Total War Center Forums - Ethos, Mores et Monastica http://www.twcenter.net/forums/ Discuss ethics, morals, religion and philosophy in here. en Thu, 20 Jun 2013 04:00:28 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.twcenter.net/forums/images/y2skin/misc/rss.png Total War Center Forums - Ethos, Mores et Monastica http://www.twcenter.net/forums/ <![CDATA["Christianity suppressed science"]]> http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?605574-quot-Christianity-suppressed-science-quot&goto=newpost Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:51:03 GMT How much truth exists in that claim?If Christianity suppressed science could... How much truth exists in that claim?If Christianity suppressed science could someone give me plausible answers on why the scientific revolution happened in Europe?Why the scientific revolution never occurred in China or India? ]]> Ethos, Mores et Monastica Papay http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?605574-quot-Christianity-suppressed-science-quot The Purge http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?605381-The-Purge&goto=newpost Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:25:14 GMT After seeing the movie The Purge, I thought about what would happen if we... After seeing the movie The Purge, I thought about what would happen if we implemented such a system today. For those who haven't seen the movie heres a summary
Quote:
In the year 2022, the United States boasts an unemployment rate of 1% with crime being at an all-time low. The country is now governed by the New Founding Fathers of America, who have sanctioned an annual 12-hour period called The Purge, during which all crime, including murder, becomes legal
The human species is a cruel one, but even if the purge worked would it be ethical to use? The victims of the purge are the homeless or those, who cant afford a security system. Also if such a night were to exist, would you participate? ]]> Ethos, Mores et Monastica The Unknown General http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?605381-The-Purge Being a young man in the 21st Century in light of Feminism http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?605147-Being-a-young-man-in-the-21st-Century-in-light-of-Feminism&goto=newpost Sun, 16 Jun 2013 18:13:54 GMT Young people (14-21) today are quite different than young people a hundred... Young people (14-21) today are quite different than young people a hundred years ago (1913). So much has changed in human relationships, that I bet you haven't considered how radical the change has been. A young man of 16 in 1913, might be thinking about marrying some local young lady who lived around the block from his own home on the Eastern coast of the USA. At that time, far fewer young people could afford college, and many young men entered a trade in order to help their parent's finances. Many graduated, but still continued to live with their parents, lived with their wife in the same bedroom they had grown up in, and often soon had children.

Some headed out West, though the largest movements had happened earlier. Most young men had many primitive living skills, and given the high amount of rural areas, it was fairly normal for people to raise their own garden, raise some animals, hunt and fish, repair items as they broke, do simple carpentry, etc. Being a young man was often about what you could do and be responsible for, for those skills were vital as it was too expensive to have someone else do them. Hunger was a fairly common problem, as was childhood illness. Polluted water was a constant issue. Young men were leaner, more muscled, and more given to hard labor which kept them in shape. Following the Great Depression, and the beginnings of WW2, most American men were underweight from the effects of long term unemployment.

While there's been a feminist movement in the USA since prior to Manifest Destiny, it wasn't until the Suffragette Movement became organized (prior to the 1930s) that it became a force to be reckoned with. Much of the political power of women came with World War 2 and the move of women into the workforce as men went off to war. Later in the sixties and seventies, women grew in political power, and more and more women were able to compete with men for job positions. While there was a wide disparity in pay scale, they still managed to break into positions of authority. More and more women entered politics and white collar jobs as professionals. Today, we hardly think about such things, for so many women are working, that it's rare to see a family in which both mom and dad are not working.

What about men during that same period? Men had difficulty coping with the shifting of power. What was their changing role in light of the rise of women into more assertive roles? Maybe you think there was no difficulty in adjusting, but actually nothing could be further from the truth. The Women's Movement required a sea change of ideas, philosophy, ethics, morality in order to ensure that women were equally protected under the law, and progressive men (not the political movement) helped them in spite of being teased by other men that they were feminists.

Life during that transition period required new ideas about what it was to be a husband and father, and not only that, but given the Sexual Revolution of the 60's and 70's, there was a rise in the number of those living together instead of marrying. At the same time, many men and women began quietly living together in homosexual relationships. Some came out, but most were very careful about revealing their status, because marriage was impossible at the time period. Seeing young couples living together in either heterosexual or homosexual relationships was not generally done in the medium of television. It wasn't until far far later that it became generally accepted and by that time, the idea of being a man in the 21st Century had changed quite a bit from our ancestors.

