Donnadogsoth

But not if Hell indeed awaits.

Hmm. I suppose you're right. In that sense then Islam must be a terrorist religion. This conclusion sets up a cognitive dissonance in me as a Christian, because Christianity contains terror threats and therefore should also be considered a terrorist religion.

The universe is vulnerable to reason. Therefore, in a sense of the word rational it can be called rational. You call it "consistent" which is to say that the inanimate objects obey rational principles, i.e., principles apprehensible by reason, so they behave as if they think; e.g., the principle of least action. As a Leibnizian I would agree that they do, but that's besides the point, which is that you're unnecessarily difficult.

How is dying for the sake of mankind irrational, beard?

What just war in Iraq?

Calling the universe consistent is tantamount to calling it rational. If it is consistent and is governed by principles, then it is vulnerable to rationality as if it itself were designed for that purpose. Not every principle may be immediately discoverable, but they are all there to be discovered. Denying this would be denying the power of reason by presuming the universe not vulnerable to rationality. Yes, we do have the capacity for error, but if the universes is not consistent, as you say, or vulnerable to reason, as I say, not principled, in other words, then human capacities are meaningless. I'm not sure what we're contending here. We seem to be saying the same thing in different words. Man is “made in the image of God” in the sense that God is a rational god, who made the universe according to principle, as embodying principle. Man possesses the unique capacity to discover these principles, as of gravity, light, nuclear physics, metallurgy, and the like, and also including principles of general universal organisation like the principle of least action, and also principles of art such as perspective, proportion, irony, and the like. This capacity sets him above all other known species of life forms, making him sacred, in a sense, by virtue of his ability to continue creation, by discovering, transmitting, and assimilating into his economic and social practice these principles, the success of which is measurable by the increase in his potential relative population density—in essence, how many people could be kept alive, not how many are. That is a measure of mankind's power over nature, power to exist, power to survive, and it is a measurement that he is uniquely able to increase through his powers of reason. That, in short, is what it means to be made in the image of God.

What you describe concords with what I know of the Church. You may call it evil, but you cannot call it terrorism. The Church is not demolishing priceless works of art, or enslaving people, or committing rape, or murdering people, or otherwise committing acts of terrorism like we see Moslems committing in Paris, Mali, and tens of thousands of other places we have either never heard of or have forgotten. The Just War is a just doctrine, so while any death may be in some sense regrettable, the deaths of the unrighteous resulting from a just war or from actions of justified self-defense remain a good thing. Or do you not plan on defending your daughter from a rapist?

You're now stating that the universe might not be rational, which is a paranoid thought. And people accuse me of irrationality for adhering to the Triune God. No, for you to assume your mind is rational enough to reliably note the consistency of the world, is the same as assuming the universe which you believe contains your mind is itself rational. But, on to your charge against me. First, it is patent that Christendom did give rise to the things I said that it did. The role of the nation-states within it form a complicated story, and I'm hardly the one to discount their contributions. Charlemagne, Louis XI, and the Founding Fathers all contributed on behalf of their respective nation-states, or quasi-nation-states, but the thing to realise is that they did so in the context of the Christian narrative. Without that narrative, there might have been an Imperial China, or a Zulu empire, but there would never have been Christendom, and popularised human rights, democracy, and, outside of Judaism, the supreme concept that is the secret of our success, that humans are made in the mental image of the Creator. Second, it is reliably reported, and I have no reason to believe untrue, that the society known in shorthand as the West is undergoing a phase of destruction, of its economies, most notably its manufacturing sector and its infrastructure, and of the mental capacities of its citizens which are required to successfully reproduce that society both mentally and physically. That few are even more than subconsciously aware of this process is part of the problem. And when it comes to warfare, the good men and women of the respective militaries are occasionally subject to being duped, used in a global game of geopolitical destabilisation. In these senses, related to the first point and post referenced, the country and its military do appear committed to self-destruction, or the destruction of the West, as through incompetence or designed incompetence, specifically traceable to the removal of the key principle of Western success already mentioned, the principle of man being made in the image of God. If the above is correct, and I believe it is, then I have no moral choice but to be a patriot of this civilisation, which has created me, sustained me, and given me opportunities to help advance its great mission. Since this belief is based on principle, to remove it one will needs successfully rip out all conception of principle from my mind.

Christianity has the doctrine of the Just War, courtesy of St. Augustine. There is no intrinsic incompatibility between being a Christian and killing in time of war, or even in time of peace as in the case of self-defense. http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine

The writings of Lyndon Larouche, specifically his book Science of Christian Economy, which I can supply for you in PDF format if you wish. For that book, the specific passages from Appendix XIII, part III, What We Mean by the Superiority of Christian Civilization, is what I encourage to be read in answer to your question.

Intuition supplies the base of reason. We intuit that the world makes sense, and proceed on that intuition to use our reason. We must assume the world is rational before we put any stock in rationality. I can admire the achievements of my fellow-men, and put a circle around those men who collectively formed the civilisation I was born into, and call my collective admiration and devotion to that civilisation, patriotic love.

