...I just thought of in another video discussing the conflict among liberals on the subject of Islam. One the one hand, liberals dislike prejudice and restrictions on individual liberty. On the other hand, Islam is viewed by many liberals as oppressive, violent, homophobic and sexist.
This is a really heated issue that divides liberals into camps where one calls the other "racists" (???) and "bigots" while the other retorts "fools" and "naive enablers".
This rule might help to simplify and clarify such a divisive issue for the left. See what you think of it:
New Rule for Evaluating a Religion's Teachings:
For any religion, show me your radicals and I'll show you what your religion teaches.
By definition, the "radicals" are the ones who don't see religion as a way of life but life as a way of religion. They hang on every word of their scripture or other canonical teachings and attempt to strictly follow every rule admonished. Their religion becomes central to their identity and what they stand for.
By definition, the "moderates" are the ones who water down their religion with modernity and personal conscience. They view their scriptures as, at best, spiritual guides to be interpreted with a sense of metaphor. A more abstract interpretation allows religion to be custom designed to suit the individual person rather than the other way around.
For any religion, the radicals represent the very flowering of the core theology, the purest outcome of its instructions. The moderates represent only what happens when said religion is blended with other forces and ideas, mixed in with impurities alien to the faith.
Chemically speaking, radicals represent the core element while moderates are the compounds.
Can anyone come up with any counter-examples that would disprove my hypothesis?
This is a really heated issue that divides liberals into camps where one calls the other "racists" (???) and "bigots" while the other retorts "fools" and "naive enablers".
This rule might help to simplify and clarify such a divisive issue for the left. See what you think of it:
New Rule for Evaluating a Religion's Teachings:
For any religion, show me your radicals and I'll show you what your religion teaches.
By definition, the "radicals" are the ones who don't see religion as a way of life but life as a way of religion. They hang on every word of their scripture or other canonical teachings and attempt to strictly follow every rule admonished. Their religion becomes central to their identity and what they stand for.
By definition, the "moderates" are the ones who water down their religion with modernity and personal conscience. They view their scriptures as, at best, spiritual guides to be interpreted with a sense of metaphor. A more abstract interpretation allows religion to be custom designed to suit the individual person rather than the other way around.
For any religion, the radicals represent the very flowering of the core theology, the purest outcome of its instructions. The moderates represent only what happens when said religion is blended with other forces and ideas, mixed in with impurities alien to the faith.
Chemically speaking, radicals represent the core element while moderates are the compounds.
Can anyone come up with any counter-examples that would disprove my hypothesis?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
