This is what I call ‘the Unreality Principle’ which is the principle that a lie is better than the truth because to lie and to believe a lie proves one’s loyalty. To lie and believe lies is morally superior than to tell and believe the truth, and the more outrageous the lie, the greater the moral superiority one can award oneself.
The Chinese have an epigram for this, as they have for most things political and practical.
It is written this way: 指鹿為馬 (zhi lu wei ma). Literally translated, the four characters mean ‘point deer, make horse’.
The word 為 for ‘make’ also means ‘to transform’ or ‘to serve as’ or ‘to make believe.’ So the epigram means ‘Calling a deer a horse.’
As with all Chinese epigrams, there is a story behind it:
Zhao Gao was contemplating treason but was afraid the other officials would not heed his commands, so he decided to test them first. He brought a deer and presented it to the Emperor but called it a horse. The Emperor laughed and said, “Is the chancellor perhaps mistaken, calling a deer a horse?” Then the emperor questioned those around him. Some remained silent, while some, hoping to ingratiate themselves with Zhao Gao, said it was a horse, and others said it was a deer. Zhao Gao secretly arranged for all those who said it was a deer to be brought before the law and had them executed instantly.
(hat tip to bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2…-of-absurdity/ quote is from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhao_G…a_deer_a_horse)
You see how the Unreality Principle works. Bringing in a pony and calling it a horse won’t do. Someone might honestly mistake a horse for a pony. Only lies that are breathtakingly stupid, things no sane person could say or believe, are sufficient to show where one’s loyalty rests.
It is for this reason that Hillary Clinton announced that acts of terrorism carried out by Islamicists in the name of Islam as defined, promoted and commanded by Islam now and for all centuries past not only had nothing to do with Islam, but, in her words, ‘nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.’
Islam is not the enemy. The deer is a horse.
The problem with loyalty to the Unreality Principle is that in order to be truly loyal, you have to believe, actually to believe, nonsense you should know is nonsense.
I have wasted endless hours debating to what degree the various followers of the Unreality Principle are complicit in their own self-deception, and have finally resigned from the debate in disgust. The question is a paradox. When a man is trying to deceive himself, he is his own victim, deceiver and deceived at once. And successful self deception results in his not knowing himself to have successfully deceived himself: so arguing that he really does not know better is merely to say he is skilled at something akin to auto-hypnosis.
scifiwright.com/2015/12/p…er-make-horse/
Define “innocents” according to Islam.İt is so stupidity to try showing Muslims as killer! Islam order to protect innocents but not kill.
Not sure the Church did do this. Some people in the Church did this. If Christians did this then they weren’t really Christians when they did this. People instituted in positions of authority within the Church did this. Well, satan does not reside in the Church - he is not part, a member, of the Body of Second Person. Certain members that make up the Body did this but cut themselves off from the Body when they did this. Just as some secular teachers did this. And some secular care workers did this. What makes it worse is that those in the Church represent the Church however when they do this they are not representing the Church. The Church does not own this. Satan owns this behaviour. “The Church is made up of saved sinners”. The Church herself is not sinful. Pope Francis surely apologised on behalf of the church for people in positions of authority not having done more about things in the past and that this happened from within the Church; hence the compensation. I am not sure he apologised on behalf of the Church as a whole. We are all different members of the Church who do not all sin in the same ways. And the percentage of priests in the CC who abused is proportionately small compared to abuse claims outside the CC and so too a very small percentage compared to the number of priests who have lived throughout the centuries that have not abused. The problem is that one priest was too many. But when people sin they separate themselves mortally. So they step outside of the Church. Though maybe Christians by baptism they have aligned themselves with Hell. But to say the Church owns the sins is, I think, off-key. When such sins were committed, the sins not only scandalized the victims, they went AGAINST the Church and hammered nails into Our Lord.I’m a little baffled by the lack of direct responses in this thread. This does not seem like a particularly difficult question to me. Practical responses require practical solutions.
