The Second Version

14/09/10

To Each His Own Opinion

I found another example of those statements that make me roll my eyes in disbelief not because they are wrong or stupid, but because statements like those can only come from completely different axioms, if not thought processes.

Without any further ado, let's examine the most curious part.
Their “holy book” is a pagan screed about a moon god written by a pedophile.
Well, ok. Let's get one thing out of the way first: according to the Koran itself, Mohammed consumed his marriage with Aisha when she was 9 years old, which would make him a paedophile for most if not all of modern jurisdictions.

But apart from that, I can't see what is so inherently evil in a "pagan screed about a moon god". Worshipping the moon was a rather common pastime in most of the world and everybody was a pagan before christianity came around. It is quite obvious that "pagan" and "moon god" here are not used for their descriptive value, but are only pejoratives.

In any case, that was just a warm-up. The bizzarre stuff comes later.
[...]
C.) The word “pagan” is a technical term meaning “non-Christian/Jew”.
Yes, it is. But it was used not in its technical meaning - rather, as implying primitive and superstitiuos beliefs.
It is often used to describe people who worship something other than God.
Ah, here we go. I suppose here God is the Christian god, with the implication that there is no other true god out there. Which I think it's fine taking the Bible literally, but other people - particularly those who take a different book literally - would dissent.

This is an old argument, and an intractable one. Until God, Jehova, Allah and all the other supreme beings settle their scores in a Divine Smackdown Tournament for us umans to see, there's no way to tell which one is the mightiest.
“Allah” is a made-up moon god.
That's very interesting. From a mechanistic perspective, all gods are made-up, at least for the part concerning their interaction with humans. What makes the existence of Allah any less provable than the existence of other gods? Moreover, does a theist really want to discuss proof of the existence of god? Many fine philosophers have tackled this issue from both sides, and as far as I know it's still a draw. And what's with that poor Moon again?
There is no such thing as “Allah” as a god except in the minds of Muslims.
There is no such thing as a god except in the minds of Christians. See how easy it is to turn theses arguments around? According to what objective standards and logical reasoning Allah is not a god, while God is? None, I'll tell you. It is only because another holy book says otherwise.
They are, technically, “pagans”.
See above.
[...]
E.) By definition, a true Christian can’t be “evil”.
Should we define evil then? A Christian who causes unjustified sufference and damage to others is not evil? Or he ceases to be a Christian? Which would be a neat argument, but also fallacious.
They may yet be sinners but since they are saved through grace, they are in a different category than a Muslim who is not.
Whose grace? The grace of God I suppose - but then Muslims will have Allah's saving grace, so we are back again in a bind. The only way out of it is to set aside the revealed truth for one's particular religion and adopt standards which may be arbitrary in their own regard, but apply uniformly to members of all religions.

However, setting aside revealed truth is about the last thing believers want to do, so the not-so-merry go-around will just keep spinning.

Etichette: , ,

0 Commenti:

Posta un commento

Iscriviti a Commenti sul post [Atom]



Link a questo post:

Crea un link

<< Home page