Deist.” “One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being, but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason.” – Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941.

"Revealed religion" would be scripture, God-given prophecy, etc. And the fact that Jefferson did and could interact with men and nations (as revealed in the Bible - see below) reveals he is not a deist. Recall the two quotes I presented earlier:

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have
removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the
people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are
not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my
country when I reflect that God is just; and that His justice
cannot sleep forever.” (Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781)

“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we
are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their
native land and planted them in a country flowing with all
the necessities and comforts of life.” (Monday, March 4,
1805, in his 2nd Inaugural Address)
 
Bodhisattva said:
The Enlightenment and science brought down the archaic beliefs of old religions and will do so to all religion eventually...
Click to expand...

Wahhabism seems to have started around the same time as the Enlightenment period. Meanwhile, the US was having a religious revival of it's own called the Great Awakening.

The Great Awakening might've been a response to the Enlightenment as both were occurring almost simultaneously. The archaic beliefs are still alive and well in the US and the ME. The main difference is that one is sanctioned by the state and the other isn't. If not for our "wall of separation" the US could easily be in the same situation as many theocracy governments in the ME.
 
Last edited:
Islam is not a monolith and neither is its interpretation in one country to another.

Saudi is harshly authoritarian to begin with, before you even get to Islam, it's extreme interpretation of Sharia, or the treatment of women...

Whereas Indonesia and Malaysia see greater freedom and more opportunity for women.

Tunis for example was seen by much of the Arab world as their very own Amsterdam, such as the greater freedom for men and women alike among other things.

Although it is certain in the examples I've listed there is much more work to do.

People like to simplify and compartmentalize Islam, but it's monotholic status among such ignorant folk is silly.

The only reason that countries like Canada, the U.K. And many other western countries for example don't have as many problems with religion is because fewer and fewer people either take it seriously, or believe in it.

Whereas in America for example, there is an issue... Albeit in my mind very different from violent religious extremism but an issue none the less as there's still a sizeable, relatively extreme religious voting bloc that demand such things as a reverse on women's reproductive rights and scientific teaching such as evolution.

But judging America on the basis of that particular bloc of voters says about as much about your average American as Saudi religious extremism says about your average Malaysian muslim...
 
Logicman said:
Ha!

No, Jefferson wasn't a deist. Here's the definition of deism / a deist:

“Deism has come to denote the theological belief that God created the universe according to scientific laws, but does not interfere in its daily operation.” – The New World Encyclopedia

Deism: “[From Latin Deus, God Deity] The doctrine or creed of a Deist.” “One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being, but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason.” – Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941.

"Revealed religion" would be scripture, God-given prophecy, etc. And the fact that Jefferson did and could interact with men and nations (as revealed in the Bible - see below) reveals he is not a deist. Recall the two quotes I presented earlier:

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have
removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the
people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are
not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my
country when I reflect that God is just; and that His justice
cannot sleep forever.” (Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781)

“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we
are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their
native land and planted them in a country flowing with all
the necessities and comforts of life.” (Monday, March 4,
1805, in his 2nd Inaugural Address)
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I already posted the definition of Deist in the post you were responding to. Jefferson declared himself to be a Unitarian...which isn't much different than Deism....

"....I am anxious to see the doctrine of one god commenced in our state. But the population of my neighborhood is too slender, and is too much divided into other sects to maintain any one preacher well. I must therefore be contented to be an Unitarian by myself, altho I know there are many around me who would become so, if once they could hear the questions fairly stated..."

Jefferson - 1825 letter to Waterhouse
​


Since the [Unitarian] theology was also perceived as deist, it began to attract many people from wealthy and educated backgrounds,[11] although it was only at the late second half of the 18th century that it started to gain some wider traction within Christendom...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism#Notable_Unitarians​
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Thanks, but I already posted the definition of Deist in the post you were responding to. Jefferson declared himself to be a Unitarian...which isn't much different than Deism....

"....I am anxious to see the doctrine of one god commenced in our state. But the population of my neighborhood is too slender, and is too much divided into other sects to maintain any one preacher well. I must therefore be contented to be an Unitarian by myself, altho I know there are many around me who would become so, if once they could hear the questions fairly stated..."

Jefferson - 1825 letter to Waterhouse
​

Since the [Unitarian] theology was also perceived as deist, it began to attract many people from wealthy and educated backgrounds,[11] although it was only at the late second half of the 18th century that it started to gain some wider traction within Christendom...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism#Notable_Unitarians​
Click to expand...

#1 Jefferson believed in revealed religion. He clearly referenced the Bible ('revealed religion') when he said, "“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessities and comforts of life.” (Monday, March 4,1805, in his 2nd Inaugural Address)

#2 Jefferson believed in a god who intervened in the affairs of men and nations (see quote above for that also).

Those two beliefs disqualify Jefferson from being a deist, although I'll agree with you that he was a Unitarian.
 
Logicman said:
#1 Jefferson believed in revealed religion. He clearly referenced the Bible ('revealed religion') when he said, "“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessities and comforts of life.” (Monday, March 4,1805, in his 2nd Inaugural Address)

#2 Jefferson believed in a god who intervened in the affairs of men and nations (see quote above for that also).

Those two beliefs disqualify Jefferson from being a deist, although I'll agree with you that he was a Unitarian.
Click to expand...

If by intervening you mean divine providence...well, Deists believed in divine providence:

"...Classical deism held that a human's relationship with God was impersonal: God created the world and set it in motion but does not actively intervene in individual human affairs but rather through divine providence. What this means is that God will give humanity such things as reason and compassion but this applies to all and not to individual intervention....

Deism is generally considered to have declined as an influential school of thought by around 1800.... It is probably more accurate, however, to say that deism evolved into, and contributed to, other religious movements. The term deist became rarely used, but deist beliefs, ideas, and influences remained. They can be seen in 19th-century liberal British theology and in the rise of Unitarianism, which adopted many of deism's beliefs and ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#History_of_classical_deism​


Jefferson converted to Deist philosophy in while attending College of William & Mary (1760 - 1762). Around 1800, Deism's influence started to wane and soon evolved into Unitarianism. Jefferson declared himself to be a Unitarian in 1823.


"...Avery Dulles, a leading Catholic theologian, states that while at the College of William & Mary, "under the influence of several professors, he [Jefferson] converted to the deist philosophy".[20] Dulles concludes:

“ In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day. ”

Dulles concurs with historian Stephen Webb, who states that Jefferson's frequent references to "Providence" indicate his Deism, as "most eighteenth-century deists believed in providence".[80]

The historian of religion Sydney E. Ahlstrom says "One religious movement which enjoyed a season of popularity, and great prestige during the era, in America as in France, was the cult of reason." Ahlstrom calls it "rational religion or deism".[81]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Thomas_Jefferson#Jefferson_and_Deism​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom