The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Intolerant intolerance > Comments

Intolerant intolerance : Comments

By Spencer Gear, published 21/2/2019

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
"I am tolerant of everything except intolerance" is indeed an ancient paradox. I'm not sure this article has made any progress on this difficult matter. People will continue to apply the ideal of tolerance in any way they see fit, usually to support some pet opinion. Wintour did just that when she said "Intolerance has no place in tennis". As there is no evidence that Margaret Court displayed any intolerance in her tennis, Wintour was transferring Court's views in another field to her tennis career. That's what people do today - and I can't tolerate it. Anyway, the proper target of the charge of intolerance in this case should be those who named the arena, not Court herself. Wintour's logic is seriously twisted.
Posted by TomBie, Thursday, 21 February 2019 10:39:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Far too much spacious space in this (homophobic) article to be taken seriously as the work of an "open-minded" scholar! And as a scholarly text, about as convincing as an argument for a flat earth in the centre of a universe that revolves around it!

What needs to be prohibited are articles of faith-based belief that tells, nay demands that we believe round is square, up is down and black is white!

Pull your head out of the sand genius and stop trying to persecute a minority for their God-given gender bias!?

Margeret Court may well have been a champion tennis player and yesterdays hero. But to put it politely, an intolerant behemoth, who would have been better served if she kept her abysmally ignorant views on sexuality to herself!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 21 February 2019 11:57:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poor Margaret Court, lately the victim of the worst Left wing intolerance going around. What is it with the authoritarian intolerance of the Left?
Posted by calwest, Thursday, 21 February 2019 12:11:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TomBie,

<<I'm not sure this article has made any progress on this difficult matter. People will continue to apply the ideal of tolerance in any way they see fit>>

Nevertheless, those who practise intolerance towards another's alleged intolerance need to be challenged on what they do.

It's the rational course of action to show how alleged tolerance, e.g. Wintour's statements, are exactly the opposite. She practised intolerance toward's Court's and Morrison's views.

Please join me in exposing the hypocrisy of tolerance in the name of intolerance.
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 21 February 2019 12:17:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B,

<<Margeret (sic) Court may well have been a champion tennis player and yesterdays hero. But to put it politely, an intolerant behemoth...>>

You have proved my point exactly from the article.

You are an intolerant anti-Christian faith promoter who wants to think you're tolerant as an 'open minded' person. However, you are as intolerant as the the people whom you espouse as being intolerant.

You promote an irrational, reflexive intolerance.
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 21 February 2019 12:28:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its not wrong to be intolerable of the intolerable. Personally I would prefer to be called a bigot, a homophobe, a racist or any other title the Christophobes throw up when confronted with plain truth. The Christophobes are so brainwashed they don't even know that murderering unborn babies is abhorrent.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 21 February 2019 1:10:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Psychologists use the term "cognitive dissonance" to explain the phenomenon of people strongly condemning a particular behaviour, while at the same time engaging in the behaviour that they are condemning. The difference between such behaviour and pure, outright hypocrisy, is that the person condemning the behaviour and doing it themselves, is unaware of their own actions. Worse still, when their hypocritical behaviour is pointed out to them, they are unable to understand that they are doing what they are condemning in others.

Such attitudes are symptomatic of people who possess authoritarian attitudes. They are so convinced that they are right and that their opponents are wrong, that they really do believe that the rules of behaviour that they demand of others should not apply to themselves.

Examples are.

Those who preach tolerance who are intolerant of those who have opposing opinions.

Those who decry racism who are routinely racist towards white people.

Those who decry stereotyping who routinely stereotype their opponents as something resembling pure evil.

Those who denounce racist names like "ni**er" who routinely label the white people they despise as "rednecks", "crackers" and "bogans."

Educated people who demand a classless society while routinely sneering at their working class social inferiors.

Just get on Youtube and you will see people who oppose the immigration of South African whites into Australia because Boers are "racist." And they are unable to see the self evident contradiction of their attitude. Or people saying that it OK to say disgusting things about white people, because that is not racist. Their logic is that it is impossible for minorities to be racist towards whites, which is a racist belief in itself.

This inability to perceive their own contradictions is the hallmark of the true authoritarian fanatic. This particular behaviour is now glaringly obvious in just about every contemporary left wing cause. It is the reason why the pendulum has swung and now intelligent people are turning away from leftism. Those with IQ's above 85 can not abide the outright hypocrisy and double standards left wing "logic.".
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 21 February 2019 2:28:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

Much of your reply affirms the content of my article. Thank you.

<<This inability to perceive their own contradictions is the hallmark of the true authoritarian fanatic. This particular behaviour is now glaringly obvious in just about every contemporary left wing cause>>

I don't think it's only the main territory of left wing, authoritarian fanatics.

I've seen it with Christians who oppose homosexuality, saying these people go to hell. A leading Rugby player said it. But they seem to overlook the fact that some biblical homosexual teaching is in a passage by the Apostle Paul where those who indulge in other sexual sins, adultery, idolaters, theft, greedy people, drunkards, the abusive, and those who cheat people,are included. All of these wrongdoers will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-11).

Or, is that selective reading?

Since writing my article, I've become aware of Ben Crenshaw's article, '“Shut Up, Bigot!”: The Intolerance of Tolerance', at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/08/15398/

While showing the foundation of the new tolerance is built on the shifting sands of postmodernism, his assessment was:

"We must challenge postmodern thought at a fundamental level and reintroduce the old vision of tolerance into society. This will be most effective if we practice the old tolerance, visibly and powerfully demonstrating that it is possible to hold to objective truths and dissenting views while being respectful and loving toward those with whom we disagree. Such interpersonal virtues are rarely seen in a culture where social media exchanges and comment threads overflow with vitriol".
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 21 February 2019 5:26:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As far as I am concerned.

Margaret Court was/is a National Icon in Australia.

She has been awarded trophies - too numerous to mention here.

However, she is opposed to "same sex marriage" - SO WHAT!

She has her belief, I also have mine - this is a democratic society.

But those who wish to pull her name of a "Tennis Centre - dedicated in her name" - due to her differing view on same sex marriage, says it all to me.

If you don't agree with same sex marriage - not matter who you are - will we come for you and destroy your business or livelihood?

For those reading my post saying - oh no this didn't happen, try doing some research.

Then come back to me - I have "heaps" of examples.

And this is "democracy" in Australia today.
Posted by SAINTS, Thursday, 21 February 2019 5:56:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
has anyone called for the removal of all Martin Luther Kings statues? Why not? He was opposed to the homosexual lifestyle.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 21 February 2019 6:34:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good points OzSpen. On a rational view intolerance for the sake of being tollerent isn't logical and moves a person to rationalizing their own intolerance instead of justifying their intolerance.

To make the point under the debate clear, there are issues worth being intolerant about. There is also the other side of the coin of giving second chances and to tolerate something that you don't agree with. Both of these points that support tolerance are worth while for a healthy responsible person to engage in everyday life. But make no mistake, there are things that should not be tolerated. That's actually the whole point of the legal system, so that certian actions are not tolerated but instead punished.

The next rational point that should be given should be instead of tolerance and intolerance of intolerance; instead it should be why is this not tolerated. Why is it faught against. Doing anything less then this as OzSpen has pointed out, is an act of rationalizing a person's own intolerance without actually giving a reason for their own intolerance. Give a reason why and this is answered without going in circles fighting for tolerance.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 22 February 2019 4:52:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Ozpen.

Within any population of people, there exists a percentage of the population who think entirely in absolutes. Morality is black and white. Moral quandaries and moral priorities are concepts which are beyond their comprehension. Fifty shades of grey morality have no meaning to them. Almost all of this demographic are attracted to absolutist ideologies which state plainly, in black and white, what is right and what is wrong.

You are correct in saying that right wing people can also think in absolutes. It does not matter if the ideology is religious or secular. Social or political. There are people who are absolutists in every ideological position. The causes and the ideologies they support can differ from the right, the left, or the religious, but the mindset (the way of processing information) is exactly the same.

Interestingly, people who think in absolutes utterly despise other absolutists who support absolutist causes opposed to their own. Both ideologies are in competition to attract the same sort of people with the same sort of absolutist mindsets.

Similarly, absolutist thinking people think that every other person thinks exactly like they do. Therefore, they are simply unable to understand people who take moderate views. Absolutists think that if their moderate opponents take a different view to themselves, then they must be the polar opposite of themselves. Since they are epitome of virtue, then their moderate opponents must be unspeakably evil. They can never consider that their opponents as just people who consider multiple aspects of any issue before deciding on what is the best response. They shout them down. "No platform" them. Don't bother debating them.

Absolutists tend to be driven people who often succeed in attaining high office in moderate organisations and then they turn them into absolutist organisations (eg, The Greens, Australian Democrats) . Throughout history, thinking people have battled the absolutists for the leadership of nations and organisations. The reason why the Western world rocketed ahead of the rest of the world was because for four hundred years, western thinking people were able to exercise some control over the absolutists.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 22 February 2019 5:41:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

<<Within any population of people, there exists a percentage of the population who think entirely in absolutes. Morality is black and white.>>

What percentage? From where did you obtain info on absolutists?

<<Moral quandaries and moral priorities are concepts which are beyond their comprehension. Fifty shades of grey morality have no meaning to them.>>

You gave no example of this perspective. I’m committed to moral absolutes but your description does not fit my ‘moral priorities’.

<<You are correct in saying that right wing people can also think in absolutes.>>

I never wrote anything of the sort. That’s your invention.

<<Interestingly, people who think in absolutes utterly despise other absolutists who support absolutist causes opposed to their own.>>

Again, you gave no examples. Sounds like your opinion when you make assertions like this.

<<Don't bother debating them.>>

That’s what you say about absolutists. You haven’t been debating with your post by asking questions and seeking clarification. Your post was riddled with your assertions / opinions.

<<Throughout history, thinking people have battled the absolutists for the leadership of nations and organisations.>>

Again, you give not one example, but provide us with your opinion.

<<The reason why the Western world rocketed ahead of the rest of the world was because for four hundred years, western thinking people were able to exercise some control over the absolutists.>>

Your opinion again and without evidence
Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 22 February 2019 9:17:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Ozpen.

Thank you for your interest. It is nice to have an intelligent discussion with somebody who wants to learn.

My interest in Psychology led me to read books on Psychology, Sociology, and Social Psychology, which introduced me to the concept of the Absolutist personality. Without reference to the relevant book which I have not picked up in a decade, the concept was first named by a Jewish psychologist in Germany after WW2. His own research and interviews led him to believe that the percentage of people in Germany with "Absolutist" personalities was quite high (from memory about 30% of the population.) His research frightened him so much he fled Germany well before the Jewish exodus after Hitler came to power.

The only moral absolute that I believe in, is that of the absolute right of a free people in a democracy to discuss any social issue whatsoever, in order to make up their own collective minds on what constitutes right and wrong behaviour. Without free political speech, no country can call itself a "free society." Without free speech, it has begun the slide into totalitarianism. Every other moral issue is up for periodic re-examination.

You write that I "invented" your opinion that right wing people could engage in contradictory beliefs. What I did was make a reasoned assumption that you were implying just that, when you made the comment (on what I regard as stereotypical Absolutist behaviour) that " I don't think it's only the main territory of left wing, authoritarian fanatics." My assumption was that you were referring to fanatics of every stripe. If you were, then I wholeheartedly agree. The causes are different, but the absolutist mindset is the same.

You have asked me to provide examples of absolutists who despise other absolutists. OK. Catholicism and Communism. National Socialism and International Socialism. Shiites and Sunnis.

Finally some history. The North European people advanced much faster than any other prior or contemporary civilisation because of the Reformation, where scientific method and scientific inquiry began to replace absolutist theological explanations for the state of the natural world
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 22 February 2019 4:33:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I tried to read this article but I ended up giving up
- I just couldn't 'tolerate' the mental strain any longer

This guys articles make me feel like I got trapped and imprisoned inside one of his brain-farts.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Friday, 22 February 2019 7:09:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

I'm not convinced with the identification of an 'absolutist personality'.

<<The only moral absolute that I believe in, is that of the absolute right of a free people in a democracy to discuss any social issue whatsoever, in order to make up their own collective minds on what constitutes right and wrong behaviour.>>

How do you discern 'collective minds' in China, Saudi Arabia, the Congo or Australia?

I find that you are advocating relativism in disguise, ‘the belief that the truth is not always the same but varies according to circumstances' (Collins Dictionary 2019. s.v. relativism).

The logical conclusion of your 'only moral absolute' position is that this view must be allowed for everyone in the world. They choose what is morally absolute in their own eyes. ISIS chooses terrorism; Hitler, Stalin, Edi Amin and Pol Pot chose genocide, some men choose paedophilia, etc.

That's why we need absolute standards outside ourselves such as the Ten Commandments and Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt+5-7&version=ERV.

<<I regard as stereotypical Absolutist behaviour) that " I don't think it's only the main territory of left wing, authoritarian fanatics." My assumption was....>>

That's arguing from silence.

<<You have asked me to provide examples of absolutists who despise other absolutists>>

I also despise Nazi National Socialism, not because I'm an absolutist, but because it is judged as absolutely evil by the standards of Scripture (Ex 20:13; Matt 5:21; 19:18; Rom 13:9) but capital punishment for murder was commanded (Ex 21:14). There are examples of genocide in the OT as judgments from the all-wise God.

I find it much more stable and substantial to rely on the absolute commands of the all-knowing Lord God.

<<Because of the Reformation, where scientific method and scientific inquiry began to replace absolutist theological explanations for the state of the natural world.>>

I think you are speaking out of ignorance. Take a read of Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox and the Puritans - leaders in the Reformation - and you'll read solid support for God's absolutes.,
Posted by OzSpen, Saturday, 23 February 2019 10:38:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair Critic,

<<I tried to read this article but I ended up giving up - I just couldn't 'tolerate' the mental strain any longer>>

To put it simply: If I accuse someone of being intolerant of some of the views of The Australian Country Party, then in that action I'm being intolerant myself. I am being hypocritical when I accuse another of intolerance when my views also are intolerant.

So I can't be intolerant towards others without practising intolerance myself.

If that doesn't help, please let me know what needs clarification.
Posted by OzSpen, Saturday, 23 February 2019 1:26:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, I get you Ozpen. You are a religious person, and you believe in moral absolutes like "Thou Shalt Not Steal". And you think I am insulting you by saying that people with "Absolutist personalities" have a screw loose, because you think that I am referring to all religious people. That is not so. Religious people are not all absolutists, only those who take their scriptures literally and with total seriousness that most certainly are. God may say in the Old Testament that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", but only a nut case Christian with an absolutist personality would take that so seriously that they would actually carry out God's command.

Even "Thou Shalt Not Steal" is not an absolute. If a person steals food from a place where it is plentiful because their kids are starving, then a Christian person might not consider them a thief at all, just somebody needing help. But if you think that the entire universe was created in six days because the Bible said so, and you don't care what 400 years of scientific research has discovered, then yep, you are an Absolutist.

The Koran is full of moral absolutes like "fight the unbelievers who are near to you, lay ambushes for them, strike terror in their hearts." Whatever God said in the 6th century, such sentiments are right out of date today. And the inability of Muslims to recognise that fact is holding them back from advancement, and making them the most hated people on the planet.

Today there are many secular Absolutists who's ideology is a substitute for an absolutist religion like Islam or Catholicism. Both Nazism and Communism resembled absolutist religions in that they demanded absolute loyalty and unquestioning obedience. And great woe would betide thee if you did not obey.

Morality is the generally agreed upon point at which individuals sublimate their self interest for the welfare of the group they identify with as a member. Morality changes as changing times alter the basic logical premises upon which the original morality was based.
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 23 February 2019 9:01:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yeah lovely being your own god Lego isn't it? Justify your own sin and corruption.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 23 February 2019 10:26:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is a sneery one liner reply, Runner. I was expecting you to pop up, but I thought that you would do a lot better than that. I must have upset you too.

