issuevoter wrote on May 28
th, 2018 at 8:57pm:
Frank, thank you for answering my question so thoroughly, it seemed like you were getting a bit cranky for a while.
Just quickly, religious tolerance, "a pillar of the Enlightenment,"was forced on the Church, it was not through inherent Christian benevolence.
I am not likely to accept or reject another person's well considered interpretation of “enlightenment,” when it is offered as a theory, unless they can prove it. A problem I find with the concept, as espoused by the religions, is that they can be boiled down to a matter of dogma. The enlightened follow our beliefs only - essential to Islam.
The first paragraph, in red font, is interesting in the idea of using one's own understanding. It appeals to my sense of equality in philosphical matters and the perception of reality. I don't know who wrote it, but many free-thinkers would see a flaw in the first two words. Its only an opinion.
I've seen this kind of adamant statement a number of times on the forum recently. One was from Red Baron who insisted he knew about God. It is not his place to lecture us here, on his beliefs as if they were fact. He and others do not seem to give a damn how arrogant and conceited their statements are. For one thing, its not polite. I meet, and intend to meet in the future, any such statements as arrogantly as they are proclaimed.
In our society, dealings with the religion of Islam are governed by law, and at present the preponderance of public opinion supports equality between the religions. I may question the prudence or judgement of this, but nonetheless, that is how Islam is accepted or rejected by the Western nations.
You wrote: “Enlightenment is possible in christianity only. It is impossible in Islam.” And I asked you for an explanation. The problem is twofold. There is no universal defintion of enlightenment, there is only theory.
Your statement gives the impression of Christian conviction, and consequently, it hands ammunition to Muzlims and anyone who wants to shield them from philosophical and moral scrutiny, because it is dogma. They can simply say, “And therefore Christianity is as dogmatic as Islam.” And this relativism is one of their most effective levers of public opinion.
You may be happy preaching to the converted, but it is a very clumsy way of addressing the Muzlim problem, and is ulikely to convince anyone else.
There is no universal definition of Enlightenment because it is not a universal but a uniquely Western concept.
There is no shedding of the 7th century immaturity and dogmatic nonage in Islam. Islam has no sense of growing up, of growing out of its stupid nonage. It has no possibility of Enlughtenment because it is not a dialogue, never has been and never will be, between man and god. It is stuck in the 7th century demand of Submission with nowhere else to go or to grow. That's why its been lashing out murderously. It cannot change and murdering is the only argument it has ever known. Tolerance would be its death. A Submission that admits non-submission, tolerance, variety, interpretation, questioning in no Submission.
Enlightenment would be the death of Islam, thats why it is resisted so violently.
Forum
Pages: 
Gandalf caught without options. (Read 27527 times)