Alright I take it back. Christianity recovered, expanded, enriched, and popularised democracy and human rights like no one else, besides being in the tradition of Judaism that acknowledged man is made in the image of God. "Islam" here is shorthand for "waves of barbarians come to wreck our culture, drown our gene pool, impose alien laws, and kill, maim, and terrorise our people." Since these things associate with the "abstract concept" called "Islam," I refer to it as Islam.

And do they fight for Christ or for country? The country itself appears committed to self-destruction, which begs the question of why its military exists at all and what all those 70% are doing about it.

I'm not going to get in to an apology of the Church in this thread, but merely note that it is not Catholics committing acts of terrorism like the Moslems do, nor does Catholic doctrine encourage it.

Well, thank you. Sharia does appear calculated to terrorise. And the Moslem bullies that infest European cities are certainly low-grade terrorists. But if you're an unbeliever you don't believe in the threat so that's a non-starter, except for a few fence-sitters vulnerable to the Adhan siren.

Indeed I do, neeeel. Modern "Christian" America is not acting as a Christian country but just as a country. Its national character is coloured by Christianity but no longer in any meaningful sense controlled by it. Look up "Neoconservatives" if you wish to refer to the policy makers of the "Christian" America of George W. Bush. The Christendom of the Crusades, on the other hand, was acting as a confederation of Christian countries. And beyond this, Islam doesn't need countries to do its black work. Terrorist networks may be financed by Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, but they aren't controlled by them. Neither are the hordes of Moslem immigrants controlled by Islamic countries, but they will have their way with the supine and unprotesting West all the same. "Patriot" implies one has fallen, rightly or wrongly, in love with the monad in question. Are all the love-struck, bigots? Bigot implies unreasoning and hateful adherence to a monad. It is a common slander. Yet, not all bigots are patriots, and not all patriots are bigots. What word is there for he who has through reason and intuition achieved patriotism? I submit "admirer." As Stefan puts it, love is the involuntary response to virtue.

Well, that's something, but did it go anywhere? Did it influence Western civilisation the way Genesis of the Jews did, or the way the republic of Solon did? I have a patriotic view of Christianity, and I take it on good counsel that Christian civilisation is superior scientifically, artistically, and morally, by virtue of its elaboration of the implications of Genesis 1:26. Nothing shall move me from this because nothing shall dethrone man from his place in Creation without annihilating the latter outright as consequence, such as by a sustained thermonuclear exchange. Thanks, AccuTron. You're welcome.

I have no idea. Thousands, tens of thousands? Any thoughts? EDIT: A -1 for asking a blooming question?

No, dsayers, Christian civilisation invented the Internet. Christianity is uniquely aligned with the way the universe is and how man is to exist within it and therefore is uniquely fruitful. That man fails and falters--often as a result of being deliberately misled by evil men--including those who try to equalise the religions and say that Islam is no more dangerous than anything else, in hysterical defiance of 1,400 years of history to the contrary--is unfortunate. A truly Christian country would fight only in self-defense, and not aggression. Why shouldn't Christian countries defend themselves from Islam and other aggressors? Athenian democracy was halfway between modern democracy and aristocracy. But I'll concede your point since it is where modern democracy got the notion--with the caveat that it took Christian civilisation to universalise the franchise.. What rights did the Cyrus Cylinder grant? Also, other than Christiandom and its predecessor Israel, what other civilisations were founded on the concept of man being made in the image of God?

Strangely, it was only Christianity who produced human rights, democracy, and, even if you discount those two things as undesireable, anarcho-capitalism. Or was there an anarcho-capitalist movement in Byzantium, or Africa, or Medieval China? That Christian countries fought each other means that countries fight. Have we discovered countries that don't fight? That Christians fought abroad in the Crusades was a very good thing, beating back the Islamic hordes who had previously conquered Christian Middle East, Turkey, and North Africa and who long salivated over the prospect of dining on Europe proper. These Christian countries may not have been as Christian as possible, and that's a problem, but the simple fact they fought does not impugn Christianity, which maintains the concept of the just war, which is a just concept. They're Christians but they are not good Christians, because they have not developed their God-given minds sufficiently to see through the lies of the politicians. People can be made stupid by endlessly chanting the same hymns and praying more than they ought and thinking that suffices, or even worse, by relying on the hymn-singing and prayers of others as an excuse to think nothing and do nothing themselves. But the failures here are the failures of men and not the failures of Christianity.

Roman Catholicism is dispatching suicide bombers to France?

And were they supporting him because Christianity says bomb the Iraqis, or because they were told lies that the Iraqis were planning on bombing them? If Islam does not encourage violence, then why aren't all religions equally violent?

It probably wouldn't even deter the true believers. https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=taqiyya

A Neocon puppet. America is not a theocracy.

I think all Muslims should be required to swear an oath on the Koran, Allah and the Prophet that they renounce both violent Jihad and Sharia and denounce all who do not.