God said "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." So, why are you and your Christian friends not running around doing exactly what God commanded? Is it because you are capable of thinking beyond the moral absolutes decreed by your non existent God? "Absolutist" personality people are another way of saying "fanatics". Religions are prone to fanaticism, but that does not mean that most religious people are fanatics. There are a minority of Christians who think that homo sexuality is normal, while most Christians very strongly disapprove of it. That does not mean that those Christians who disapprove of homosexuality are fanatics. Only that even within religions, people prefer to make up their own minds.

Most Christians do not think that the universe was created in six days, and they rationalize evolution by saying it is part of God's work. The Absolutists (fanatics) among Christians, will never concede anything to science, and will go to the most ridiculous lengths trying to prove that their silly religious scriptures are a fact. The Absolutists demand that the Bibles teachings are the literal word of God, and they must therefore be taken literally. Although why they are not running around beheading witches like the Saudis is a mystery? Perhaps even with fanatics, there are degrees of fanaticism, just like degrees of right and wrong, morality, and everything else?

Religious absolutes were invented by men and were usually based on very sensible premises at the time. The Muslim fatwa on eating pork was probably predicated upon the fact that pigs dig up dead human beings and eat human flesh. The Hindu ban on eating beef is predicated on the fact that even in the worst of times, a live cow can keep you supplied with food. The Christian Sabbath was probably predicted upon the fact that if you work people seven days a week forever, they get sick and die.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 24 February 2019 5:02:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To LEGO.

What you've said on Absolutists seems hollow or paper thin in it's reasoning. For instance the issue with killing a witch is part of the Old Testiment for laws of a nation. they can't be applied after Jesus came for the redemption of all sinners. Nor applied without the foundation of a trial that was put in place in those laws, or the foundation of the nation to work together on all of these laws. But more then that an "absolutist" could find reasons within the bible to not kill a witch. Let vengance be God's is one such a reason. Meaning that a person should not kill or get even with another, let it be in God's hands instead of your own. With that kind of absolutist position I think I've seen many people try to be more pascifist then killers.

What I mean is this. There is more depth in Christianity then to say that those who believe in the bible should be killing witches.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 24 February 2019 5:40:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To NNS.

Thank you for your contribution. It is fun fencing with intelligent people who hold opposing views.

I think you have missed the point. Or, perhaps because of the 350 word limit, I have not been able to explain myself properly. According to some "schools" of Psychology (there are several), people exist who possess "absolutist" personalities. To an Absolutist, morality is either 100% right or 100% wrong. An example would be the Greek philosopher Draco (from which the word "draconian" was coined) who proposed that every crime, no matter how trivial, was still a crime. And every crime must be punished equally. Since murder was a capitol offence, then even trivial offenses must be punished with the death penalty. Can you see the thought progression of an Absolutist? Got it now?

Can you see the thought progression of an absolutist LGTI.... activist who thinks that so called "transgender" people (who number around 1200 people in Australia according to census) means that the concept of male and female can not exist, and that therefore 25 million Australians should accept intersex toilets?

Laws advocating the killing of witches were part of western legal codes for 1600 years because pre reformation people were culturally conditioned by the church to believe in an absolute morality based upon the teachings of the Catholic religion. Which at that time had absolute authority. It is hardly surprising that it was the Reformation minded Protestants who re thought God's instructions and stopped the killing of witches. People like Luther may still have thought largely in absolutes, but they were beginning to use their heads and figure out that maybe God got it wrong occasionally.

Now, you have raised another good point. God said "Thou shalt not kill" while also saying "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." That is the problem with almost all moral absolutes. They routinely conflict with each other. The so called "fundamental" Human Right of Freedom of Religion should mean that the civilized world should tolerate cannibalism, human sacrifice, Thugeeism, the nutty and dangerous Aum cult, and stoning women to death.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 24 February 2019 6:51:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

In a previous post to me, you stated: <<It is nice to have an intelligent discussion with somebody who wants to learn>>

Then you give me this latest broadside that doesn't address the content of my post but dumbs me down and promotes your views.

<<Oh, I get you Ozpen. You are a religious person, and you believe in moral absolutes like "Thou Shalt Not Steal". And you think I am insulting you by saying that people with "Absolutist personalities" have a screw loose, because you think that I am referring to all religious people. That is not so. Religious people are not all absolutists,...>>

Your post demonstrated that <<intelligent discussion>> is not so intelligent after all.
Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 24 February 2019 7:13:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

<<The Absolutists (fanatics) among Christians, will never concede anything to science, and will go to the most ridiculous lengths trying to prove that their silly religious scriptures are a fact.>>

This is your fanciful rant. I could show you over and over the reliability of OT and NT Scriptures, based on historical evidence, but you wouldn't believe it. You are not interested in the facts of the case.

I, as a Christian who accepts God's absolutes in the NT, have a great respect for science. Science has taught cardiac surgeons how to replace my natural heart valves (mitral & aortic) and replace with artificial valves. Science has demonstrated how to survive after such surgery.

I accept the benefits of the science associated with putting satellites into space to track weather, facilitate communication, etc.

<<The Absolutists demand that the Bibles teachings are the literal word of God, and they must therefore be taken literally. Although why they are not running around beheading witches like the Saudis is a mystery? Perhaps even with fanatics, there are degrees of fanaticism, just like degrees of right and wrong, morality, and everything>>

You don't have a clue about laws that were given to the Israelites in the OT that are not applicable to New Covenant believers. You seem to be more interested in slandering Christian absolutists as fanatics than dealing with the right or wrong of morality.

We cannot have an intelligent, rational conversation when you engage in your straw man tactics.
Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 24 February 2019 7:29:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Careful Ozpen, getting angry is a sure indication to me that I am starting to make an impression on your belief in religious moral absolutes. The points I am making are making you feel uncomfortable, and you are reacting emotionally.

Could you please give an example of the Bible's contention, that the universe was created in six days, was historically accurate? Or, that females were created from a male rib? The Bible may have some historical accuracy, but most of it appears to be just superstitious nonsense. You can't just say how you can prove "over and over" the accuracy of the Bible, and then say you won't bother to display it because I won't believe it. That is a cop out. Either put your evidence on the table, or accept that your premise is unsupported.

I have no desire to slander anybody, other than those who wish to shove their particular absolutist morality down my throat through repression. In general, Christians no longer do that. What I amuse myself with, is to make people who either possess absolutist personalities (or who are at least thinking like an absolutist) to re assess their thinking by forcing them to confront the contradictions that usually riddle their particular ideology.

If you accept God's absolutes, why are you not killing witches? Or at least advocating to governments that witches should be executed?

In addition, the God of the OT and the God of the NT are the same God. The OT God instructed the Hebrews to go into Israel/Palestine and "slaughter every man, woman and child." How do you reconcile that with your belief that your God is all loving and all caring? And if you don't believe in Him, he will cast you into Hell where you will burn in fire through all eternity?

He sounds like a complete son of a bitch to me.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 24 February 2019 9:18:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'That is a sneery one liner reply, Runner. I was expecting you to pop up, but I thought that you would do a lot better than that. I must have upset you too. '

no Lego just someone as smart as you know that everyone believes in absolutes including yourself. Your problem seems more to be the fact that you disagree with your Creator as to whether He has the right to command Israel or anyone for that matter to put to death witches or those practicing homosexuality or adultery or for any other reason.

If God is God and we are His creation, He really has the right to determine what is right and wrong. You place yourself as god by disagreeing. Thankfully He is a God of love, mercy and forgiveness as demonstrated by Christ. You seem to be simply playing with words by banging on about absolutist morality. I am sure you think you are absolutely right.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 24 February 2019 9:45:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey OzSpen,
"So I can't be intolerant towards others without practicing intolerance myself."
Well ok... But I hope you didn't strain your brain too much to figure out that one Sherlock.

FYI, I'm not advocating the virtues of 'tolerance'.
The opposite is true - I'm deliberately advocating 'intolerance'.
(If my prior comment wasn't obvious to you)
Let me put it in a context for you:

I am intolerant other peoples stupid BS.

What the big deal?
Is it a crime, or just a crime in the so called 'court of public opinion' I've been hearing about?
- More like 'The Court of PC and virtue signalling public opinion' btw

I don't have to waste my time with everyone else's issues.
I'm not going to waste my time of stupid irrelevant stuff.
I'm intolerant of many things, and proud of it.

See, it's not that scary and the world is still here, just as it was a few moments prior.

There's Pro's and Con's to every issue.
Why would I be foolish enough to think everything should be 'tolerated'?
Many things shouldn't be tolerated.

Should I change the way I live and think just because Spencer 'might' get offended if I don't follow along and blow smoke up his date?
After all, I'm not responsible for the fragile minds of today's snowflakes and their weird ideologies.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Sunday, 24 February 2019 11:00:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair Critic,

What I raised about Wintour's speech was that she was intolerant towards Margaret Court's values but only saw Court's intolerance.

We need to own up to our own intolerance in the statements we make about other's intolerance.
Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 24 February 2019 2:15:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To runner. That's better.

The only moral absolute I believe in, is the right of a free people in a democracy to engage in free speech to decide among themselves, what is right and what is wrong in their own particular situation. If you can think of any moral absolutes that can never change with time and circumstance, then please let me know, and I will consider them before agreeing to add them to my list.

If you believe that God's instructions are absolute, and that ordering his followers to commit the genocide of men, women and children, as well as ordering the execution of "witches", is perfectly OK, then you are thinking exactly like those Muslim ISIS fanatics who quite reasonably explain that by killing infidels, making captive women sex slaves, stoning women to death, throwing homosexuals off buildings, and spreading Islam through terror, is all OK because God has instructed it. It is exactly the same mindset and exactly the same justification.

God told me to do it, M'lud.

There seems to be a big change in the tone of the OT and NT. Is that because God started thinking that perhaps he should stop being a genocidal SOB and moderate his message to being peace, love, and mung beans? Well, He changed His moral positions then, didn't He? Even God does not have moral absolutes.

Do you agree that God is right, and that witches should be executed? If so, why are you not carrying out God's direct instruction? Did he formerly rescind His order in the NT? If not, then it must still be His official instruction. The Muslims still consider it to be so, and the Christian Church agreed with that instruction for 1600 years, with the result that hundreds of thousands of European women were executed for being "witches", who could not work up enough "magic" to get themselves a square meal.

Laws against executing "witches" were rescinded in the 1600's because people realised that the idea of humans with supernatural powers was superstitious nonsense.. God got it wrong, and untold innocents died horribly.
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 25 February 2019 4:15:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

<<If you believe that God's instructions are absolute, and that ordering his followers to commit the genocide of men, women and children, as well as ordering the execution of "witches", is perfectly OK, then you are thinking exactly like those Muslim ISIS fanatics who quite reasonably explain that by killing infidels>>

Nice try but it fails! You still don't get it. I do not think you are open to reading the OT biblical text to understand why God brought judgment on nations.

Why did the Israelites invade Canaan and conquer the inhabitants? It was not because of ethnic background but because of the Canaanites' sin. Did you get that?

Take a read of Leviticus 18 to confirm this. There you'll read of the evil sexual practices of the Canaanites that God's people, the Israelites, must not commit. These included bestiality, incest and homosexuality. After naming these forbidden sexual acts for God's people, the text reads:

"Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled" (Leviticus 18:24-27).

These instructions were to maintain the purity of God's holy people under the Old Covenant. They are not for NT believers.

I don't expect you to be fair and accurate in understanding the Bible because you are not open to biblical theology and understanding the OT by putting it in the same category as ISIS terrorists.
Posted by OzSpen, Monday, 25 February 2019 7:45:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Do you agree that God is right, and that witches should be executed? If so, why are you not carrying out God's direct instruction?'

I do agree that God is right and in a time when Israel was required to obey the law that witches deserved death. The new testament makes it clear that the wages of sin is death. Sorry Lego that includes you and me. Thankfully God showed great mercy through His Son to take our punishment for what we deserve. Again you can place yourself as god and decide the murder of unborn is fine or withcraft or incest is fine. I trust God's character of love, mercy, justice far above yours. Thankfully with God mercy triump over judgement. Pity not the same as the godless that butcher babies. Oh well that's the result of putried secular judgement.
Posted by runner, Monday, 25 February 2019 10:40:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What puzzles me about God is that he endowed us with the ability to do so much yet he expects us not to do much of what he made us capable of.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 26 February 2019 8:25:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
individual,

<<What puzzles me about God is that he endowed us with the ability to do so much yet he expects us not to do much of what he made us capable of.>>

Is that God's fault or ours?

He's the one who gave us gifts but they won't be used effectively unless we take action to use those gifts.

<<he expects us not to do much of what he made us capable of>>

How do you know that's his expectation and not that of human responsibility?
Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 26 February 2019 1:19:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To runner

Firstly, if you believe that God is right, and that witches should be executed, then you are tacitly admitting that people possessing supernatural powers, like witches and warlocks, really do exist.

People stopped believing that crap 400 years ago. And not only does God think that witches and warlocks exist, He did not put any time limit on His instruction that His followers should execute those people. Therefore, His punishment for this non existent crime must still stand. The Saudis think so, because they executed a so called "witch" only a few months ago. So I will ask you again. Why are you not obeying God's direct instruction and either killing "witches" ( or self declared "wiccans") yourself, or at least petitioning your elected representatives to have officials do the job on God's behalf?

Since you dodged the question last time, do you want me to answer it for you? It is because even though you never question God's judgement (because part of your brain's critical analyses circuit is in suspended animation) you know that expressing such an opinion would discredit your religion even more than advocating for the existence of a flat Earth, an Earth centred universe, or claiming that the universe was created in six days. So, you just let that one slide and hope that people don't remember it. Because it hardly puts a good light on the intelligence, the character, or the foresight, of your non existent God.

Secondly, you have also not addressed the rather embarrassing fact that because of His nonsensical instruction, God is directly culpable for the fact that for 1600 years, tens of thousands of mainly aged and innocent European women were executed on His instruction by his devotees for a crime which does not even exist.

Lastly, you have the audacity to claim that a God who instructed His followers to execute innocent people for non existent crimes such as "witchcraft" is a God of mercy and love. Only a person with an Absolutist personality with the capacity for serial cognitive dissonance could regard that as rational.
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 27 February 2019 4:16:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

<<if you believe that God is right, and that witches should be executed, then you are tacitly admitting that people possessing supernatural powers, like witches and warlocks, really do exist. People stopped believing that crap 400 years ago....>>

Sadly, you are out of date and out of touch in your knowledge of demonic manifestations through witchcraft. They are alive and well today in many countries around the world.

In some countries, 'witch trials, witch camps, sorcery and other weird and wonderful occult rituals are still central to many cultures. From Africa's witch doctors to voodoo in the West Indies and Romania's witch tax on the sorcerers who are cashing in'. See: http://www.thetalko.com/15-places-in-the-world-where-witchcraft-is-still-practiced/

See also: 'Why Belief in Witchcraft Can Do Harm' (Live Science, http://www.livescience.com/54726-belief-in-witchcraft-erodes-trust.html).

I suggest you become better informed of what the demonic can do through Wicca in Australia, Cameroon, Italy, Romania, Caribbean, Chile, etc.
Posted by OzSpen, Wednesday, 27 February 2019 9:51:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tom Ozpen

So, you do believe in witches, who are women with supernatural powers? How about warlocks, elves, goblins, leprechauns, fairies, and unicorns?

I would opine that the Churches hated "witches" because they were both in the same business of appealing to superstitious people, and the church wanted to kill them to get rid of the competition.

But as you well know, executing "witches" was just a convenient way of getting rid of elderly women and old widows, who were considered to be worthless mouths to feed. And of course, some of these women were wealthy widows, so accusing them of witch craft and killing them, then confiscating their property (which was divided up between the church and government officials) was just an official form of armed robbery with murder.

