How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Why We Should Use the Word "Jihad" Corre   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Why We Should Use the Word "Jihad" Correctly

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


25 posted 07-10-2013 11:48 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, Ess, I made that statement that there are those who say that but I didn't say I agreed with them....and I don't.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


26 posted 07-10-2013 11:58 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"I would argue that once we do believe in something faithfully and committedly, it is almost inevitable to contemplate on it and rationalize about it"

"We don't reason in order to see something with our eyes, but see something and then reason about it to try to develop better understanding. "

You have changed your definitions, Ess. You first speak of BELIEVING in something and then rationalizing about it and, in the second quote, speak of SEEING something and then reasoning about it. There is a world of difference between the two statements.

Yes, loving our parents from birth is instinctive. It has nothing to do with reasoning or believing and is not a worthwhile example of what we are discussing here.

I will repeat the same question you failed to answer....."My question would be..how do you truly believe in something by not reasoning about it first?"
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


27 posted 07-11-2013 02:03 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Balladeer

I guess we disagree, because I do find belief very much like a sense or an instinct or a natural behaviour/function of the body (eating, drinking, sleeping, walking etc) something that, at least initially and its rawest form, doesn't come from reasoning and isn't dependent on reasoning.

You don't need reason to believe, but you need belief to reason and belief to be accompanied by reason if you wish to experience it in a more meaningful way.

If you don't have belief in something, you won't be able to reason about it because you will lack all means to get to reason, which are provided by taking the initial steps of believing.


As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said:

"Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step".

That first step is the most important step because if you don't take it, you won't even make it to the second step, let alone the top.  


Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


28 posted 07-11-2013 02:41 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

quote:
However it is good to not be ignorant and call them what they are: terrorists.


I completely agree.  But that's why using words like "Jihadist" (for terrorist) and Jihad for "terrorism" I think is an injustice in three ways: it treats someone who engages in terrorism as someone who is legitimately waging a Jihad, it treats all Muslims as if they believe in terrorism because they all accept the concept of Jihad,  and does an injustice to those that are legitamately fighting a Jihad against military dictatorship/oppression in countries like Syria and now again in Egypt.
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


29 posted 07-11-2013 10:10 AM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

Ess,

I believe that 98% of people aren't using that to malign Islam. They See these terrorists using these acts as an expression of jihad (where the terrorist say that what they are doing is jihad and they are jihadists).

I guess what I was saying is like saying if an bipolar person is mentally ill, but a mentally ill person is not necessarily bipolar.

Calling them jihadists is not really incorrect, it is just really broad and doesn't give enough information.

I just don't like using any term but evil ones for what they do.  

Juju

  

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


30 posted 07-12-2013 06:13 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

" because I do find belief very much like a sense or an instinct or a natural behaviour/function of the body (eating, drinking, sleeping, walking etc) something that, at least initially and its rawest form, doesn't come from reasoning and isn't dependent on reasoning."

I doubt very much that believing in a certain God or religion is an instinct like eating, Ess. One doesn't "believe" in eating. One eats, because it is a natural function which the body tells it to do.

I find the comparison lacking.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


31 posted 07-19-2013 10:11 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

I think the original context of Jihad was more literal than metaphorical.  I have nothing against giving a word a more peaceful meaning however, taking a metaphorical shift ... It still comes down to actions.

In light of what you've said in the past Essorant about the nature of words (I'm recalling a discussion where the word 'omnipotent' to you meant to know a little about everything) ... can there be a Correct way to use a word?  


Long time no see!



Stephen

  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


32 posted 07-19-2013 10:17 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Brad:  
quote:
My only caveat is that religious doctrines are, by definition, unstable as they have no real reference point.  How do you convince someone of the rightness of a "good" interpretation?


I just reread this and came upon this.  Brad ... tsk tsk.  All the Deconstructionism you've talked about in the past, and you haven't learned that such a powerful philosophical solvent as relativism won't stop at religious language?  ;-)  You're also saying that "by definiton" (who's definition?) religion has no ontological reference (history, experience, evidentiality).  But that is simply ignoring that there can be, and are, different kinds of religions.  It's all too general.


Good to see you again (well kind of).  

Stephen
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


33 posted 07-20-2013 03:18 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

  


quote:
In light of what you've said in the past Essorant about the nature of words (I'm recalling a discussion where the word 'omnipotent' to you meant to know a little about everything) ... can there be a Correct way to use a word?  


Hi Stephanos,


I think when we are talking about something relative to a specific context (for example a religion) then the correct usage in the context (the religion) certainly applies.   When I spoke about omniscience, I was using the word without any context except general philosophical arguments and contemplations.  Since omniscience  literally means "knowing everything", then it can mean both "knowing everything (perfectly) or "knowing everything" (imperfectly), thereby making us in that sense (imperfectly) omniscient.    I feel a bit embarassed for arguing so vigorously about it at the time.  As you might guess, I don't use "omniscience" that way in most/normal contexts myself.  In that discussion I was speaking of it in philosophically stretched and generalized way, and it was in that way that it made sense.  And in that context, it still does to some extent.  In other contexts, certain things are specified according to certain criteria, ways of understanding , beliefs, etc. and therefore I wouldn't try to speak about it the same way in those different contexts.  

Anyway, it is good to see you at the forum again.  Where have you been hiding?        
 
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


34 posted 08-11-2013 10:48 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad


quote:
I just reread this and came upon this.  Brad ... tsk tsk.  All the Deconstructionism you've talked about in the past, and you haven't learned that such a powerful philosophical solvent as relativism won't stop at religious language?  ;-)  You're also saying that "by definiton" (who's definition?) religion has no ontological reference (history, experience, evidentiality).  But that is simply ignoring that there can be, and are, different kinds of religions.  It's all too general.


Stephan,

It's good to hear your voice (does that make sense?).  But, um, deconstruction is about being rational, more rational than everyday life should be (quotidian).  You say I'm being to general, but I'm not. I have a copy of the Koran.  I have a copy of the Bible.  I have read the Bible.  Seriously.  I have skimmed the Koran -- not enough, I assure you.

What's left?

Why is any of this important?

Well, to me, it's important because I don't want to kill you, I don't want to kill Ess, I don't want to kill people who disagree with me.

And from that point we begin.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


35 posted 08-26-2013 09:57 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Brad, yes you are being general, or more accurately, dismissive.  When you say that all religion (by definition) has no ontological reference, and you've read the Bible, you are denying the validity of the references ... not defining religion or its boundaries.  If you'd like to make the case that the Bible expresses a complete fideism, then you would need to do so from the text itself, not with sweeping dismissive statements.  If the Bible does not in fact present us with absolute fideism, then surely religion cannot be said (in all cases) to have no ontological references.  

At the end of the day, we simply disagree, and both have to live with our commitments.  

And I'm glad you don't want to kill me.  I certainly extend the same passivity to you, with maybe even a little praise to boot.  :-)

Stephen  
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Why We Should Use the Word "Jihad" Corre   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors