Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

Dannyalcatraz · Nov 27, 2015

Maxperson said:
I didn't miss it. Again, it's just doesn't matter. There is a huge chunk of the world that views things differently. A simple majority doesn't get to make their morals apply to the entire world.

We aren't talking simple majorities. In the ancient world, we were talking nearly every culture & faith on the planet.

And in the modern world, we're talking about the vast majority of all religious and philosophical ethical and moral systems you can point to.

ISIS is in accord with a huge chunk of the world. A majority of the population once you include China, India and Pakistan.

No, they're not.

The Chinese government has enacted many laws that are not in accord with the moral compass of their citizens. If you're talking about "honor killings" in India, that is a view that is 1) against Hinduism, and 2) only practiced by a fraction of their populace.

The main thing Pakistan and ISIS (Sunni) have in common is Islam, and ISIS' version is definitely not what is practiced there.

Prevailing? If a majority of the world's population is not western with morals and is okay with things like killing women for being raped and other things that the western world find morally wrong, then why do you think the western version is the prevailing one?

Just for starters, if you look at the doctrines & practices of modern mainstream Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism, American paganism, etc., you will find some version of The Golden Rule codified into the major tenets of each.

Those sects of the above that do not follow such usually are closely tied to either fascist political movements or are grounded in the pre-faith cultural traditions of their regions.

The False Dichotomy was in you trying to pigeon hole me into those two options as if they were the only two I am allowed. You presented those two options and declared that I had to stick with one. I have a third view.

The dichotomy is NOT false.

By definition, an objectivist moral position is absolute: there is a set of unvarying moral standards by which all actions are judged.

Any attempt to "hybridize" it with a subjectivist moral position only creates a different point on the array of all subjectivist positions.

Maxperson · Nov 27, 2015

Dannyalcatraz said:
We aren't talking simple majorities. In the ancient world, we were talking nearly every culture & faith on the planet.

And in the modern world, we're talking about the vast majority of all religious and philosophical ethical and moral systems you can point to.

Not every culture in the world during those times allowed fathers to murder their children. You're off base with that one.

The Chinese government has enacted many laws that are not in accord with the moral compass of their citizens. If you're talking about "honor killings" in India, that is a view that is 1) against Hinduism, and 2) only practiced by a fraction of their populace.

The populace accepts honor killings, even if they don't practice them. Same as with the Romans you mentioned. Being allowed and accepted isn't the same as being practiced by the populace.

The main thing Pakistan and ISIS (Sunni) have in common is Islam, and ISIS' version is definitely not what is practiced there.

And the murder of innocents. Honor killings of innocents in Pakistan alone are several times higher than the number beheadings of westerners by ISIS.

Just for starters, if you look at the doctrines & practices of modern mainstream Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism, American paganism, etc., you will find some version of The Golden Rule codified into the major tenets of each.

Why do you think that morals are dependent on religion? I don't.

The dichotomy is NOT false.

By definition, an objectivist moral position is absolute: there is a set of unvarying moral standards by which all actions are judged.

It must be false because it cannot be true. There are more than those two positions. This is proven absolutely by the fact that I hold a third position.

Any attempt to "hybridize" it with a subjectivist moral position only creates a different point on the array of all subjectivist positions.

Nawp. Some things are objectively immoral. That's not a position that someone in the pure subjectivist camp believes.

Maxperson · Nov 27, 2015

Cor Azer said:
Recognition by other states is critical for legitimacy - that's why you can't just declare your property and family a sovereign state separate from whatever country you're in (despite some extremist radicals' wishes).

No it isn't. Any state that depends on other states for legitimacy is not a state. It's a territory.

There is only one reason I cannot declare my property a sovereign state and that's that I lack the resources to keep it when America comes wanting it back. If I could hold my property militarily and successfully trade with other states, then nobody in the world could keep me from being a separate state.

Cor Azer · Nov 27, 2015

Maxperson said:
No it isn't. Any state that depends on other states for legitimacy is not a state. It's a territory.

There is only one reason I cannot declare my property a sovereign state and that's that I lack the resources to keep it when America comes wanting it back. If I could hold my property militarily and successfully trade with other states, then nobody in the world could keep me from being a separate state.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Thank you for exactly agreeing. If only other states would accept your borders and trade with you (ie: recognize you as a sovereign state and lend you legitimacy), you too could be a state.

Dannyalcatraz · Nov 27, 2015

Maxperson said:
Not every culture in the world during those times allowed fathers to murder their children. You're off base with that one.

I didn't say"every", but "nearly every". The ancient Egyptians were noted by their contemporaries for a cultural impulse that every child born must be raised.

But I have already pointed out the laws of Rome and the Old Testament. The Hellenistic tradition of abandoning the disfigured is well known.

The rationales & conditions of why, when and at what ages a child could be killed differed, but similar practices can be found among the Incas, Syrians, Carthaginians, Canaanites, Moabites, Sepharvites, Teutonic tribes, pre-Christian Icelandic (and, for a time, post-Christian Icelandic) culture.

The populace accepts honor killings, even if they don't practice them. Same as with the Romans you mentioned. Being allowed and accepted isn't the same as being practiced by the populace.

Actually, over the years, there have been many outspoken critics of honor killings, and the majority doesn't really accept them. About 90% of all honor killings in India are confined to Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh.

