Mixed weights & measures

[bartdanr]

Greetings, Eagle Pup

Nope.
I mean what I mean.
muslim cleric. preaches his own brand of islam.

Should i believe YOU, Barnasha, or Sadr himself....

Following are excerpts from an interview with Muqtada Al-Sadr, Leader of the Al-Mahdi Army in Iraq, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on March 29, 2008. [...]
It is the duty of the Al-Sadr movement and the Iraqi people to strive to gradually liberate Iraq. The liberation of Iraq does not mean only bearing arms. There is also cultural liberation, social liberation, military liberation, and so on. The assault against Islam is not only military. It is both cultural and military, and it requires, at any given period, diversification of the resistance. But the liberation of Iraq remains a national duty, and a primary goal of the Al-Sadr movement.
[...]
Interviewer: Do you consider acts of resistance to be legitimate when directed against these forces, which you call "occupying forces"?
Muqtada Al-Sadr: No one can deny [the right] to conduct resistance. No human mind would deny it. Resistance is the legitimate right of all peoples. Resistance automatically appears wherever there is occupation. Allah willing, the U.S. will be vanquished, just like it was in Vietnam.
Interviewer: Do you support any armed resistance against these forces, which you label "occupiers"?
Muqtada Al-Sadr: This is the reasonable right...
Interviewer: Do you support it? Do you support armed resistance against the forces you call "occupiers"?
Muqtada Al-Sadr: Against the occupiers – yes, but not against others.
Interviewer: Since you claim that Iraq is now occupied, and that the occupiers are the Americans, do you support conducting acts of armed resistance, in order to liberate Iraq from the occupying American forces, as you call them?
Muqtada Al-Sadr: On condition that these acts do not harm the Iraqi people.
Interviewer: I will get to that. We will talk later about your general political position. Do you openly support these acts?
Muqtada Al-Sadr: Yes, I do.
Interviewer: What do you mean when you say "on condition that they do not harm the Iraqi people"?
Muqtada Al-Sadr: For example, that the battles should not be waged within the city. This is just one example of how to avoid harming the Iraqi people. The targets should be hit accurately, so that others will not be harmed. The people who conduct resistance know these things better than me.
[...]
This will be the army of the Reformer [the Mahdi], Allah willing. At the end of time, the Mahdi will appear, and if by that time, we are still around, and if we are capable mentally, physically, militarily, and in terms of faith, we will all be his soldiers, Allah willing. Hence, the Al-Mahdi Army is a matter of faith, and it cannot be disbanded.

Actually, a lot of this sounds pretty reasonable--the right of resistance. I can't fault Sadr for claiming that. However, even if his rhetoric is high-sounding, his actions betray that he really doesn't believe that...he's just a thug and a bully.

[Cow Poke]

Greetings, Eagle Pup



Actually, a lot of this sounds pretty reasonable--the right of resistance. I can't fault Sadr for claiming that. However, even if his rhetoric is high-sounding, his actions betray that he really doesn't believe that...he's just a thug and a bully.

Agreed
and he came, apparently, from a long line of "religious" men, and he sees the "cleric" role as a way to get what he wants.
Like most bullies, he's also an opportunist.

And, yes, if somebody "invaded" my country, I'm a pretty good organizer - i'd have an army in no time, i guarantee you!

[bartdanr]

Howdy Howdy,

I was actually gonna SAY that... but.. um... I've never really watched Al-Jazeerah so I held my tongue... but.. the "craziest of the crazy" muslims are on Fox News, NOT Al-Jazeerah? You have to remember (I have to remember) that this comes from the same fella who was defending Sadr as ... well... i won't re-open that can of worms.

I would not dispute that there's a bias on Fox News, but I don' think it's NEARLY as blatant as those other 3 and 5 letter names you mentioned. So, yeah... i agree.

BBC is interesting, with thier news "presenters" as opposed to anchors or commentators

I'd encourage you to either view Al-Jazeerah on TV or visit their website. It's not nearly as fanatical as you'd expect. Yes, they're bias, but at least it makes you think. (I sometimes listen to Rush, for example...no disputing he's biased and I disagree with a lot of what he says; still, he makes you think.)

I have Fox News on in my office - usually the sound is down - but because i'm "facilities" for a whole bunch of offices, after 9-11, we felt obligated to stay tuned a little better to what's going on in the world, and.. .um... SOMEBODY had to have cable TV in thier office ... so ... I took the bullet for the company!!!!

You're a true hero!

We had a problem at my work where everyone was streaming video and audio and it was slowing down the internet for real work...we killed that. I rarely stream video or audio as a result, unless it's directly work-related (and I did it for Reagan's funeral as well...some things are way too important to miss.)

[Cow Poke]

Howdy Howdy

I'd encourage you to either view Al-Jazeerah on TV or visit their website. It's not nearly as fanatical as you'd expect. Yes, they're bias, but at least it makes you think. (I sometimes listen to Rush, for example...no disputing he's biased and I disagree with a lot of what he says; still, he makes you think.)

I'll have to check that out. And Rush... i just keep in mind that he's an entertainer first, and everything else is subordinate to that... but i occasionally listen. Glen Beck - i watch him just because its fun to see a grown man cry and, as you may have suspected, I just like poking Barny occasionally.

You're a true hero!

Yup... somebody has to do it!

We had a problem at my work where everyone was streaming video and audio and it was slowing down the internet for real work...we killed that. I rarely stream video or audio as a result, unless it's directly work-related (and I did it for Reagan's funeral as well...some things are way too important to miss.)

