…. that in the end asks, “Who will bell the cat”.
Who was it who decided that children were an option for the lazy and the stupid?
Who was it decided that the God of our fathers shall have no dominion over me?
Who was it decided we shall hide our lights under a bushel basket?
Which mental midget amongst us sits bestride the backs of giants and dares imagine, we are loftier than they?
We have sown the breeze and are now reaping the whirlwind should we be surprised?
Its not the Muslim’s fault. They are but the whet stone being used to hone us that we might actually stand for something and do something and be someone who matters.
Don’t try to reform them. We must try reform ourselves and having done so see how quickly they fall.
The Islamic faith is one that dwells in fear loathing and ignorance. We only strengthen it when we deal in the same.
Thank you, Joe. It’s comments like this that make the blogging effort worthwhile.
ET
OUCH!!! Looking up more info on Patricia Crone. She doesn’t think Mohammed lived at all. She says it was Jews calling their belief “Hagarism” who allied with Arabs to rescue the holy lands from the hands of the Byzantines!
Gentle scholars describe her belief as highly CONTROVERSIAL. Seems you are following a fruit cake ET for your knowledge of Islam.
Hagarenes and Jews invented Islam….(proto zionistas?)
Please don’t quote her here anymore ET.
The ‘desacredization’ of life?
Summed up in the phrase: “To Hell with it.”
But just when you reach a little bit ‘beyond hope’, you encounter the Divine.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Indeed, Irwin, Samuel Johnson said, “Curiosity is one of the most permanent and certain characteristics of a vigorous intellect,” and Albert Einstein said, “Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning”.
Yet I doubt Churchill would have disagreed with Lincoln on that matter, after all Sir Winston did say “Always remember that I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me”. Of course he also said, “Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement”.
On the matter of Mohammad’s genius, I doubt that the texts are literally interpretable, therefore I think that any such genius is rather in the hands of the Machiavellian power-mongers who purport to interpret and enforce whatever happens to remain recorded of whatever translations have been made of whatever it was he actually originally said, assuming he actually existed.
And a quick note, Greg, wise scientists do not believe in scientism any more than wise humans believe in any form of ideological utopianism. The cosmos have principles ex vi termini, even if they’re just the minimalist existence principles I prefer (or not). The study of those principles in detail is called, ta da: theology, which the Greeks originally refereed to as θεολογια, with the meaning: discourse on the gods and cosmology.
Stitched that up nicely, didn’t I 😉
“Stitched that up nicely, didn’t I ;-)”
Yes, Vitruvius it’s those cosmic tears in one’s ontological Zeppelins that rip you up every time! 🙂
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Fortunately, Hans, I’ve got an axiological parachute.
Vitruvius: So you are a-deist? And all this time I thought you were a deist, which I gather is one who believes in God but a disinterested, non-interventionist one (I had to look it up). Right?
By the canonical definitions you note, MND, I’m a-deist, not a deist. But I may be wrong.
Sorry, I get carried away. For the record (from Wikipedia, yeah, yeah), “axiology, from the Greek axios (άξιος, value, worth), is the study of value or quality. It is often thought to include ethics and aesthetics — philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of value — and sometimes it is held to lay the groundwork for these fields, and thus to be similar to value theory and meta-ethics”.
Now we’ve been doin’ a lot’a discoursing on ethics here in this thread, and we’ve branched into metaphysics, epistemology, reason, morals, &c. Yet I wonder how many people have recently reviewed just what Ethics and Morals mean. Here’s a review from the introduction at http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm
“The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.
“Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves.
“Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others.
“Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues. By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to resolve these controversial issues. The lines of distinction between metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry.”
So you can see how people can have largely similar moral models while still disagreeing on occasional meta, normative, or applied ethics. Remember: without semantics there is no communication.
‘I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement”.
As Nero alluded to, but had the prescience of mind to blame it on the Christians.
“I doubt that the texts are literally interpretable.”
They’re not. In fact, many (non-Islamic) scholars say that every fifth verse of the Quran is unintelligible. More importantly, the Quran is bereft of context without the Hadith. In fact, shariah and the five pillars, don’t exist without the Sira and Hadith.
You lost me on your 11:46 PM post, Vitruvius. “language sets the bounderies of our world,” Somebody said.
“Sleep sets the rest,” I say. Adios.
One’s language sets some boundaries on one’s world.
Except, of course, when one is asleep. G’night Irwin.
And I should probably cash in my chips too.
Thanks, as always, for putting up with us Kate.
Merry Christmas, everyone.
There is hope for a internal review of the Koran. It was complied approx. 20 years after the death of the prophet by a committee made up of people who knew him or related to him. They collected oral and written copies of his passages and tried to assess which were the “correct” ones. Needless to say current issues of the times likely played a part in the selection. Also from my limited understanding Arabic is not a literal language, more poetic and metaphoric. Already there are many translations that differ, with some version more liberal than the others. Even those most Muslim are required to be able to recite the Koran in Arabic, they have little understanding of the nuances of the language and is more learning by rote than understanding. Given the above, under the correct conditions, the moderates within the religion have the tools to redirect the path of Islam, presently trying to do so will get you and your family very dead.