Today someone from 15-18 is considered a teenager, something that practically didn't exist in 1913, and really became apparent with the Baby Boom after WW2. The rise in affluence from two parents working and the less demands upon people of that age, and the specialization of the American worker, meant that less and less practical skills were needed. Many young people today cannot do them for there is no need. There is a huge amount of free time. While many used to work in order to pay for cars and entertainment, in this world economy, they're finding that young people are competing with retirees and desperate unemployed adults for those part time jobs. This has added to the free time available, something that is completely outside previous history save the very wealthy. At the same time, many of their parents are seeing far less income and changes in their employment and rising costs, so teens have less disposable income given to them.

All of this has resulted in some very big changes in parenting. With many households consist of single parent mothers, many young men see their fathers on alternate weekends. It's fairly common for their fathers to spoil them on those weekends because of guilt. It's not unusual for a young man to celebrate Christmas and holidays in two households. Many have step-brother and sisters to cope with. In light of some very busy mothers and sometimes fathers raising them, often no one has been watching them grow up in the manner of the 1960s, but instead many of them have raised themselves.

Meanwhile, the rise in mass communications has mean that once limited exposure to risqué entertainment has becoming commonplace. Most homes have cable and often with movie channels. Many young men download porn movies or watch films with adult themes on a regular basis. It's meant a change in sexuality as what was once taboo in all manner of expression can now be seen with less risk of detection and largely without consequence.

Many of the masculine ideas of being a young man are now not seen in an average young man. Many feel confused about what it means to be a young healthy well adjusted man in light of all of the above. Many feel less confident when approaching women and unsure of what they're supposed to do. What do women want? What do women need from a young man in a realistic way? Since work often defines our sense of Self, and many people are unemployed, many more young men are headed off to college and graduate school, and many are woefully unprepared.

Let's discuss what it means to be a young man in the 21st Century in light of all of those changes. What are some healthy ways to gain some sense of Self without being misogynistic? How can a young man gain skills in order to be more self-sufficient? What are some good coping mechanisms? How can young men improve their health in light of a lack of heavy labor and less responsibilities? ]]> Ethos, Mores et Monastica RubiconDecision http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?605147-Being-a-young-man-in-the-21st-Century-in-light-of-Feminism What are the benefits and detractions of Atheism? http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?604985-What-are-the-benefits-and-detractions-of-Atheism&goto=newpost Sat, 15 Jun 2013 10:21:36 GMT Atheism alone is rather feeble. Atheism quite plainly only means an absence of... Atheism alone is rather feeble. Atheism quite plainly only means an absence of belief in a superior or supreme being. That won't get you very far. The proponents of atheism could believe in just about anything. As such, you can't define yourself as an atheist and then have even the tiniest iota of meaning to saying it.

Let's say I proclaim I don't believe in dragons. Saying such, I think you'd only get blank stares of incredulity. After an awkward pause, maybe you'd hear a cough and then, "Ummmm okay."

Since atheism challenges theism so directly by negating a cherished belief or at least a belief ascribed to (perhaps through shame or guilt) then it may get a rise out of some. That cannot be the goal of being an atheist in general, though certainly some people enjoy being gadflies. Being a contrarian has its moments.

The next logical thing to come up is a declaration of reason. "I'm an atheist because I live a life bound by reason and evidence." If so, then I applaud you. That's a noble way of life. It would be rather difficult. The more a scientist knows, the more they are aware of what they don't know.

I'm a long time practitioner of Japanese martial arts. That's called Budo or the Way of the War. The syllable Bu means war, and the do syllable means way. It doesn't mean I'm militaristic, but it is a journey of discovery through the arts of the samurai. If anything I'm rather kind and compassionate and not warlike, so a name can be misleading. While a journey is an admirable thing, to say that Budo alone governed my actions and ideas would be insufficient.