How many innocents died horribly because of your stupid God's idiotic instruction, nobody knows. But one thing is certain, if there really was a God of love and compassion, he would have done the burning bush thing to the Pope and told the SOB to stop it.
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 27 February 2019 2:31:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lego

'Why are you not obeying God's direct instruction and either killing "witches" ( or self declared "wiccans") yourself, or at least petitioning your elected representatives to have officials do the job on God's behalf?'

simply because I am not an Israelite living under the old covenant.

'Since you dodged the question last time, do you want me to answer it for you?'

I did? I mentioned that all sin leads to death. Adultery deserves death, fornication deserves death, lying deserves death, witchcraft deserves death, perversion deserves death. Thats the bad news. The good news is that Christ took our punishment for all those things. Pigs in a pig pen don't realise how disgusting they are. If God is God and truley holy and righteous then He decides whatn is right and wrong. His Word certainly contains much much more wisdom than what you or anyone else has written on olo.

'It is because even though you never question God's judgement (because part of your brain's critical analyses circuit is in suspended animation) you know that expressing such an opinion would discredit your religion even more than advocating for the existence of a flat Earth, an Earth centred universe, or claiming that the universe was created in six days. '

No because you either naively or dishonestly ignore the fact that Israel was given instructions on laws for their covevant while the new covenant ushered in Jesus Christ who was a fulfilment of all law. I am not a Jew on the old Jewish law. tbc
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 27 February 2019 3:47:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Also you say that my faith is descredited by believing God created the earth in 6 days. The fantasy of believeing something from nothing, denying laws require a Lawmaker and that creation demands a Creator is takes far more faith and much pseuso science to believe. I am still waiting for revision 8805 of the missing link and further changes to dishonest fraudulent science text books. Strangley the warmist religion now uses the same dishonest tacts on you as evolutionist have used on creationist. You might call it karma but it is a biblical principal that you reap what you sow. Science by no way disproves creation and in fact supports it far more than the fantasy of evolution which really is the mother of frauds.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 27 February 2019 3:48:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

<<How many innocents died horribly because of your stupid God's idiotic instruction, nobody knows.>>

There you go with another red herring that did not address what I wrote about witchcraft and its consequences that happen around the world.

Your blasphemy against God is noted.
Posted by OzSpen, Wednesday, 27 February 2019 6:05:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To LEGO.

You explained absolutist better. However I would actually argue that you remove absolutist as part of your reasoning. Let me explain.

For instance look at witches. The history of witches is full of accusations of being a witch, with the accusation holding more weight then much else. The difference between a witch and an absolutist, is that the weight of the label does not merit death for one, but to another just the accusation throughout history was was enough to be killed by.

This history is part of the equation for your question of why christians largely aren't killing witches. But it is also a reason for me to caution you against your own thought on absolutists. It's a term without much merit and can be an accusation without anything more to go on. Instead blinding someone against another AND killing them like the accusation of being a witch was like for some time; instead of that the term as I see you use it is still a blind to you against someone and dismiss them easily, because of their absolutist personality, absolutist thinking, or their absolutist anything else.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 28 February 2019 4:32:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

It gets to the level that can be just as argued for witches. What is a witch? What is an absolutist? Is a witch someone who believes in magic and that kind of thing, and tries to practice it almost as a religion or a belief like Wicca. Or is a witch someone who practices witchcraft (however that is done), makes a deal with the devil (an accusation I've heard was part of the history of witch accusations), or even that they were cursed with whatever made them a witch, it wasn't asked for or sought after (another philosophy I've heard that was during witch trial times).

Go further and you have witches and wizards in books and fiction, characters that people fall in love with and defend the idea of magic and witches because those are parts of the stories they love to read and hear. So the question gets farther away for what is a witch. The issue with witches was that the accusation was a powerful thing regardless if there was anything to it, or if there could be anything to it. The same is true of the accusation of an absolutist. And for this I caution you on the term because it can be easily fit to be a description for anyone, as well as an accusation to blind your eyes and deafen your ears from what they actually say or do. (That's how all accusations are actually, so be careful that when you accuse someone of one thing that the accusation has enough weight behind it that it actually is something).

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 28 February 2019 4:35:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

Now for an example. You gave me Draco as an example of an absolutist. For an example of the scope of an accusation, I give you 1 Kings 21:1-16. Read it, so that you understand the scope of what I am saying. In that chapter it tells of an evil king who wanted a plot of land that another man owned. However after he asked the man for the land and he refused the king was sullen and angry. His wife at that time came up with a way to kill the other man while making it look like it was the other man at fault. And she did it through making an unsupportable accusation. The rest of the chapter is good too, and tells of the consequence that God gave the king through a prophet. 1 Kings 1-16 though is a tale to both be a point against the kind of accusations and labels that are too common in any debate or discussion, as well as a point of reasoning from the bible not being as you consider it. As an unthinking absolutist kind of way.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 28 February 2019 4:37:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To LEGO

One last thought. One more thing to consider is why the focus on witches. Why not also hold the death penality for adultery as well? Because that also was part of the death penalty. For both people who were caught in the act. (Not just the woman, but both of them). That might be easier to see the ramifications of. Adultery has and does destroy families, and then continues on to destroy more. The death penalties of the
Old Testiment I think are worth looking at to consider what was evil enough for death in God's eyes for the laws of Israel. Witches aren't the only thing to count the death penalty by. However from my understands of history there were only witch trials, not adultery trials that lasted until the 1600s. This shows the issue of an absolutist not actually bring an absolutist. But instead picking and choosing. Highlighting one sin to prosecute while ignoring another that was likely much more common. No instead it's worth considering all of our sins, in the scope of Christian hope. That Jesus came to bring us back to God. And this is the hope. We all sin or all have sinned. But if we repent, and come back to God then we are saved. This would be true of both the witch and the adulterer as well.

There is much more to Christian thought then you've presented with it's comparison of absolutist thought.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 28 February 2019 4:52:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To NNS.

We were discussing intolerance, and I made the point that the most intolerant of all people were those who have absolutist mindsets, and who think entirely in absolutes. Because that is what an Absolutist is. They can only think in absolutes and no amount of reasoned logic or even confronting them with situations where their moral absolutes are completely pottty, can shift their opinion one iota.. What percentage of the population thinks this way, I do not know. I just know they exist. There are some people who think entirely this way, and there are probably many, many more who have been socially conditioned to think this way, at least upon some issues. When such people are not thinking in absolutes on these particular issues, they think quite normally. These people are de programmable.

I never meant to start a theological discussion, because some religious people, especially religious leaders, are very much card carrying absolutists. You simply can't reason with religious or political absolutists at all. You can only target their more normal followers by appealing to their reason.

Now, Ozspen challenged me, so I took one glaring example of Christian absolutism which is potty, the alleged existence of people with supernatural powers, and displayed how it is just silly to think in absolutes. God told his followers to kill witches, but witches do not exist. The whole idea is potty and it had extremely tragic consequences for the numerous innocent victims of this stupid thinking. Ozspen seems to imply that witches do exist, so I will leave that to the judgement of our readers to judge Ozspen's mental state.

Most Christian people today are not absolutists. They take the scenarios in the bible with a grain of salt, and they rationalise around the worst of the absolutes they disagree with. Because they are more concerned with conforming to the Christian ideals of tolerance, compassion, and a whole host of other very worthy Christian virtues, which has made western civilisation today the most advanced in the world.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 28 February 2019 11:28:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lego

you write
'Most Christian people today are not absolutists.'

personally I think you are simply playing with words. Maybe you listened to to many screwed up psychologist. In my 35 years as a Christian I have never met one person who believes the Scriptures direct followers of Jesus Christ to kill anyone. The Israelites under the laws of their land were told to kill people for certain acts of violence or other reasons (some of which you disagree with).

Many opponents of Christ and His teachings label believers fundamentalist. That is obviously one of the god deniers favourite demonisation terms. Of course one can't be a Christian unless they believe the fundamentals (death, burial, resurrection, sin, forgiveness etc). You seem to be using the same tactics.

Bascially you seem to think it is mindless or dumb to allow the Scriptures (or God) decide what is sin or what is right and wrong etc. The godless who have decided themselves what is right and wrong have a lot worse track record than those who have attempted to the best of their ability to follow Christ.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 28 February 2019 11:42:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Absolutists" are a personality type equating to fanatics. It can also equate to a lesser extent to fundamentalists, who are not so inclined to advocating absolute values as fanatics. I can't speak for other religions because I don't know much about them. But within the Christian religion today, the overwhelming majority of people are not fundamentalists or fanatics. That does not mean that Christians do not believe in what (to them) are absolute truths like The Resurrection or the belief in an afterlife. Even the belief in an absolute moral code does not automatically label you an Absolutist, unless you go around demanding that all witches and homosexuals should be arrested and executed, just because God instructed it.

The basis of the Christian faith are the pacifist teachings of a Jewish philosopher named Jacob bar Joseph, (also known as "Jesus Christ"). But the overwhelming majority of Christians reject pacifism, whatever their prophet instructed. That is because they are not Absolutists. Of course, there are those who say that any belief in an absolutist truth or an absolutist moral code automatically makes you an Absolutist. Such thinking is Absolutist in itself.

There are fundamentalist Christians, but they usually are somewhat selective in their adherence to their absolute beliefs. Mennonites take the pacific teachings of Jacob bar Joseph so seriously that they are completely pacifist. But they still don't put supposed "witches" or homosexuals to death, just because God told them to do it. So even fundamentalists can reject Absolutist, fanatical thinking in some respects.

Since I don't know any Christians, I can't really speak for what a modern Christian believes. But since I live in a largely Christian country, one does tend to get the feel of the place. Most Christians rationalise around those absolutist teachings or instructions which are almost universally considered wrong in modern society. They believe in evolution, simply rationalising as God's work. They don't believe that the universe was created in six days, they think that it is just a quaint legend. Nor do they believe that real witches exist, or that homosexuals should be executed
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 28 February 2019 3:07:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

<<We were discussing intolerance, and I made the point that the most intolerant of all people were those who have absolutist mindsets, and who think entirely in absolutes. Because that is what an Absolutist is.>>

Are you absolutely sure about that?
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 28 February 2019 3:33:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

<<Ozspen challenged me, so I took one glaring example of Christian absolutism which is potty, the alleged existence of people with supernatural powers, and displayed how it is just silly to think in absolutes. God told his followers to kill witches, but witches do not exist. The whole idea is potty and it had extremely tragic consequences for the numerous innocent victims of this stupid thinking. Ozspen seems to imply that witches do exist, so I will leave that to the judgement of our readers to judge Ozspen's mental state.>>

I provided you with evidence from around the world of Wicca in action, but instead of rationally discussing the evidence I provided, you engage in your absolutist thinking:

+ 'it is just silly to think in absolutes';

+ 'God told his followers to kill witches, but witches do not exist';

Then you dump Appeal to Ridicule fallacies on me:

* 'Ozspen challenged me, so I took one glaring example of Christian absolutism which is potty';

* 'God told his followers to kill witches, but witches do not exist. The whole idea is potty';

* 'this stupid thinking';

* 'I will leave that to the judgement of our readers to judge Ozspen's mental state'.

When you use logical fallacies, you engage in fallacious reasoning, as you've done here. Thus, you've smashed any hope we have of engage in a rational conversation.

It's not because of my mental state that provided evidence of witchcraft activity around the world, but your erroneous reasoning.
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 28 February 2019 3:48:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

<<"Absolutists" are a personality type equating to fanatics.>>

There you go with another of your absolutes. You make accusations against Christian absolutists but yours is a self-defeating tactic as you practise the very thing you accuse others of doing.

<<The basis of the Christian faith are the pacifist teachings of a Jewish philosopher named Jacob bar Joseph, (also known as "Jesus Christ").>>

This demonstrates your selective reading of the NT. One of the fundamentals of the Christian faith is not pacifist teaching but the death of Jesus for the sins of the world. See John 3:16, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A16&version=NLT

<<Mennonites take the pacific teachings of Jacob bar Joseph....>>
I know Mennonites and other Anabaptists but they have no such beliefs gained from 'pacific teachings'!

<<they (Mennonites) still don't put supposed "witches" or homosexuals to death, just because God told them to do it. So even fundamentalists can reject Absolutist, fanatical thinking in some respects.>>

Neither do today's Christians because we live under the New Covenant and not the Old Covenant for Israel as a nation. Your biblical understanding in this area is deficient. Why don't you read what the Qu'ran says to do to homosexuals today?

<<Since I don't know any Christians, I can't really speak for what a modern Christian believes>>

THERE WE HAVE IT. You're speaking from lack of knowledge of contemporary Christians and Christianity. No wonder you present these straw man fallacies about Christian theology on OLO.

<<Most Christians rationalise around those absolutist teachings or instructions which are almost universally considered wrong in modern society>>

Do Christians rationalise around it being right to murder, lie, steal, commit adultery, rape, engage in sexual fornication, dishonouring parents, taking God's name in vain, and idolatry??

<<They don't believe that the universe was created in six days, they think that it is just a quaint legend.>>

How would you know when you've stated in your post: <<Since I don't know any Christians, I can't really speak for what a modern Christian believes.>>

So where are your ideas about Christianity coming from? Out of your fertile imagination or from your antagonism towards God?
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 28 February 2019 4:21:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Strange how Lego is probably one of the most rational posters on olo. It just shows that when someone becomes a Christophobe they really do become irrational.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 28 February 2019 4:31:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, rubbish Ozspen. Your premise is, that simply naming anything is absolutist. Calling a vegetarian a vegetarian is not absolutist. "Absolutist" personalities are just another named personality classification like "introverted" or "extroverted."

I didn't bother tossing your laughable "logic" about witches back in your face because it is pointless. If you refuse to admit that any God who orders the genocide of men, women and children (even "their beasts of the field") is certainly not a God of love and compassion, then your critical analysis circuits are so out of whack that they are vestigial or non existent. You have implied that you do not even believe in evolution. 2019AD, and you still can't get your head around what is a universally accepted scientific fact. The debate around evolution was won more than 100 years ago and since that time almost everything we have learned in biology, microbiology, geology and paleontology has reinforced that fact. It is fair to assume that you are a fundamentalist, at the very least.

On the subject of what Christians rationalize around, they don't have to rationalize around most of the offences you named, because they are already considered offences today. As to graven images, you will have to ask the Catholics how they rationalize around that one. Although from memory, even the Prots are not averse to displaying images of what they think the man who was titled "Jesus Christ" looked like, in paintings and stained glass windows. If Christian clergymen were Absolutists like the Muslim mullahs are on that score, there would be no graven images in any church.

Lastly, you say that since I am not a Christian, then I can't comment on what modern Christian believe. That is like saying that since Runner, LEGO or Ozspen are not Muslims, they can't comment on what modern Muslims believe. Polls investigating Muslim opinions have revealed something like half of them are fundamentalists or fanatics. Since Christianity has evolved into a much more saner religion, I would opine that the proportion of fundamentalists and fanatics in Christianity is much smaller.

Present company excluded.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 28 February 2019 6:47:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'The debate around evolution was won more than 100 years ago and since that time almost everything we have learned in biology, microbiology, geology and paleontology has reinforced that fact. It is fair to assume that you are a fundamentalist, at the very least.'

absolute crpp. And the science is settled on gw eh Lego. Evolution has as many holes as man made gw. The science is not settled despite your flawed faith.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 28 February 2019 7:17:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You don't accept evolution either, Runner? Jesus Christ, no wonder the churches are empty, and you can't attract the young.

I have debated opponents before who simply refuse to acknowledge self evident facts, and who do everything they can to deny, deny, deny, and muddy the water. Such people are completely dishonest because they know that they are wrong, but to them, their ideology is far more important than plain truth.

