Apologetic Tactics
Here is a prime example of when you can employ your tactics. For those of you who are in my Sunday morning class or if you have been in the teens Sunday evening session with me for the past couple of weeks, this will be good practice. Dan Shewmaker emailed me a link to a message forum. The topic of discussion was a new version of the eBible software - an online, electronic Bible.
Here is just one person's comment regarding the Bible in general:
For those of you who don't know what the Suicide Tactic is, I'll do a post just on that topic a little later.
Shawn
Here is just one person's comment regarding the Bible in general:
Well flag, I certainly agree there seems the anti-Christian thing seems to be common among the geek/hacker "oh-look-at-me-I'm-a-rebel" types, but I can't agree with your statement on Islam being responsible for murder.Okay - here is the challenge if you choose to accept it - let me know 1. what false assumptions are being made and 2. use the Suicide Tactic to find a major flaw in his comment. Actually, there are a couple, but one stands out like a major sore thumb.
The true ideals of Islam do not support murder. Those who take life are responsible for taking life, blaming it on their religion is simply an excuse for discrimination. In all reality, radical Islam's current state slightly mirror's a certain other religion's crusade many centuries ago, albeit the methods are considered less tasteful. But blame the people themselves, don't generalize them into what's actually a peaceful religion.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing the Koran get this kind of Web 2.0 makeover. Many people, myself included, do not completely understand the religion's true belief's and I think it would be good if we could have some searchable insight into it.
For those of you who don't know what the Suicide Tactic is, I'll do a post just on that topic a little later.
Shawn
posted by Shawn White | 9/11/2006 11:53:00 AM
5 Comments:
Since I've missed a couple of Sunday classes (sorry!) I don't know the suicide tactic, but this statement screams "I'm blindly following something I know nothing about".
"Many people, myself included, do not completely understand the religion's true belief's and I think it would be good if we could have some searchable insight into it."
Would the author continue to be an Islamic supporter if they knew the basic fundamentals of the religion is hatred of Jews and Christians to the point of murder? I fear there are many more sympathizers than we know with no idea of the real teaching of Islam.
Interesting post for 9/11 as many people are thinking about "Islamic Extremists" today.
Elizabeth - You know, I'm actually reflecting on what I wrote and I think I miss-posted. The Sunday morning class has not yet gotten to the "Suicide" tactic yet - we are still working through the "Columbo" tactics...My bad.
The teens, however, had a huge dose of the "Suicide" last night as I tossed statement after statement at them and then had them tell my why the statements were self-refuting. They got the majority of them, but there were a few that were pretty difficult.
You, without having yet been taught the tactic did a good job at pointing out the obvious statement. Just to complete the thought, in his second paragraph he says, "The true ideals of Islam do not support murder." Then later, in his final paragraph, he states, "Many people, myself included, do not completely understand the religion's true belief's..." Well, if he doesn't understand them, then how is he able to say that murder is not a true ideal of Islam?
This is not a pure "Suicide" tactic, but rather a form of it called "Sibling Rivalry" where you have two thoughts that are in conflict with one another.
Good job on finding that one though. The stuff in class might be a breeze for you guys.
Shawn
By the way - I didn't even think about today being 9/11 and the post being related to that in any way. Must have been some psychological slip.
Shawn
I read this post a little differently...maybe I'm missing the point. While this person may have some gaps in their argument, it seems to me this person is reacting to other's who also have gaps.
What I am picking up on is the statement "Those who take life are responsible for taking life, blaming it on their religion is simply an excuse for discrimination."
I would have to agree that when people jump to the conclusion that a professed [fill in the blank (religion, political affiliation, gender, etc)] individual means that all others that profess that same belief are therefore collectively responsible for the individuals actions is narrow-minded and misses the point of individual accountability.
The abortion clinic bombings of a few years back are a reminder...while I do not agree/support abortion (like the bombers), to hold me somehow responsible seems irrational.
This is called attribution error where you attribute the behavior or characteristics from one to others in that same category (gender, age, etc.).
Another example is what was reported earlier this year where the minister's wife (Christian) killed her husband. Does this mean all minister's wives or all Christian wives are murderers?
Again, maybe I am missing something....
Hi Stephen. You're not missing the point. There are several things wrong with this particular comment, I was only going after a couple of obvious blunders. You actually picked up on the second one - although I think I characterize it a little differently (only because I've never heard or attribution error).
The particular line that you picked up was going to be the second point that I hoped someone would notice. I was going to focus on it and then compare it to what follows - he commented, "Those who take like are responsible for taking life, blaming it on their religion is simply an excuse for discrimination ."
Then he says immediately afterwards, "In all reality, radical Islam's current state slightly mirror's a certain other religion's crusade many centuries ago, albeit the methods are considered less tasteful. But blame the people themselves, don't generalize them into what's actually a peaceful religion."
He is essentially saying that it is wrong for people to take some Islamists actions and stereotype an entire religion - but then he does the exact same thing when he says, "In all reality, radical Islam's current state slightly mirror's a certain other religion's crusade many centuries ago..." - What is that? That's a generalization as well. So what he condemns, he does - kind of sounds like Romans 2:1.
Basically he takes issue with what he perceives as a mis-characterization of a particular group and says that you can't do that, then turns right around in the very next statement, and mischaracterizes another group. He doesn't hold his judging up to a consistent standard. And then obviously, towards the end of his comment, he admits that he doesn't really know what their true belief's are. I'm guessing if he doesn't know what Islam's true belief's are, then it's possible that he doesn't know what Christianities true belief's are either.
Now, that is an assumption on my part, and I wouldn't really know that until I asked some questions. However, I assume that based on his mischaracterization of Christianity. He doesn't know that one ought not judge a philosophy by its abuse. If he knew anything about true Islam, the core of it is hate, not love. And if he knew anything about true Christianity, the core of it is love, not hate. For a follower of either religion to practice other than what is at its core is to fail at being what that religion has called you to be, and to misrepresent what your faith really is. It is an abuse of the philosophy then.
Shawn
Post a Comment
<< Home