Likewise, I doubt many people are governed by Atheism and Reason. I would bet that having a conversation with an Atheist, if we were friendly and open, that there was much more to the Other. Likely they would have a philosophical outlook on life. They will probably have ideas on political, economic, even cultural systems too. So if I think, "Oh this person is an Atheist, and I am a Christian, therefore we have nothing in common." or if the Atheist thinks, "Oh this person is guided by superstition and is not rational, therefore we have nothing in common." then we both would likely lose out on a vibrant rational discussion by labeling each other.

Because Atheism is so vague, it really is almost meaningless. How many belief systems can be summed up by a single sentence? "I don't believe in a superior being that affects my life."

In fact, there are lots and lots of kinds of atheists. Some would say that there is no good or evil and that such labels are meaningless. That's a shocking idea for many spiritual systems but a central tenet of Daoism. You could have a very interesting philosophical question about that. I hope you do.

Rather than become a free for all where atheists are ridiculed for their beliefs, why not have a rational discussion about the merits and detractions of atheism? In fact, I think what you'll find is not that you are an atheist but rather that you're an atheist and a existentialist, or an atheist and a nihilist, or an atheist and a scientist, and on and on. You are not pigeon-holed into a category, but rather a dynamic human being.

What would be most interesting would be discussing the morality (right and wrong) of your beliefs and atheism versus ethics (the principles which govern a community you live in) if you don't believe in good and evil.

People with very strong spiritual beliefs, I urge you to restrain yourself and not make this jeering at the Atheist. That really won't solve anything. Seldom will you persuade another on the Internet anyway. Instead this is an opportunity to listen and learn. ]]> Ethos, Mores et Monastica RubiconDecision http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?604985-What-are-the-benefits-and-detractions-of-Atheism Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world? http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?604960-Is-the-Catholic-Church-a-force-for-good-in-the-world&goto=newpost Sat, 15 Jun 2013 03:13:12 GMT Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world? What do you think and... Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?

What do you think and why do you think so?

I don't mean to offend anyone that's Christian (or anyone else for that matter) with this thread. ]]> Ethos, Mores et Monastica Gugg http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?604960-Is-the-Catholic-Church-a-force-for-good-in-the-world Why must anything we do have cosmic meaning for it to be relevant? http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?604059-Why-must-anything-we-do-have-cosmic-meaning-for-it-to-be-relevant&goto=newpost Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:49:19 GMT This is what a lot of theists/religious folk maintain. That if there is no God,... This is what a lot of theists/religious folk maintain. That if there is no God, and he did not create us for a purpose, nothing we do has meaning. Apparently purpose and meaning are twins, but not only does this suppose that everything that exists has purpose (and it most definitely does not), but also that meaning can't be found if a thing doesn't factor into a grand design.

For a human to insist that his actions most only have cosmic meaning is insolence in its purest form. No appreciation for the sheer scope of the cosmos. No understanding of what an insignificant speck of nothingness each individual human being is. Even the word speck is an overstatement. If there were a large, dark cave equating to the scope of the universe, and in it were trapped a number of creatures who needed a light for a way out, and each human birth produced some of that light, then not even all of humanity's combined existence would've been enough to even do so much as light a torch or even a matchstick.

It's a curious thing, not just because of the arrogance inherent in demanding cosmic meaning, but also in the sense that most religious folk who fervently hold to this spend their time ironically mulling over trivialities that the cosmos couldn't care less about. Which direction to pray in. How to talk. What to say. What to wear. What to eat. "Look at how I divide my milk and my beef. Somewhere, somehow, my actions will keep stars from dying and civilisations from going extinct, and will keep black holes from expanding and swallowing galaxies whole."

Heaven is going to come to Earth, according to Jehova's Witnesses, to use one particularly ridiculous example. To earth of all places. That must end up being one tiny heaven. God is omnipotent but you can forget all about him ever colonising an interstellar empire.

There's a lot of things in my life that are important to me, and I get confused when I run into religious folk telling me that they couldn't possibly find that same meaning without God, as if that's somehow supposed to be my problem. You're the one facing a motivational dilemma. Not me. I'm perfectly content doing what I do without needing cosmic validation. If the world ended then nothing anyone would've done on this planet, ever, would've had any meaning, despite the majority of us having been religious and being staunchly convinced that it did. ]]> Ethos, Mores et Monastica The Dude http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?604059-Why-must-anything-we-do-have-cosmic-meaning-for-it-to-be-relevant <![CDATA[Raison d'etre: an ideological question]]> http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?603632-Raison-d-etre-an-ideological-question&goto=newpost Thu, 06 Jun 2013 16:48:06 GMT Human beings seek intrinsic purpose. Yet, it can be certainly reasoned that... Human beings seek intrinsic purpose. Yet, it can be certainly reasoned that intrinsic purpose does not exist. Even when people accept and understand the truth of the inherent meaninglessness of their lives, they continue to look for a reason to exist. Many find comfort in religion, which offers a thin form of intrinsic purpose. Others look to ideology, and try to philosophically categorize the 'ideal state' of existence so that steps can be taken to reach it. Still others embrace hedonism, understanding effort towards anything other than pleasure as a waste, or detriment. And, of course, there are true nihilists, who reject any attempts to cope with the lack of intrinsic meaning.

All of these people, even nihilists, are raised together, must live together, and will eventually die together - regardless of what they think or feel. And so, regardless of those individual beliefs, everyone has a share in the collective human project to find meaning. This is civilization.

Over the course of human history, many different civilizations have risen and fell, but the same general structure unites them all. The theory of postmaterialism, itself heavily drawing from Maslow's hierarchy of needs, assumes that societies, governments, and civilizations work as individuals do. That is, they look to secure needs in the order that Maslow described. At the peak of these needs is 'self-actualization', which can basically be described as achieving one's maximum human potential. There are no proscriptions given by Maslow's hierarchy as to what that means, but nevertheless, all individuals strive towards this peak and are made the most content, fulfilled, and purposeful by reaching it. At the level of civilization, society, and government, then, we should be working towards this same end - maximal human potential. Ideology offers the most obvious and complete analysis of that goal, but, in large part due to the subjective nature of belief and morality, we again encounter the problem of discovering the 'first ideology among equals'.

The major ideologies of conservatism, liberalism, their contemporary formats, socialism, anarchism, fascism, religious fundamentalism, and ecologism all offer different perspectives on the reason that we exist, and have very different plans to achieve the 'ideal state' where that reason - the self-actualization of mankind - can be accomplished.

Traditional conservatism understands man as needing hierarchy in order to achieve self-actualization, because it's only through the proper fulfillment of our social roles that man can have the necessary purpose. Largely discredited as simple advocacy for the then status quo of aristocratic domination, I think this ideology actually has some merit in the modern setting. John Calhoun's experimentation with the social devolution of mice when introduced to a utopian environment highlighted the need for social purpose. Without society's obvious need for an individual, civilization collapses under the weight of a rapid descent into barbarism. True, he was dealing with mice and not humans, but we can see similar trends in the real world. The modern phenomena of hikikomori perfectly fits with the 'beautiful ones' phenomena observed by Calhoun.

Classical liberalism understands man as needing hierarchy only so far as hierarchy can keep society from devolving into a 'state of nature' where the security of every individual is threatened and the strong dominate. Today, many classical liberal beliefs have been resurrected and modified under the banner of libertarianism and Objectivism, where hierarchy no longer exists in the form of government, but is instead perpetuated via the economy alone. Both the modern and classical liberal understandings of man's purpose lack any true definition of man's purpose. In their desire to free man, they destroy most sources of purpose, and offer no guideline to self-actualization. While not necessarily promoted, hedonism and rote barbarism both thrive in this environment, which is likely detrimental to achieving civilizational self-actualization.

Contemporary conservatism is a mixed bag of classical liberal and traditional conservative ideals, but on the subject of the reason for being, nothing is offered. Contemporary conservatives simply wish to keep the world in order, and make their lives tolerable. This is perhaps the least useful major ideology in terms of achieving civilizational self-actualization, for obvious reasons.

Contemporary liberalism is similarly a mixed bag, though it strongly values the notions of 'social justice' and egalitarianism. Unfortunately, in its pursuit of pluralist ideals, contemporary liberalism waters down any actual perspective on the reason for being, and cannot lead civilization to any singular end which will guarantee maximal human potential.