Although it is not perfectly analogous, as a point of reference, consider the child abuse scandal in the Church. As with radicalized Islamists, the problem was grave and widespread. In response, the Church has:
-made financial remuneration to victims amounting to about $1.2 billion dollars. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlements_and_bankruptcies_in_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases)
And I am still told that the Church hasn’t done enough and that I literally support child abuse simply by continuing to be a member of the Church, or even worse, by donating my money to the Church. Can you imagine the backlash if the Church had done nothing other than issue condemnations?
- laicized 848 priests and sanctioned 2,572 others. (cbsnews.com/news/vatican-reveals-how-many-priests-defrocked-for-sex-abuse-since-2004/)
-instituted numerous programs and policies to protect all children who interact with any Church staff or volunteers (VIRTUS, STAND, etc.)
-strongly condemned the abuse.
Off the top of my head, here are a few practical things that the Islamic community could do to earn back trust.
-record all sermons given during communal worship and post them online.
-offer free, confidential, anonymous counseling to Muslims who are in danger of being radicalized.
-develop a “see something, say something” program and/or institute mandatory reporting policies for clergy and religious staff.
-gather and dispense funds to victims of Islamic terror attacks.
I don’t expect any of these things to happen, though. The Catholic response to the abuse scandal has been to own it. To say with humility and sorrow, “yes, my Church did that. I am ashamed and embarrassed. I want justice to be done and I never want this to happen again.” The Islamic response, so far as I have seen, is to play the victim. To say, “oh no, the most recent terror attack was another Muslim. How is this going to affect me?”
Perhaps another way of saying what Binary intended is that the Church will in the end bear the burden of sins just as Christ did rather than seek to deflect, excuse or portion out blame.Not sure the Church did do this. Some people in the Church did this. If Christians did this then they weren’t really Christians when they did this. People instituted in positions of authority within the Church did this. Well, satan does not reside in the Church - he is not part, a member, of the Body of Second Person. Certain members that make up the Body did this but cut themselves off from the Body when they did this. Just as some secular teachers did this. And some secular care workers did this. What makes it worse is that those in the Church represent the Church however when they do this they are not representing the Church. The Church does not own this. Satan owns this behaviour. “The Church is made up of saved sinners”. The Church herself is not sinful. Pope Francis surely apologised on behalf of the church for people in positions of authority not having done more about things in the past and that this happened from within the Church; hence the compensation. I am not sure he apologised on behalf of the Church as a whole. We are all different members of the Church who do not all sin in the same ways. And the percentage of priests in the CC who abused is proportionately small compared to abuse claims outside the CC and so too a very small percentage compared to the number of priests who have lived throughout the centuries that have not abused. The problem is that one priest was too many. But when people sin they separate themselves mortally. So they step outside of the Church. Though maybe Christians by baptism they have aligned themselves with Hell. But to say the Church owns the sins is, I think, off-key. When such sins were committed, the sins not only scandalized the victims, they went AGAINST the Church and hammered nails into Our Lord.
Just to be clear.
This makes sense. Not that the Church is ‘blaming’ herself still but that she is taking responsibility (she will “bear the burden”, or is bearing) for what has happened (as far as she can), by finding means of healing - the means to healing and peace is attached with the bearing of the burden on the part of the Church. The only one who can bear the burden of sins, in of themselves, is the Creator. The Church concerns herself with giving absolution (from the Creator), penance, finding ways and means for forgiveness and reconciliation between people and between people and Church, and making sure, as far as she can, that those in authority don’t abuse the rules again.Perhaps another way of saying what Binary intended is that the Church will in the end bear the burden of sins just as Christ did rather than seek to deflect, excuse or portion out blame.
This is in contrast to leftist and progressivist political “leaders” who go out of their way to blame everything and everyone else but never admit that their actions have anything to do with the problems at hand.
I do not have knowledge about that naked Armanian girls could you point source. And Muslims are humanbeing with weak disposition like other people too. So some Muslims could commit such crimes and I know many Muslims who commit mortal sins. But Islam never order to commit sin or to persecute or such thing. Islam does not say kill all other. There are some verses which allowed Muslims to fight in some specific circumstances which happened in the past and I can explain those.Hassantes…The Muslims who have devotion to the Blessed Mother are more spiritually advanced than Christians who do not recognize and honor her and her perpetual virginity on this earth.
I hope you re read my post. I was referring to those Turks who denuded those poor young girls, raped them, and placed them on crosses in the cold country side…and I assume it was cold seeing the kind of winter uniforms those men were wearing as they rode away on horses. The picture made me weep.
But your misunderstanding of Christ is based on your own format of understanding our faith from our own documented sources. Have you studied the Catholic Catechism? I have read that Muslims are forbidden to read and study Christian sources. Only those based on Islam.
I believe in my faith and my tradition of God just as much as you do.
I understand the niceties and the need to put the best foot of Islam forward. I am also not clear what the “true knowledge” of Islam looks like, precisely because even Muslims themselves do not agree on what that “true knowledge” is, beyond literal adherence to the words of the Qur’an and the other sacred writings of Islam.…
Muslims who kill other in the name of Islam in actual fact they use name of Islam and Allah to support their political objects and confirm outrages. Otherwise they do not fulfil Jihad! Jihad mean to struggle and the greatest Jihad is to struggle against self sensuous egoism. The second importand Jihad is to spread faith by wisdom.
125- Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided. Qur’an An-Nahl(16)
The third Jihad is to fight enemy when they attack. That is just what prophet Muhammad and His appostles did. Pagans persecuted and kill Muslims so Allah gave permission to fight unless they did not stop to fight Muslims.
Muslims do not reject Christianity and we as Muslims respect Christians. Fatih Sultan Mehmet did not kill Christians when he conquered Constantinople(Istanbul) and Sultan Saladin did not kill Christians when he conquered Jerusalem and both allowed Christians to fulfil their religion freely.
We know Christians have their won belief of God. Could not we discuss that? Because that kind of faith had established later by people. Jesus did not declared obvious knowledge and there are no certain verses in Bible but just a Holy Tradition. Of course first Christians and especially apostles of Jesus was great but ultimately they were humanbeing and some made mistakes.
Muslims study Christianty honestly but do Christians study Islam and Qur’an honestly? Could we make Loyalty Test for Christians. Most of Christians have no any true knowledges about Islam and Qur’an.
As to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles being changed by the mistakes of later human beings, that question cannot be answered properly without addressing which precise teachings were changed and how they were. It is easy to make such an accusation without any reference to specific teachings, but when we try to pin down exactly where the “changes” are those making the accusations just fail miserably. This needs to be a topic for another thread and I am quite willing to address any specific teachings you want to show have been altered in that thread. In the meantime, please answer the five questions above.Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.”
Firstly Christians do not believe in Muhammad honestly.=Peter Plato;13486082]I understand the niceties and the need to put the best foot of Islam forward. I am also not clear what the “true knowledge” of Islam looks like, precisely because even Muslims themselves do not agree on what that “true knowledge” is, beyond literal adherence to the words of the Qur’an and the other sacred writings of Islam.
During apostles there were no so much problems but later some problems emerged. For isntance Nicaea Council is proof of that. Arius and Athanasius had different beliefs about divinity of Jesus and also that shows that Christians had different beliefs about that. The Nicaean Creed should not be equitable because there were many arguments and some should be inhibited.There do exist “loyalty tests” for Christians. The two great creeds of Christianity – the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicaean Creed – encapsulate what could be called the Christian Loyalty Test.
However, I am quite willing to propose a more practical one.
When the Scribes and Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery before Jesus, they “did it to test him” regarding his “loyalty” to Mosaic Law which commanded that the woman be stoned. The story is found in John 8: 1-11.
