Difference between SJW and Social Justice in CCC

[Vonsalza]

Those are not examples of proper Christianity and I would hope you understand the difference.

There are lots of Muslims that would argue that Osama bin Laden was not an example of proper Islam.



Again, I wish you were right.

 

[MikeInVA]

There are lots of Muslims that would argue that Osama bin Laden was not an example of proper Islam.

Where have they been for the last 17 years or so?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

There are lots of Muslims that would argue that Osama bin Laden was not an example of proper Islam.

Where have they been for the last 17 years or so?

Many of them actively engaging the media on that very issue.

They apparently use outlets that you don’t. If you’re a Fox viewer, that wouldn’t be particularly surprising.

O’Reilly was the closest they’ve had to someone who would aggressively advocate the other side on odd occasion, even though Bill was obviously less than unbiased. He’d sometimes let them make their argument - unlike the rest of the severely right-leaning line-up.

 

[MikeInVA]

They apparently use outlets that you don’t. If you’re a Fox viewer, that wouldn’t be particularly surprising.

Nice ad hominen attack.
How many Muslim majority nations sent significant military forces into Afghanistan to deal with the wayward Osama Bin Laden? Actions speak louder than engaging the media.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

They apparently use outlets that you don’t. If you’re a Fox viewer, that wouldn’t be particularly surprising.

Nice ad hominen attack.

It’s not an ad hominem. I’ve seen scores of Muslims decry things like the September 11th attacks. You clearly haven’t.

That means that the media outlets on which they disseminate their message and the media outlets you consume lack congruence.

Actions speak louder than engaging the media.

Ok, but then you’re changing the argument.

Concerning the issue of physically fighting Radical Islam, the Muslims of Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and crypto-Kurdistan seem to be carrying their weight.

Especially Jordan - given their lack of resources. Trump should really look into assisting the Jordanians in realizing the far-fetched goal of a genuine Hashemite Northern Kingdom. Annex Syria and Iraq under a territory with lines not drawn by the British and French.

 

[HarryStotle]

MikeInVA:

Those are not examples of proper Christianity and I would hope you understand the difference.

There are lots of Muslims that would argue that Osama bin Laden was not an example of proper Islam.



Again, I wish you were right.

He is right. The reason he is is because we do have the two epitomes of Islam and Christianity to refer to.

The epitome of Christianity is the source of its teachings, Jesus Christ. The epitome of Islam is the source of the Qur’an, Mohammad.

Muslims have to agree, based upon their own religious foundations, that Mohammad was the perfect embodiment of what it means to be human. The ideal for a Christian is not Fred Phelps nor some other minor player in history who claimed to embody Christianity by overemphasizing some teaching of Christ. The ideal is Christ himself.

Do recall that every vice is best to be understood as placing a disproportionate emphasis on some value or good which creates a viciousness or vice in human nature. It is the appropriate balance or proportionality of goods and virtues that shape the ideal human person.

That ideal for Christianity was Christ. For Islam that ideal is Mohammad.

We have no need to appeal to Fred Phelps or Osama Bin Laden, we have Jesus Christ and Mohammad that serve that precise purpose.

 

[Vonsalza]

…We have no need to appeal to Fred Phelps or Osama Bin Laden, we have Jesus Christ and Mohammad that serve the precise purpose.

Sure, and Muslim apologists would argue that the actions of Muhammad were necessary for the time. How many times have we heard “‘Islam’ means ‘peace’” from well-meaning Muslims?

I’ll agree that Islam espouses violence far more readily than Christianity on a textual and, partly, historical basis. But after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman state, it appears that “just war theory” was something that quite a few Christians were very eager to accept.

How many times in history has blood been spattered across the ground where it was immediately preceded by a European Catholic screaming “Deus Vult!”?

“Well, Vonsalza! They weren’t practicing proper Christianity!”

The family of the slain almost certainly wouldn’t care about the attempt at distinction…

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

…We have no need to appeal to Fred Phelps or Osama Bin Laden, we have Jesus Christ and Mohammad that serve the precise purpose.

Sure, and Muslim apologists would argue that the actions of Muhammad were necessary for the time. How many times have we heard “‘Islam’ means ‘peace’” from well-meaning Muslims?

I’ll agree that Islam espouses violence far more readily than Christianity on a textual and, partly, historical basis. But after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman state, it appears that “just war theory” was something that quite a few Christians were very eager to accept.

How many times in history has blood been spattered across the ground where it was immediately preceded by a European Catholic screaming “Deus Vult!”?

“Well, Vonsalza! They weren’t practicing proper Christianity!”

The family of the slain almost certainly didn’t care about the attempt at distinction…

Except you are moving goalposts here. Neither religion is defined by what some believers somewhere did or thought in its name. Each religion is defined by its founder. If not, then the essence of the religion becomes detached and malleable, making it something else entirely – i.e., subject to the whims of anyone who takes up its mantle.

Christ claimed to be God. Thus his teachings are not subject to revision by human beings. Mohammad claimed to be delivering the pure and unadulterated message of Allah. It is not up to human beings to reinterpret those words. You either accept or reject each on its own terms.