Socialism is defined by the notion of revolution - an active struggle to replace the status quo hierarchy with a more just order. At the heart of socialist ideals is the belief that man becomes most fulfilled when he is working not for his personal benefit, but for the good of all men. Of course, it's usually understood that this type of work is the kind that is enjoyed by the worker, and it's often said that the Marxist ideal is a society of creative laborers. In socialism it's possible to find and reach some kind of civilizational self-actualization, though the method - revolution, doesn't guarantee any real or permanent changes. Instead, and in practice, more often than not what is achieved is the imposition of a new, equally or perhaps more unjust order. Even non-violent revolution cannot guarantee that any fundamental problems are addressed, or that the new order will actually work towards the ideal state, even if they had set out to do so. Still, among major ideologies, socialism does offer an enticing ideal state, and one that likely complements both civilizational and personal self-actualization quite well.

Anarchism is defined by the notion of rebellion - an active struggle against hierarchy. Unlike socialism, anarchism does not proscribe a new order for achieving the ideal state. Rather, the absence of hierarchy is the ideal state, where man will naturally be compelled into working towards his own self-actualization, and 'civilization' as a whole will thus do the same. Anarchism offers probably the most complementary ideal state for achieving civilizational self-actualization, as it removes all authoritative influences and lifts the inhibitions from man. At the same time, this picturesque ideal state relies on a very generous account of human nature and it's unlikely that a scarcity-driven society could ever truly overcome the negative behaviors associated with resource management.

Fascism takes the ideas of traditional conservatism to a much more extreme level, and declares the purpose of man to be service to his state. While social roles are strongly emphasized, and everyone in a fascist society would likely have a very clear idea of what they're supposed to do at any given time for any given situation, the fact that man's purpose is to his state - a clearly artificial construct that itself requires an installed purpose - undermines the ability of fascism to maximize human potential. Perhaps a fascist society could be a very positive means to the end of eliminating scarcity, thereby allowing for an anarchistic society where all man and civilization can reach the peak of their potential, but as a means to the true end it simply falters.

Religious fundamentalism relies entirely on the validity of its host religion, which can almost certainly be proven demonstrably false and artificial. A softer 'connection to the divine', or more philosophical 'contemplation of the forms' may also fall under this category of civilization, and have a better ability to resolve the issue of maximizing human potential, but I find it hard to believe that any such order could actually form the basis of civilization. Religion is as much about thought as it is about feeling and experience, and the strongest religious sentiments universally spring from the latter rather than the former, so it is difficult to imagine that any civilization ordered on religion can maintain genuine belief, or at least, genuine understanding. This puts religious fundamentalism somewhere in the middle with regards to its capacity to reach the civilizational self-actualization.

Lastly, we have the loose set of beliefs known as ecologism, more commonly referred to by its party identifier 'the Green' movement. Ecologism offers a clear purpose for man, and clear steps to achieve it - in that it is a diligent acolyte of the true end. Unfortunately, the constituent philosophies that make up ecologism are extremely diverse and hardly complementary. For many, ecologism is correct by virtue of a proto-aestheticism that values nature as enjoyable by man. This particular interpretation is quite complementary to civilizational self-actualization, as it retains the primacy of man. For others, often called 'Deep Greens', nature is valuable regardless of its utility to man, and in fact, man must not overstep his particular natural bounds. This is much less complementary to the true end. Between and around these two perspectives lie many, many others that have to be judged on their individual merits rather than their dedication to the same end of protecting nature. As a result, ecologism too falls somewhere in the middle, with certain types being very antagonistic and others being quite complementary.

At the end of this whole process of ideological evaluation, it should be obvious where my sympathies lie. Anarchism seems to me to be the most perfect vessel by which civilization can cross into utopia. Unfortunately, that vessel is not seaworthy, and at the present we are stuck somewhere in the middle of a large ocean of scarcity, and so I cannot give political support to anarchist movements. In fact, I find myself more sympathetic to its polar opposite of fascism in traversing this ocean. Of course I have a number of reservations about the nature of historical fascist societies and the fascist antagonism towards civil society, and so I do not give my support to it, either. In fact, I am largely dedicated to the principles of contemporary liberalism, an ideology which has no hope of reaching the true end, and very little of ending scarcity.

