Da Vinci Code analogous to Satanic Verses

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
That would be factually incorrect, since many Nazis were mild-mannered office workers who preferred to let technology do the dirty work. Inhuman, yes, but not especially violent.

I take it you're comparing Mein Kampf to the Koran, and are about to produce a cut and paste proving that Islam is a violent religion. Don't forget to point out how classic ...[text shortened]... Arabic can be interpreted in various ways, depending on the context. And check your sources...

Why then are you defending a religion which by your own admission (profound knowledge of classical Arabic essential) you don't understand?

Originally posted by dottewell
So did Rocky. I hope you're not comparing him with Hitler.

It was aardvark who brought up Hitler, actually so the Ad Hitlerum is not whodey's fault.

Originally posted by Halitose
Why then are you defending a religion which by your own admission (profound knowledge of classical Arabic essential) you don't understand?

To make my position quite clear: I don't defend the religion, I point out that those who attack it do so from a position of ignorance and are therefore unqualified to make any such attack. I dare say that Hitler was not particularly qualified to attack Judaism, especially from a theological viewpoint, but that didn't stop him from working up the rhetoric to drag the feeble-minded with him. Do you understand?

Originally posted by Palynka
It was aardvark who brought up Hitler, actually so the Ad Hitlerum is not whodey's fault.

Actually Whodey did say that Hitler and Mohammed had something in common, and that would have consequences for the actions of their followers. Except what they had in common is an almost ubiquitous view that violence is sometimes necessary to achieve goals (e.g. the goal of self-defence).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
To make my position quite clear: I don't defend the religion, I point out that those who attack it do so from a position of ignorance and are therefore unqualified to make any such attack. I dare say that Hitler was not particularly qualified to attack Judaism, especially from a theological viewpoint, but that didn't stop him from working up the rhetoric to drag the feeble-minded with him. Do you understand?

It is not necesary to be a scholar to be critical of a religion. Especially since there is not one religion that I know of where the bulk of its followers can be called experts in it.

When religion then is transposed to politics, having real and concrete effects then everyone is allowed not only to attack it, but also to state, backed up by facts, what type of interpretations can be done of the religious dogmas.

Take all the diverse forms of christianity, for a clear example. There is not unique qualified interpretation of the bible, since there are scholars, priests and religious leaders who all take their own version of the meaning of it.

This is to say, that ultimately the "correct" interpretation is a mirage that cannot be attacked, since all disagreement can be twisted time and time again. Therefore, one must stick to the general views of religion and not to the scholarly ones since the former are the ones that have real effects on society.

Originally posted by Palynka
Especially since there is not one religion that I know of where the bulk of its followers can be called experts in it.

The vast majority of those who use a cell phone cannot be called "experts" in how a cell phone works. By the same logic...

Originally posted by dottewell
Actually Whodey did say that Hitler and Mohammed had something in common, and that would have consequences for the actions of their followers. Except what they had in common is an almost ubiquitous view that violence is sometimes necessary to achieve goals (e.g. the goal of self-defence).

That is quite an overgeneralization. Which other goals beside self-defence are commonly accepted as justifications for violence?

Does that goal apply to the case in question? I think not. Aardvark made the ridiculous hitler parallel and whodey first refuted it by the absurd and then said that actually there was something in common, but that didn't contradict what he was saying.

I think both you and BdN are a bit too eager to jump on him as a racist/xenophobe. I find it strange from what I read in this thread, is there a history of it with this guy?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The vast majority of those who use a cell phone cannot be called "experts" in how a cell phone works. By the same logic...

By the same logic...what? What are the real political effects of the majority not being cell phone experts?

Originally posted by Palynka
That is quite an overgeneralization. Which other goals beside self-defence are commonly accepted as justifications for violence?

Does that goal apply to the case in question? I think not. Aardvark made the ridiculous hitler parallel and whodey first refuted it by the absurd and then said that actually there was something in common, but that didn't contrad ...[text shortened]... obe. I find it strange from what I read in this thread, is there a history of it with this guy?

Thanks. It is nice to have some support around here for a change. I am in no way a racist. After all, I am a follower of Christ who was Jewish and a decendent of Abraham. Likewise, most Middle Eastern Arabs are also decendants of Abraham. That is why it makes me sick to see brother killing brother over there. Forget how Muhammad might think about such violence, think about what Abraham would think while watching his offsrping kill each other off.

As far as being prejudice against the Islamic religion, I would like to say that their religion has a few similairities to my own which is Christianity. Other than Judism, Islam has the most in common with Christianity in fact. An example are the five pillars of Islam. What sickens me is the violence done in the name of God. It gives the almighty a bad wrap when evil is commited in his name. I knew I would take a lot of heat for tackling this issue, but it is one that has been eating at me for a long time and I suspect many of you as well.

Originally posted by Palynka
That is quite an overgeneralization.