You cannot make the case that God said that then, but now he says this. You may as well just claim to be the spokesman for God today and those in the past claiming to be prophets or divinely authorized were just wrong or have been superseded because you have been authorized today.

Ergo, you are misrepresenting the essential nature of each religion by pointing to later fringe “practitioners” of each as proper representatives of their respective religions.

To make a case, you need to point to the source teachings and show how and why they ought to be properly understood. The points in your posts completely miss the mark because your reference points are not in any way the true reference points.

 

[HarryStotle]

“Well, Vonsalza! They weren’t practicing proper Christianity!”

Actually, I don’t see a problem with seriously attempting to depict proper Christianity on the grounds that that is central to what Christ himself came to bring. Otherwise, Christianity becomes whatever any nominal “Christian” decides to make of it. You may as well drop the word out of the dictionary if that is how you want to use it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Except you are moving goalposts here.

Not at all. Maybe you’ve departed from the original point I was refuting, which was:

When you take Christianity to the extreme, you get the likes of Mother Teresa.
When you take Islam to the extreme, you get the likes of Bin Laden.

Religious zealotry and violence tend to be very comfortable bedfellows for both historical Christians and historical Muslims.

Neither religion is defined by what some believers somewhere did or thought in its name. Each religion is defined by its founder. If not, then the essence of the religion becomes detached and malleable, making it something else entirely – i.e., subject to the whims of anyone who takes up its mantle.

Oh, it’s not subject to the additions/changes/developments imposed by later apostles and bishops? over the intervening 2000 years?

In the New American Standard Bible in English, Christ’s direct word count comes to just under 32,000.

How many words are in the latest Catholic Catechism? A few million?

You cannot make the case that God said that then, but now he says this.

This is getting off the point a little bit, but that’s exactly what “we” did when we transitioned from Judaism to Christianity and dropped all the various rites that we clearly read about in the OT.

Ergo, you are misrepresenting the essential nature of each religion by pointing to later fringe “practitioners” of each as proper representatives of their respective religions.

Crusaders commissioned by the pope himself were fringe practitioners of Christianity? Interesting position…

---

The point is about religious zealotry. And my God, the blood that has been spilled over the centuries in the name of Christendom…

If you want to tell yourselves that those innumerable incidents don’t count because they weren’t practicing correct Christianity (despite the many endorsements from ecclesial authorities), fine with me. Most aren’t super-convinced.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Except you are moving goalposts here.

Not at all. Maybe you’ve departed from the original point I was refuting, which was:

When you take Christianity to the extreme, you get the likes of Mother Teresa.
When you take Islam to the extreme, you get the likes of Bin Laden.

Religious zealotry and violence tend to be very comfortable bedfellows for both historical Christians and historical Muslims.

Let’s grant that you refuted Mike’s original statement. Now let’s rephrase his point as…

When you take Christianity to its ideal fulfillment, you have Jesus Christ.
When you take Islam to its ideal fulfillment, you get Mohammad.

Still “uncomfortable” bedfellows? Perhaps if you wish to argue some kind of parity between them.

Personally, I wouldn’t even try.

 

[Vonsalza]

Let’s grant that you refuted Mike’s original statement.

Fair enough.

Now let’s rephrase his point as…

When you take Christianity to its ideal fulfillment, you have Jesus Christ.
When you take Islam to its ideal fulfillment, you get Mohammad.

Still “uncomfortable” bedfellows? Perhaps if you wish to argue some kind of parity between them.

Personally, I wouldn’t even try.

“The proof is in the eating” as they say. I’m just suggesting that the Christian “pudding” has plenty of blood in it too. Now maybe that’s by happenstance rather than intent. But it’s still there.

And if you ask a Muslim what the ideal fulfillment is for Islam, they’d probably say “peace”.

But, again, I’ll happily concede that violence is more officially endorsed in Islam than Christianity at the doctrinal level. I just don’t think that makes a huge difference in the context of zealotry.

 

[abucs]

You might be right, but then, in recognition of the perjorative nature of the term, I’d have to add that often those who label others as SJWs are doing so because they seek to shame and bully social and economic groups that they reflexively view as their enemies.

So, in my definition, people who label others as SJWs are really just the other side of the same coin.

In th end, one is much more likely to achieve his or her end if he or she engages the other side based on the issues without the ad hominem attacks.

Except that the SJW’s are the aggressors in a self declared culture war.

Ultimately they are foistering a new religion on the populace by refusing to acknowledge their religion as a religion and sidelining all others.

Punching someone in defence who punched you first and is trying to force thought and behaviour on you is not the same thing as being the aggressor.

In my opinion the way you treat a bully who hits you is to hit them back, really hard.

Analysing the logical shortcomings and emotionalised conditioning is not an ad hominem attack. It is articulating clearly where one believes the problems lie. SJW’s themselves declare this heretical and claim offense but claiming offense is nothing but a protection mechanism in that religion and meant to silence others.