So, that's my take on things, one which I'm sure is not universal or objective. My questions to you, then, would be these:

What is our reason for being? How do we work towards achieving self-actualization? What ideology (preferably of the ones I listed) best promotes a society where man can achieve self-actualization? Do you subscribe to that ideology, and why or why not?

Also, I would have made this a poll, but I don't have permission for that. When/how do I get that? ]]> Ethos, Mores et Monastica Niwa Nagahide http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?603632-Raison-d-etre-an-ideological-question On the topic of worship. http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?603513-On-the-topic-of-worship&goto=newpost Wed, 05 Jun 2013 21:12:00 GMT So, let's take an instance where we assume that a good god/deity exists.

Why would humans then worship the deity in question?


Now, I can perfectly understand that some wish to gain a deeper understanding of the deity and its virtues, such as becoming a monk or priest and providing counseling to others; but why would the majority of the population attend to worship, such as church or religious ceremonies? If there is a god or deity, why would man have to worship it?

Wouldn't a good deity be just as happy as long as man just adhered to the right moral values, rather than simply standing at an altar for a random time a day?

Wouldn't a good deity rather want that we spent our money building schools or hospitals rather than building churches? Why would they even care about churches or mosques? Wouldn't time spent doing good deeds, such as helping a woman across the road or doing research on a cure for cancer be more important than time spent simply praying?

And if worship for the sake of worship and idolism was a thing that was demanded by the diety in question(such as in order to come to heaven, avoid hell etc) wouldn't it then be possible to consider the deity more as tyrannical than good, caring more about its own ego rather than the well being of its creations?


You are all free to comment on this thread and say what you think, regardless of faith(or non-faith) :) ]]> Ethos, Mores et Monastica SinerAthin http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?603513-On-the-topic-of-worship Why Do Religions Reject Universalism? http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?603496-Why-Do-Religions-Reject-Universalism&goto=newpost Wed, 05 Jun 2013 19:06:18 GMT I have wondered, for quite some time now, why so many religious sects reject... I have wondered, for quite some time now, why so many religious sects reject the concept of universal salvation. I understand and recognize the obvious reasons: people inherently enjoy being part of the "in" group, people have a tendency to exclude others that do not share their views, certain beliefs about who is "saved" can be used as a power mechanism, etc. I also understand that people may point to the Bible or other religious texts to answer this question. But I'm looking for different answers. Why don't people long for that. I mean, isn't that ideal? Forget the debate over who or what God is or if he or she even exists, isn't that something that sounds well...perfect? And yet, why is it that most major religions reject the idea that everyone, everywhere, will ultimately share in heavenly paradise at some point, somewhere, be it in a heavenly paradise or here on Earth?

Perhaps I'm being naive, but I do not understand the pessimistic attitude that so often surrounds salvation. Why would anyone want to believe in a divine spiritual being constantly looking over your shoulder making sure you don't slip up? Wouldn't you enjoy sharing paradise with your friends and family members who may have made a mistake down the road, or who perhaps don't believe exactly what you believe? But there are people that honestly believe that their Jewish friends, who they have known their whole lives, who have been there for them through the worst moments of their lives, who act maturely and compassionately, will not enjoy eternal "salvation" simply because they do not believe in and accept Jesus as Christ. Instead, they will suffer an eternity of torment and anguish in hell. I'm trying to understand why anyone would want that to happen to their friend.