- Was Jesus correct in letting the woman go without condemnation?
- If the woman were your wife, sister or othe close relative and you were in the crowd would you put down your stone and walk away?
- If the woman were a Muslim woman and instead of Jesus it was Muhammad the woman was brought before, what would Muhammad have done? (Please cite a specific source document to show this.)
- Did the people in the crowd act correctly by dropping their stones and walking away or should the woman have been stoned?
- Can you point me to a verse in the Qur’an where Muhammad stressed the mercy and forgiveness of Allah in the same way that Jesus stressed the mercy and forgiveness of God in this story?
We should not discuss do reject and repute each others! But we can have exchange of ideas.Please answer each question in terms of what you as a Muslim truly believe to be the proper teachings of Islam. I am here to learn from you.
I will freely admit that I do not believe in Muhammad because I do not think what he did or said is worthy of honest assent.Firstly Christians do not believe in Muhammad honestly.
This would mean that Sharia has superceded the Torah and Bible. So what does Sharia say should be done with the woman?And your questions:
Answers:
- Jesus was very merciful and if God allowed Jesus to behave as He wished then that is true. Jesus did not have to apply Torah because God had revealed new Sharia(religion rules) and Bible. And that woman should be regretful and do not commit that sin any more.
Was “Gof” intentional or purely accidental?
- I would do what Jesus advised. Because we have to obey messenger of Gof.
If God “ordered Muhammad” means that Muslims have been ordered to do what Muhammad said and did, correct?
- According to explainations above Muhammad would seek to forgive. But if God ordered Muhammad would never have hesitation to do but in Qur’an God did not allow such thing.
So Muslims should stone women because of their faith, correct?
- If that people believed in Jesus then they did right. But if they did not believe in Jesus but wanted to do as it is written in Torah then they should stone because of their faith.
Yes, but in some countries that practice Sharia, that a woman is pregnant is taken as proof of adultery, even if she becomes preganant seven years after committing the act of adultery.
- Look at An-Nur :5 It is written above.
The fact has many faces and you can see one of them from Jesus but cannot see from Muhammad.=Peter Plato;13488677]I will freely admit that I do not believe in Muhammad because I do not think what he did or said is worthy of honest assent.
Sharia means “laws of religion”. So do not understand only Islamic Sharia but also Moses and Jesus had their own Sharias.This would mean that Sharia has superceded the Torah and Bible. So what does Sharia say should be done with the woman?
Ofcourse accidental.Was “Gof” intentional or purely accidental?
I mean if I was there in Jesus’s time. I should think that you can be more serious and mindful. And Jesus superseded Moses’s law and did not decided to stone that woman.In case you did mean “God,” this doesn’t really answer the question in anything like a complete way because Muslims believe the revelation of Allah through Muhammad supercedes all of the previous prophets, including Jesus, which means Muslims and human beings, generally no longer are required to “do what Jesus advised.” Correct?
Jesus meant that she had commited a sin as you could commit some sin. That mean “do not do that” Otherwise they would do immediately. More solemnity and care please!By the way, Jesus didn’t “advise” anything. He just said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” and everyone left one by one.
Adultery is being commited in eveywhere of Islamic countries unfortunately. But non of woman or man are being stoned at least in Turkey!Perhaps the question would better be rephrased as what should happen today in a truly Muslim country, should a woman be stoned for adultery?
There are degrees in that. Some of them are certain like Qur’an and some Hadiths. The others have low levels.If God “ordered Muhammad” means that Muslims have been ordered to do what Muhammad said and did, correct?
No, I did not say such thing. Don’t you read what I wrote?So Muslims should stone women because of their faith, correct?
There should be wrong implements of that issue and I had said that it is problematic!Yes, but in some countries that practice Sharia, that a woman is pregnant is taken as proof of adultery, even if she becomes preganant seven years after committing the act of adultery.
religioustolerance.org/isl_adul2.htm