Exactly. If someone believes e.g. Hitler and Mohammed share a view of violence which is somehow less general, they should post the evidence. And it should be contextualised; there are plently of quotes in the Bible which could be made to suggest that OT God was fond of a bit of fairly random violence in pursuit of fairly dubious ends.

Originally posted by Palynka
By the same logic...what? What are the real political effects of the majority not being cell phone experts?

Whether there are real political effects of the majority not being cell phone experts or not is irrelevant - we are looking at the form of your argument.

By the same logic, you don't need to be an expert (engineer, scientist, technician etc.) to criticise the technical* deficiencies of a particular model of cell phones (or mobile phones in general). Especially if the majority of cell phone users are not experts.

But that would clearly be absurd. Therefore, your reasoning is flawed.

EDIT:* That is the appropriate analogue for your comment, "then everyone is allowed ... to state, backed up by facts, what type of interpretations can be done of the religious dogmas".

Originally posted by dottewell
Exactly. If someone believes e.g. Hitler and Mohammed share a view of violence which is somehow less general, they should post the evidence. And it should be contextualised; there are plently of quotes in the Bible which could be made to suggest that OT God was fond of a bit of fairly random violence in pursuit of fairly dubious ends.

If someone believes e.g. Hitler and Mohammed share a view of violence which is somehow less general, they should post the evidence.
Again, the burden of evidence falls on aardvark, not the one that refuted it. It is an ad hitlerum from the start and whodey spin it in his favour (but still an ad hitlerum). I agree that also this comparision makes no sense, but I didn't see you demanding such evidence from aardvarkhome. I think the fact that it wasn't whodey that brought it up (only defended himself from it) for me means that his arguments don't need such a point. I think this is an important point.

Are are plently of quotes in the Bible which could be made to suggest that OT God was fond of a bit of fairly random violence in pursuit of fairly dubious ends.
I wholeheartedly agree, why not contradict whodey with such a reasoning and not by continuing falling under the Hitlerian fly-trap that leads nowhere?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Whether there are real political effects of the majority not being cell phone experts or not is irrelevant - we are looking at the form of your argument.

By the same logic, you don't need to be an expert (engineer, scientist, technician etc.) to criticise the technical* deficiencies of a particular model of cell phones (or mobile phones in general ...[text shortened]... state, backed up by facts, what type of interpretations can be done of the religious dogmas".

That's quite a far-fetched strawman.

My argument needed political effects. They are the "facts" in your quote. You can't abstract from them and then make a parallel. It's ridiculous.

Why not point out the possible flaws with arguments instead of comparing religion to cell phones? Be constructive.

Originally posted by Palynka
When religion then is transposed to politics, having real and concrete effects then everyone is allowed not only to attack it, but also to state, backed up by facts, what type of interpretations can be done of the religious dogmas.

Take all the diverse forms of christianity, for a clear example. There is not unique qualified interpretation of the bible, s ...[text shortened]... and not to the scholarly ones since the former are the ones that have real effects on society.

When religion then is transposed to politics, having real and concrete effects then everyone is allowed not only to attack it, but also to state, backed up by facts, what type of interpretations can be done of the religious dogmas.

Why should they? When the Industrial Revolution first came about, the introduction of industrial machinery no doubt had social, political and economical consequences. Does that mean everyone is allowed to state the technical conditions under which machinery can and cannot be used?

Clearly not.

Yes, people have a say in the socio-political and economic effects that religion (and the Industrial Revolution) have on them - but that does not give them the technical competence to get into theology (or engineering).

This is to say, that ultimately the "correct" interpretation is a mirage that cannot be attacked, since all disagreement can be twisted time and time again.

This is just a more erudite restatement of twitehead's "it's all opinion" argument in another thread. As I pointed out there - it isn't simply a matter of opinion. Given certain basic hermeneutic and theological principles (which most Christians share anyway), the vast majority of dissenting opinions can be shown to be in error.

Originally posted by Palynka
That's quite a far-fetched strawman.

My argument needed political effects. They are the "facts" in your quote. You can't abstract from them and then make a parallel. It's ridiculous.

Why not point out the possible flaws with arguments instead of comparing religion to cell phones? Be constructive.

I am being (or trying to be) constructive - I'm demonstrating the flaws in your reasoning. Presumably you'll take the criticism in your stride and revise your argument (I don't expect you to change your final position yet).

That's quite a far-fetched strawman.

Actually, no. It cuts right to the heart of your argument that people with no competence in theology should be allowed to dictate theological matters. You wouldn't argue the same about virtually any other academic discipline I can think of - why would you argue that about theology?

My argument needed political effects. They are the "facts" in your quote. You can't abstract from them and then make a parallel. It's ridiculous.

As I said earlier, it is one thing to criticise the socio-political and economic effects of a religion (or more accurately, the adherents of that religion) and quite another to criticise the theology of that religion. Everyone, of course, has a say in the first. But you're arguing that everyone should have a say in the second as well - I'm arguing that's ridiculous.