I suppose this is a bit selfish of me to ask. I'm really trying to challenge my beliefs here, and if you can, I would appreciate honest answers to this difficult question. In addition, I enjoy sparking thoughtful and respectful discussion on something as thought-provoking as this. If you are an atheist and or a non-believer, I respectfully ask that you do not hijack this thread with, "Well who cares anyway God doesn't exist." Other than that, I welcome all different people to discuss their beliefs :thumbsup2 ]]> Ethos, Mores et Monastica Audacia http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?603496-Why-Do-Religions-Reject-Universalism In Auschwitz http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?603494-In-Auschwitz&goto=newpost Wed, 05 Jun 2013 19:02:31 GMT If you were placed into concentration camp who would you like to be? German... If you were placed into concentration camp who would you like to be? German personnel, Capo - “police“ made out of priviledged prisoners or Prisoner?. Back up your choice.
I would pick German, its least morally degrading. ]]> Ethos, Mores et Monastica Miszel http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?603494-In-Auschwitz Traditional Jewish Penis-alteration - still appropriate? http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?603408-Traditional-Jewish-Penis-alteration-still-appropriate&goto=newpost Wed, 05 Jun 2013 03:42:00 GMT "The ancient method of performing metzitzah - metzitzah b'peh, or oral suction - has become controversial"

The process has the mohel suck blood from the circumcision wound on the baby's penis."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah.

Should this still be allowed in a modern democratic society? ]]> Ethos, Mores et Monastica Tarabonius http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?603408-Traditional-Jewish-Penis-alteration-still-appropriate Rape in sweden http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?603075-Rape-in-sweden&goto=newpost Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:28:43 GMT http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/1-in-4-swedish-women-will-be-raped-as-s... http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenf...-increase-500/


Why are Swedes so prone to rape? ]]> Ethos, Mores et Monastica Miszel http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?603075-Rape-in-sweden <![CDATA[Isn't the aim of Christianity and Islam to make everyone Christian/Muslim?]]> http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?602885-Isn-t-the-aim-of-Christianity-and-Islam-to-make-everyone-Christian-Muslim&goto=newpost Sun, 02 Jun 2013 02:17:40 GMT Christianity:

18/4 "And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks."

Mark 16/5 "And then he told them, 'Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone.' "

"Then shall they also answer him, saying Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or
a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as you did it not to one of
the least of these, you did it not to me.
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."


Islam:

"2.39. But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein.
2.161. Those who reject Faith, and die rejecting,- on them is Allah.s curse, and the curse of angels, and of all mankind;

2.190. Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

2.191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
2.192. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. But if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression." ]]> Ethos, Mores et Monastica Tarabonius http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?602885-Isn-t-the-aim-of-Christianity-and-Islam-to-make-everyone-Christian-Muslim Its not religion its politics/nationalism/other apologism http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?602671-Its-not-religion-its-politics-nationalism-other-apologism&goto=newpost Fri, 31 May 2013 02:11:28 GMT This is going to be a little bit rambly as I'm just throwing it out there as I'm thinking it.

Whenever religion is blamed for anything at all the usual retort is, no that is extremism and right wing hate, or that wasn't christianty that was ~kingdom making~ambition~nationalism~reactionary responses~other. Or in the modern perspective it isn't Islam it is reactionary or political or other.

The common theme I'll say for now is it is politics rather than religion that is to blame (despite religion being the named cause usually by the perpatrators.

This seems to easy an out to me. Depending on the historical or geographical context I'd say it is absolutely valid for me to state that religion is a fundamental part of peoples lives at that time or place. The relative religion has a huge place in both the state and in the personal lives and interactions, thought processes and decision making of the people in question.

But despite this fundamental importance to the shaping of thought, morality and action in religion it is given no credence as a possibility of influence. There does seem to be a large disconnect here somewhere.

The issue further blurs when you have Islam taking on a political nature as it has (or possibly always has given the history) that means that politics and Islam are inextricably linked both in its fundamentals and in its history.

No intelligent answer would ever excuse nationalistic influence and reactionary responses to the likes of American influence but to excuse religion of any influence at all is confirmation of inexcusable bias. ]]> Ethos, Mores et Monastica Denny Crane! http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?602671-Its-not-religion-its-politics-nationalism-other-apologism How many Christians believe in demons? http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?602479-How-many-Christians-believe-in-demons&goto=newpost Wed, 29 May 2013 16:05:13 GMT So I know this guy who believes that most bad things are caused by demons,... So I know this guy who believes that most bad things are caused by demons, either directly or indirectly. But he's a bit of a radical, so I was wondering if just how many do believe in them? Because I was pretty sure there aren't too many. ]]> Ethos, Mores et Monastica Mister Pixel http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?602479-How-many-Christians-believe-in-demons