Yes, in our office, we had a number of people streaming Christian radio, and a lot of "Rush" and "talk radio" streamers... wasn't so bad when we were "10 or 12 people", but our company has grown on an average of 42% per year over the past 11 years... we're having to implement all kinds of "you can't do that anymore" stuff.. like bandwidth restrictions - no streaming video or audio, etc.

[bartdanr]

Bump to resurrect...IT'S ALIVE!!!!!

[Cow Poke]

Bump to resurrect...IT'S ALIVE!!!!!

It certainly is

[bartdanr]

Hi Folks,

Here's a link that I think is relevant to the discussion. Any takers for discussion?

http://www.mysteriousfaith.com/2005/...s-this-of-god/

[mastralvarado]

Hi Folks,

Here's a link that I think is relevant to the discussion. Any takers for discussion?

http://www.mysteriousfaith.com/2005/...s-this-of-god/

Are you saying it's not OK for God (i.e. Allah) to be a relativist utilitarian?

[barnasha]

how can the ineffable abstract idea be an anything-ian. something has to exist to have a position.

[bartdanr]

Are you saying it's not OK for God (i.e. Allah) to be a relativist utilitarian?

Hi mastralvaraodo,

I think if the words "goodness" and "justice" mean anything, and if God is said to be "good" and "just" (a theme qutie often repeated in both the Bible and Quran), then I find it inconsistent for him to do things which are not "good" and "just".

Of course, you could re-interpret "goodness" and "justice" into something else, but then the terms become pretty meaningless.

And interesting enough, I find this problem a lot more common in the Bible than Quran--I don't find commands for genocide in the Quran, but I do find them in the Bible. The Bible specifically says that certain groups (such as Canaanites and Amalekites) must be utterly destroyed, including babies and children--Quran does not state that. (Of course, they both have the probably with hell, but in an odd way I am less troubled by that then by an alleged divine command to kill babies.)

[bartdanr]

Hi barnasha,

how can the ineffable abstract idea be an anything-ian. something has to exist to have a position.

You still need to clarify why you arbitrarially choose to use the word "exist" to only refer to the creation, not the Creator.

[barnasha]

Hi barnasha,



You still need to clarify why you arbitrarially choose to use the word "exist" to only refer to the creation, not the Creator.

Not arbitrary. Creation is that which exists. The creator is not it's creation.

Very good question

[bartdanr]

Hi barnasha,

Not arbitrary. Creation is that which exists. The creator is not it's creation.

Very good question

According to the dictionary...

ex⋅ist  /ɪgˈzɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ig-zist] Show IPA
Use exist in a Sentence
–verb (used without object) 1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2. to have life or animation; live.
3. to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...or...

ex·ist (ĭg-zĭst')
intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists

To have actual being; be real.
To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: "Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category" (Thomas G. Exter).

Does any standard definition exclude the Creator from the realm of "existance"? Is "created" vs. "creator" mentioned in any definition?

Thus, I think your usage is arbitrary.

[barnasha]

Does any standard definition exclude the Creator from the realm of "existance"? Is "created" vs. "creator" mentioned in any definition?

Thus, I think your usage is arbitrary.

I choose words to convey my ideas. There isn't anything "arbitrary" about that!

If something creates something else, how can the created be the creator?

That's like saying "does any standard definition of the term 'wet' exclude the wetness from water'?

Granted, "existence" is a very vague term, and so I am very willing to qualify exactly how I use it, which to my knowledge is as precise as possible without being too specific.

I try to use language "as simple as possible, but not simpler".

Could you suggest a (perhaps hypothetical) scenario in which something that was created contained that which created it? In other words, how does it make any logical sense that something "created" could "include" its creator. It seems paradoxical.

We are not talking about definitions here but rather clarifying our use of the terms, to me created is something that is created and a creator is an actor element which creates it. I am not getting any more specific than that, until such as time as we clarify what we're talking about.

[bartdanr]

Hi barnasha,

I choose words to convey my ideas. There isn't anything "arbitrary" about that!

You can choose your words, but you can't choose their meanings.

If something creates something else, how can the created be the creator?

I never claimed the created was the creator. Read what I wrote, carefully.

That's like saying "does any standard definition of the term 'wet' exclude the wetness from water'?

Silly analogy. Wetness is universally understood as an attribute of water, whereas "existence" is universally acknowledged as an aspect of real beings. Only a very small number of theologians might arbitrarily re-define "existence" as only applying to the creation, and not the creator.

Granted, "existence" is a very vague term, and so I am very willing to qualify exactly how I use it, which to my knowledge is as precise as possible without being too specific.

I don't find it particularly vague; I find it useful.

I try to use language "as simple as possible, but not simpler".

That's fine; but don't make English into silly putty. The word and concept of "existence" is widely used as an aspect of the created as well as the Creator (even when the "existence" of the Creator is denied, as in positive atheism). I find no purpose in limiting its usage to just the created.

Could you suggest a (perhaps hypothetical) scenario in which something that was created contained that which created it?

Since I'm not making that argument, why should I?

In other words, how does it make any logical sense that something "created" could "include" its creator. It seems paradoxical.

Indeed.

We are not talking about definitions here but rather clarifying our use of the terms, to me created is something that is created and a creator is an actor element which creates it. I am not getting any more specific than that, until such as time as we clarify what we're talking about.

I agree that something created is made by a creator. I fail to see why that means that the creator, therefore, does not "exist"--unless you limit the meaning of the term "existence" to apply only to the created--which I fail to see as a useful or necessesary limitation.