You will not reason an SJW out of their emotionalised conditioning. To do that an equal amount of emotion is needed to tear down that conditioning. It is long and hard, but it works.

 

[blackforest]

Except that the SJW’s are the aggressors in a self declared culture war.

Good grief. I’m mostly lurking in on this, but is it really necessary to play the playground game of finger-pointing and shouting, “You started it?”

I was recently in the political correctness thread decrying the practice and even disagreeing somewhat with @mrsdizzy84 in the process. But Right-wing political correctness and snowflakish-ness can be equally irritating and aggressive. If you don’t believe me, wish the wrong person “happy holidays” before sitting down for the national anthem, (or standing up and singing it in Spanish), and chugging your Starbucks latte out of the wrong cup.

Analysing the logical shortcomings and emotionalised conditioning is not an ad hominem attack.

So far I’m reading stereotyping, not a legitimate or substantive analysis.

 

[abucs]

Let’s grant that you refuted Mike’s original statement. Now let’s rephrase his point as…

When you take Christianity to its ideal fulfillment, you have Jesus Christ.
When you take Islam to its ideal fulfillment, you get Mohammad.

Still “uncomfortable” bedfellows? Perhaps if you wish to argue some kind of parity between them.

Personally, I wouldn’t even try.

Part of the politically correct religion is to foister an equality on different categories based on an identity politics hierarchy.

So if Islam has a defect the politically correct are emotionalised into having to see Christianity as just as bad. Because Christianity is lowest in the religion hierarchy for the politically correct there is no compulsion in the opposite direction though.

It is a strange religion.

 

[abucs]

Good grief. I’m mostly lurking in on this, but is it really necessary to play the playground game of finger-pointing and shouting, “You started it?”

I was recently in the political correctness thread decrying the practice and even disagreeing somewhat with @mrsdizzy84 in the process. But Right-wing political correctness and snowflakish-ness can be equally irritating and aggressive. If you don’t believe me, wish the wrong person “happy holidays” before sitting down for the national anthem, (or standing up and singing it in Spanish), and chugging your Starbucks latte out of the wrong cup.

Happy holidays is one of those manufactured language creations that SJW’s have done and looked to force on shoppers and such. If you want to say it then fine but such manufactured language is the aggressor. No one created ‘Merry Christmas’ as an alternative to 'Happy Holidays.

There is no finger pointing it is simply a fact that the SJW phenomenon is the aggressor.

 

[abucs]

So far I’m reading stereotyping, not a legitimate or substantive analysis.

Sure and you are the judge of that, for you.

 

[blackforest]

Happy holidays is one of those manufactured language creations that SJW’s have done and looked to force on shoppers and such.

I know, right? Just look at those Civil War-era cultural Marxists flexing their politically correct muscles! (Click on “History of Happy Holidays” for the 1863 newspaper clipping with this classic greeting).

Better yet, educate yourself on the history of the term, including its Christian origins.

Political correctness is what happens when someone tries to virtue-police me into saying “Merry Christmas.” It’s a two-way street.

There is no finger pointing it is simply a fact that the SJW phenomenon is the aggressor.

With all due respect, it’s not a “fact” but an unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[abucs]

With all due respect it is a fact. Political correctness has been around for a very short period compared to Christianity and has placed itself as the default pushing phrases like Merry Christmas into the background with claims of religious bias and putting the replacement term Happy Holidays in its place.

That is the aggressor. They are manufacturing language and emotionalising people into using the newly politically correct term.

 

[Vonsalza]

Except that the SJW’s are the aggressors in a self declared culture war.

Culture isn’t a static monolith. It’s fluid and perpetually changing. The error here isn’t that someone has declared war on your ideas, it’s that you thought they were never going to have to change.

Ultimately they are foistering a new religion on the populace…

No they aren’t. They’re re-examining “All men are created equal” with fewer assumptions than you about what “men” means. The last time few times it was done, women and blacks folks got the right to vote.

In my opinion the way you treat a bully who hits you is to hit them back, really hard.

I thought arms races were finally antiquated at the end of the 20th cent.?

Analysing the logical shortcomings…
SJW’s themselves…

I’m loving that your appeals to logic are immediately followed up with hasty generalization fallacies…

You will not reason an SJW out of their emotionalised conditioning. To do that an equal amount of emotion is needed to tear down that conditioning. It is long and hard, but it works.

So if you out-scream them you’ll change their mind? Did you came to Christianity in the first place by this method?

So if Islam has a defect the politically correct are emotionalised into having to see Christianity as just as bad.

Only if you’re already biased in favor of Christianity.

If you’re trying to be objective, you apply the same standard to Christianity that you used to conclude that Islam is defective.

It is a strange religion.

“SJW” is not a religion. It’s a poor generalization. But don’t let facts get in the way of ideology there…

So far I’m reading stereotyping, not a legitimate or substantive analysis.

Oh, you too?

With all due respect it is a fact. Political correctness…

Is yet another tiresome generalization that doesn’t actually mean anything specific, like a lot of the other “boogeymen” in your rhetoric.