Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bull_derrick who wrote (22326)	11/11/2004 7:12:05 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 23153

>> How do you define predominant? Main Entry: pre·dom·i·nant Pronunciation: -n&nt Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French, from Medieval Latin praedominant-, praedominans, present participle of praedominari to predominate, from Latin prae- + dominari to rule, govern -- more at DOMINATE 1 : having superior strength, influence, or authority : PREVAILING 2 : being most frequent or common >> Was Mother Theresa predominant? She most certainly was. The first definition applies to her. There is no need for word plays here. >> People who are predominant in a political sense... Did I make politics a qualification for predominance? You are answering a point I did not make. Let me ask you a few questions. Are Popes and Cardinals good representatives of predominant Christians? Were the members of the council of Nicene predominant Christians? Certainly they were in the first meaning of the word and I have much to say about them...none of which is good. Now let's move to the second meaning of the word. Were the early Bostonian settlers predominantly devout Christians? The were devout enough to be willing to leave their homeland rather than give in to religious persecution. But apparently they were not "Christian" enough not to persecute hang other Christians for their beliefs! So the question is, what is the value of a religion that cannot instill humanity in most of its predominat members in both meanings of the word? >> If your mind is already made up on this account, then I shouldn't trouble you or this board. You will find that given well reasoned arguments, I am quite willing to reflect upon them and change my opinions if convinced by them. I have only 3 little rules: (1) it should be a polite conversation (2) arguments should be logical (i.e. internally consistent and cannot assume premises that are debatable or use circular reasoning) and (3) if you expect me to change my beliefs based on your logic, then you should agree to change your beliefs based on my logic if I can bring superior logic. I think I am being quite objective in this. >> I'd suggest you read Matthew Chapter 7 verses 13-29 in the Bible and see what Jesus said about this subject How is that relevant to the discussion of why many people reject Christianity due to the past and present behaviors of many Christians? As I said, people do not judge a belief system on its theoretical merits; they look at concrete effects. Now if somehow there is a body of Christianity that wants to disassociate itself from the evil-doer-Christians, then I'll be happy to discuss issues with that particular sect. But I am not willing to accept that only the good people are representative of Christianity (or other religions for that matter) and the bad ones are just "fake" Christians. >> I can't see how you could evaluate Christianity except by evaluation of Jesus himself. Then allow me to explain. I don't care how Jesus himself lived or what he may or may not have said. That is immaterial to the here and now. I evaluate Christianity based on the effect it has on its predominant members. Christianity is whatever the majority of Christians practice. For the purposes of this discussion, I am excluding "accidental" Christians. That is the very non-practicing ones. But I cannot exclude the Church goers or those who'd identify themselves as Christians. Sun Tzu PS I have actually done a fair amount of research into historical development of Christianity. The research is presented in discussions on a different thread. If you are interested, I can direct you there.