In fact, while the Indian legal system is pretty stacked against women, there have been several cases in which participants in honor killings have been given the death penalty, which is part of why they have been in decline.

And the murder of innocents. Honor killings of innocents in Pakistan alone are several times higher than the number beheadings of westerners by ISIS.

Fair point.

Why do you think that morals are dependent on religion? I don't.

Wasn't my point. Most major non-theist moral systems enshrine The Golden Rule as a key tenet as well.

(Fascists, not so much.)

Nawp. Some things are objectively immoral. That's not a position that someone in the pure subjectivist camp believes.

Which is just another point on the subjectivist spectrum, as stated.

Maxperson · Nov 27, 2015

Cor Azer said:
Ding! Ding! Ding!

Thank you for exactly agreeing. If only other states would accept your borders and trade with you (ie: recognize you as a sovereign state and lend you legitimacy), you too could be a state.

You are over looking two things. First, that trade requirement only applies to me, not ISIS. As a single house, I have no ability to manufacture all that I need, so I am dependent on trade. A state that is the size of a country doesn't have those same limitations. Second, ISIS does have people that it trades with.

Maxperson · Nov 27, 2015

Dannyalcatraz said:
I didn't say"every", but "nearly every". The ancient Egyptians were noted by their contemporaries for a cultural impulse that every child born must be raised.

The Jews also, and the germanic tribes, same with Ukraine and Russia. There were quite a few that practiced it, but not "nearly every."

Actually, over the years, there have been many outspoken critics of honor killings, and the majority doesn't really accept them. About 90% of all honor killings in India are confined to Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh.

If that were true, they wouldn't get away with it as often as they do. All of them would be arrested and charged with murder, yet that rarely happens.

In fact, while the Indian legal system is pretty stacked against women, there have been several cases in which participants in honor killings have been given the death penalty, which is part of why they have been in decline.

Several out of hundreds of honor killings a year. Most get away with it because it is accepted.

Wasn't my point. Most major non-theist moral systems enshrine The Golden Rule as a key tenet as well.

Most in numbers, but not in population.

Which is just another point on the subjectivist spectrum, as stated.

Subjectivists don't have any objectivist beliefs. They believe that all of morality is subjective. I don't.

Umbran · Nov 27, 2015

Dannyalcatraz said:
Just for starters, if you look at the doctrines & practices of modern mainstream Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism, American paganism, etc., you will find some version of The Golden Rule codified into the major tenets of each.

It is sometimes more formally referred to as the "Ethic of Reciprocity".

In case someone doesn't want to go looking:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Or, in more compact form, many relevant quotes from religious texts:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc2.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc3.htm

Cor Azer · Nov 27, 2015

Maxperson said:
You are over looking two things. First, that trade requirement only applies to me, not ISIS. As a single house, I have no ability to manufacture all that I need, so I am dependent on trade. A state that is the size of a country doesn't have those same limitations. Second, ISIS does have people that it trades with.

I'm not overlooking anything. Your property-as-a-state still requires other states to acknowledge your borders to provide you legitimacy, regardless of whether you require trade or not. Many 'country-sized' states require trade to support their population, and many homesteads can support themselves just fine without it (albeit, perhaps not at the height of luxury). The need for trade or lack thereof is not in and of itself a criteria for statehood; it's just one way in determining if other states view you as a state.

Yes, Daesh has some trading partners, and many people rail against those partners because they are lending Daesh legitimacy.

At the same time, most (I don't have sources to assert 'all') states don't acknowledge Daesh's claimed territory - it having been occupied from Syria and Iraq primarily. That's kind of the point of the war (idealogy aside) - Daesh is effectively saying 'This is ours', and everyone else is, 'Ummm... No.'

As an aside - matters of what constitutes recognition of a state is often discussed in regards to micronations, like the Principality of Sealand.

Maxperson · Nov 27, 2015

Cor Azer said:
I'm not overlooking anything. Your property-as-a-state still requires other states to acknowledge your borders to provide you legitimacy, regardless of whether you require trade or not.

No it doesn't. If my army can maintain my borders and I can produce what I need, your recognition is irrelevant.

Many 'country-sized' states require trade to support their population, and many homesteads can support themselves just fine without it (albeit, perhaps not at the height of luxury). The need for trade or lack thereof is not in and of itself a criteria for statehood; it's just one way in determining if other states view you as a state.

You do realize that even states that aren't recognized trade, right?

Yes, Daesh has some trading partners, and many people rail against those partners because they are lending Daesh legitimacy.

Countries like to think of themselves as the center of everything. "If I don't recognize you, you must not be legitimate." I just doesn't work that way in reality.

At the same time, most (I don't have sources to assert 'all') states don't acknowledge Daesh's claimed territory - it having been occupied from Syria and Iraq primarily. That's kind of the point of the war (idealogy aside) - Daesh is effectively saying 'This is ours', and everyone else is, 'Ummm... No.'

Right, and of ISIS wins, it's right and a state regardless of what everyone else thinks. If it loses, it isn't. The war will decide.

International law doesn't apply to any country that doesn't want it to and can hold itself sovereign against aggressors.

Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Cor Azer

First Post

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Umbran

Mod Squad

Cor Azer

First Post

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Similar Threads