I would not level that charge at you or Ozspen though. You and Ozspen are as honest as the day is long. It is just that you have this absolute faith in complete nonsense because you think that believing such nonsense will allow you to live forever. But regardless of whether difficult opponents are honest or dishonest, the best way to deal with either group is pretty standard.

You stop appealing to their ability to reason one on one, and instead, you pretend that you are in a hall full of impartial observers, and let the audience (or the readers) be the judge.

If you refuse to understand that a God who orders the genocide of an entire tribe of people, including children, babies, and even their "beasts of the field" is not a God of love at all, then a room full of impartial observers would laugh you off the stage. So too, Ozspen's implication that real witches do, or did, exist, would have them rolling in the aisles.

Ozspen's peculiar logic that it was OK for God to "order the Jews" to execute witches, therefore absolves the Christians of the blame for murdering tens of thousands of innocent Christian women for the next 1600 years, would not go over too well with an audience, either. Unless you can convince the audience that the holy instructions in the OT relate solely to Jews and not Christians. That would open a can or worms. Since God told the Jews that homosexuality was wrong, and (to the best of my knowledge) Jesus said diddly squat about homosexuals, then non Jewish homosexuality could be OK with God.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 1 March 2019 6:10:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

<<I would not level that charge at you or Ozspen though. You and Ozspen are as honest as the day is long. It is just that you have this absolute faith in complete nonsense because you think that believing such nonsense will allow you to live forever.>>

I have absolute faith in the absolute facts of the existence of God and Jesus' death, burial and resurrection to save all sinners who will seek God's forgiveness for their sins and repent. My faith has its foundation built on FACTS and not 'complete nonsense', no matter what your worldview causes you to believe.

<<Unless you can convince the audience that the holy instructions in the OT relate solely to Jews and not Christians. That would open a can or worms.>>

The Bible was written by men under God's inspiration over a 1,500 year time span. During this time, God dealt with His people in diverse ways. What the Bible says to the Israelites living under judges and kings is different from God's requirements for Christians under the NT.

To put to death homosexuals, children who curse parents, witches and adulterers were for a time in the history of Israel. Those arrangements have changed radically since Jesus Christ came into the world.

Let's check out the OT instructions of the death penalty for homosexuality. See Leviticus 20:13, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev+20%3A13&version=NLT.

What is the context? 'The LORD said to Moses, “Give the people of Israel these instructions, which apply both to native Israelites and to the foreigners living in Israel...."' (Lev 20:1). There is not a word that it applies to Christians. They didn't exist at that time.

Heb 9:12 demonstrate Christ's blood sacrifice on Golgotha demonstrated the end of the OT regime and what it had pointed to - Christ - who was God's 'final unrepeatable sacrifice for sins.... the wonder of Christ, who unleashed these massive changes in the world.'.

Massive changes included doing away with the death penalty for homosexuality, adultery, etc.

(continued)
Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 1 March 2019 8:18:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'You don't accept evolution either, Runner? Jesus Christ, no wonder the churches are empty, and you can't attract the young.'

you really are showing your ignorance Lego. I have met and fellowshipped with numerous believers from doctors to labourers who are at least smart enough to see that the great design of the universe demands a Designer. And no where, I go to church is far from empty. Those with faith in the evolution fantasy are accepting of blind faith. And by blaspheming the only One who can save you by no means strengthens your argument. The big bang and evolution are both fraudulent and pseudo science. You are obviously brainwashed.
Posted by runner, Friday, 1 March 2019 10:28:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Runner.

Oh, everything needs a designer, does it? Who designed God?
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 1 March 2019 12:31:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Og Lego back to kindie

'Oh, everything needs a designer, does it? Who designed God?'

He obviously would not be God if He needed a designer. It is called faith just like your faith in something from nothing, order fromn chaos and laws from no Lawmaker. Next thing you will be telling me is that your belief is based on science. pss!
Posted by runner, Friday, 1 March 2019 4:11:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuation)

LEGO,

<<Since God told the Jews that homosexuality was wrong, and (to the best of my knowledge) Jesus said diddly squat about homosexuals, then non Jewish homosexuality could be OK with God.>>

You don't know your Bible. Jesus didn't have to mention a word about homosexuality as he set the norm of a sexual relationship between two people: 'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one’ (Matt 19:5). Note: It doesn't say a man is joined with his homosexual partner.

What is the NT view of homosexuality? It is included among a number of sins that prevents a person from entering the kingdom of God. See: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor+6%3A9-11&version=NLT.

The topic of this thread is, ‘Intolerant Intolerance’. Are you open to acknowledging your intolerance towards Christians and Christianity?

I'm not too hopeful in seeing you as wanting to listen to the content of Scripture and interpret it in context, because of your anti-God presuppositions.
Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 1 March 2019 5:29:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If God does not need a designer, runner, why would the universe need a designer?

See how easy it is to make fools of people with Absolutist personalities? You live by slogans that you never even think about.

Let's have some more fun.

Q. What was God doing before he created everything?
A. He wasn't doing anything, because there was nothing to do.

Q. What was he thinking?
A. He wasn't thinking anything, because there was nothing to think about.

Q. What was he saying?
A. He (she, it?) was not saying anything, because there was nothing to say.

Then God gets an idea. He is going to create everything. So he flys? around outer space at presumably warp speed, whacking great big lumps of nothing together to create thousands of billions of galaxies, each with thousands of billions of stars. Including black holes, super massive black holes(1,000,000 solar mass), neutron stars, red giants, red dwarfs, trillions upon trillions of planets, gazillions of comets, squillions of meteorites, as well as dark matter. And all for the benefit of the inhabitants of one tiny blue speck of a planet, one of eight orbiting a very insignificant yellow dwarf star, which is one of 200,000,000,000 stars in this insignificant and unremarkable spiral galaxy, who for most of their history did not even know that the rest of the universe even existed.

That makes sense.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 1 March 2019 5:33:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

<<Strange how Lego is probably one of the most rational posters on olo. It just shows that when someone becomes a Christophobe they really do become irrational.>>

This person appears to be rational in postings, but there are irrational statements made: e.g.

+ 'Oh, rubbish Ozspen'. That's an ad hominem logical fallacy, involving erroneous reasoning.

+ 'I didn't bother tossing your laughable "logic" about witches back in your face because it is pointless.'. That's an Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacy, again.

+ 'If you refuse to admit that any God who orders the genocide of men, women and children (even "their beasts of the field") is certainly not a God of love and compassion, then your critical analysis circuits are so out of whack that they are vestigial or non existent'

Again, it's an Appeal to Ridicule fallacy, with the added problem of lack of knowledge of why God wanted to keep His people right before Him. Amos 3:2 stated, 'From among all the families on the earth, I have been intimate with you [people of Israel] alone. That is why I must punish you for all your sins'.

+ 'You don't accept evolution either, Runner? Jesus Christ, no wonder the churches are empty, and you can't attract the young'.

This is a plainly false statement. Churches are emptying because of liberal theology. Many youth are in churches around the world, including in Australia. See: http://thewest.com.au/news/wa/churches-booming-as-young-embrace-spiritual-survival-ng-ya-174436.

+ 'Ozspen's implication that real witches do, or did, exist, would have them rolling in the aisles'. This is not factual as one would soon find by going to the Congo, New Guinea, Romania or in Australia where there are people who seek redemption from witchcraft.

As of today, I will no longer interact with him if he uses logical fallacies against me. They use logically unsound arguments that are deceptive in their presentation of information.

I find it impossible to engage in reasonable conversation with anyone who spins off into illogical thinking of logical fallacies that do not address the issue at hand in a rational way. See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies
Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 1 March 2019 5:39:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

<<Oh, everything needs a designer, does it? Who designed God?>>

Everything created needs a creator. God was not created, so he doesn't need a Creator.

Or, if you don't like that example, let's start with you and me. We began when a male and a female got together sexually or via IVF. Those parents were a male and female who joined sexually. Then we go back infinitely and we still have to come to an Uncreated Being.

He is God and He describes His self-existence, not needing a Creator, as:

+ The Hebrew meaning of YHWH (Yahweh) is: 'I am' (Ex 3:14). God is the only One who can accurately describe Himself as 'I AM'. Jesus claimed the designation I AM for Himself in John 8:58.

'I am' is the self-existent God who did not have a beginning. He exists eternally (Psalm 90:2; Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 22:13).

'God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time' (Wayne Grudem 1994:168).
Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 1 March 2019 5:43:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lego
If God does not need a designer, runner, why would the universe need a designer?

So your alternative Lego? order from chaos, chance. Come on you are good at mocking but like all pseudo scientist expect people to keep a straight face and nod with the big bang fantasy. Hilarous how the warmist are now using same tactics as you. You would never do an honest study of evolutionary frauds and the number of times the text books have been changed with no apologies. No the science is settled eh Lego just like every warmist bigot says often explaining what the climate was 50000 years ago.

You ask

'What was God doing before he created everything?'

why on earth would he tell you. Are you arrogant enough to demand the Potter explain everything to the clay? Obviously you are but you are happy to accept the utterly ridiculous odds from the god of chance. You are happy to accept ridiculous lies when design and creation screams in your face everytime you open your eyes.
Posted by runner, Friday, 1 March 2019 9:18:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All I did, Mr runner, was once again point out your logical fallacy. If the universe needs a designer, then God needs a designer too. If God does not need a designer, then why should the universe?

Look, this is my last post because amusing as it has been, it is just tiresome trying to make people with absolutist personalities see the plain illogicality of their bizarre position.

If you want to pray to the sun, the sky, or a telegraph pole, because it somehow gives you some sort of consolation, and you think it will somehow make you live forever, then go right ahead. But I prefer to use science, reason,and logic.
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 2 March 2019 5:40:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'But I prefer to use science, reason,and logic.'
choose to remain delusional you mean Lego.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 2 March 2019 10:52:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To LEGO.

If you're still reading this there is one more thing I'd like to add. I googled "absolutist" to gather a better understanding from the psychological point of view. But in that search I did not find it as a personality type. Only as a description of those who would not let go of their view, regardless of the circumstances that come up. And in the articles they all seem to agree that "absolutist" is a bad thing and a bad and unhealthy trait. However, all that is really is is sticking to your guns, and not being persuaded, or changing. As far as I can tell that is the only real element that is true of the term "absolutist." The term is used as a means to make a stubborn point of view in a bad light, but there is no real criticism against it except that it is an unmoving philosophy.

With this in mind, I would counter the term absolutist to be a useless term that only has one purpose. To be an accusation towards those who refuse to change their position to the position of the person making the accusation. The term can therefore be used against anyone, even you for not seeing the errors of your view or confronting them when challenged. While talking with OzSpen and Runner, the term "absolutist" was only used as an accusation of their not changing their view. It held no grounds on finding the truth or even discussing what is true.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 3 March 2019 7:34:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

Therefore I maintain that the term is useless. An accusation of any kind should not be wishy washy that can be applied to anyone and holds no meaning or merit to it. Instead an accusation should be an active criticism. A thief is a person who steals, a lier is a person who lies. Both terms are fitted to those who do a certain action, and can be a criticism to those who partake in those actions. But an absolutist is anyone who stubbornly doesn't change. A wonderful quality when they stand by the truth, stand by doing things right, or by holding true to certain principles. In the work place safety should be a matter of absolutist standing. There should be no risk an employer puts their employees through that could kill them or maim them. Such a unyielding position is a good thing. Even though it is technically a absolutist position if it is challenged by too many other factors.

Put it another way. If OzSpen and Runner are absolutist in regards to their belief in God, or their trust in the bible, then I would count that as a good thing. If only more Christians could hold such a title, and be an accurate description.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 3 March 2019 7:35:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NNS,

<<I would counter the term absolutist to be a useless term that only has one purpose. To be an accusation towards those who refuse to change their position to the position of the person making the accusation. The term can therefore be used against anyone, even you for not seeing the errors of your view or confronting them when challenged.>>

You have stated the issue very well here. Those who oppose Christian absolutists with their anti-God, anti-Bible rhetoric are as absolutistic as the person who sticks rigidly by the morality of the 10 Commandments.

Many opponents of absolutists create their own absolutes in their opposition.
Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 3 March 2019 1:00:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To OzSpen

Thankyou.

If someone has a critism that holds merit, it's at least worth some consideration. Grew up in the shadow of Christian stereotypes held by non Christian friends. A list of do's and don'ts that became the stereotype for what a Christian is. (Later realized that most of the stereotypes are common behaviors for everyone, Christian and non-Christian, but given a spotlight on Christians). The critism of the common stereotypes and traits were worth enough consideration to strive to not fall into those behaviors.

With this in mind, it's worth considering a critism or a rebuke when given. Not to lose faith from it though.

That said, Absolutism is a worthless criticism. It holds no value to stand on and no merit to hold on to. It is just like your observation of being intolerant of intolerance. An act of hypocracy without even knowing it. Better to have a real critism to stand against, that people can turn from, then a wobbly accusation that can be applied to anyone.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 3 March 2019 4:11:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi NNS.

The psychology books that I read list it as a personality type. But psychology is in a state of evolution, and the term is probably out of date, although it can still be applicable. Newer psychology books list personality types in terms of specific traits which are denoted by capitol letters. These traits are strung together to form meaningless combinations of capitol letters which I personally find difficult to relate to. So, I prefer the old personality descriptions.

The term Absolutist names a particular personality who thinks almost entirely in absolutes. Something is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Ozspen seems to be a particularly good example of this personality. Anyone who thinks that the universe was created in 6 days, or that evolution is wrong, has something wrong with their critical analysis circuit. Although they may be quite intelligent in other ways.

The interesting thing about Absolutists, is that it does not matter what the religion, or the cause is, they all think exactly the same. There is no difference between the thinking of an ISIS executioner or a Inquisitor from 1580 Spain. They both have an absolute belief that their cause is absolutely just, and that anyone who disagrees or takes an opposing view is unspeakably evil.

Absolutists will take any religion of ideology to it's most extreme position, because they are unable to grasp reality in any other way. Many people are vegetarians, because they are animal lovers and quite creditably shrink from killing animals for food. Vegans are Absolutists who take this idea to it's absolute extreme. They refuse to even eat honey or dairy products as they regard it as "stealing from animals." They think that animals should have the same rights as humans and killing any animal is murder. That's Absolutism.

Now, I am a racist. I think that races and ethnicities are not equal, for the very good reason that each evolved separately in different environments and therefore have evolved characteristics which give each an advantage in their own environments.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 8:24:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued.

Nazi's went to the extreme and invented an extreme racist philosophy where blond, blue eyed people were the most evolutionary advanced, and therefore a master race. That's Absolutism. So called "anti racists" however are Absolutists who take anti racism to such an extreme that they are extremely racist towards white people. Some even say that it is impossible to be racist towards whites. Which just happens to be racism, itself. But they can not see it. They are Absolutists and literally unable to see their own racism. Because they are so convinced that racism is utterly evil, and that they are the opposite, and therefore paragons of virtue, that whatever they say about racists, can not apply to them.

Absolutists share another mindset. Not only do they see their cause as an absolute, they think that any moderate opponent must be taking the opposite extreme position than themselves. Therefore, Absolutists will always accuse their moderate opponents of opposite extremism. For example anyone who advocates a moderate form of eugenics, is to an absolutist, a Nazi.

Simply look at the behaviour of left wing students in universities shouting down speakers who submit ideas which they oppose. Hitler's brown shirts and Mussolini's black shirts did exactly the same thing in their universities. Same mindset, slightly different ideologies.

An interesting movie where Absolutists are the bad guys, is the recent movie Agora. This movie is based upon a true event, the murder of a beautiful and brilliant Greek female scientist in Alexandria, by Christians. It is an anti Christian movie, but the interesting thing in the movie is the behaviour of the violent Christian mob, which relates exactly to every violent fanatical extremist organisation that ever existed. From the extreme Greens, the loony left, the Communist Party Central Committee, The Khmer Rouge, or the KKK.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 8:24:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy