16 year old executed in Iran

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Interesting Mouse, I didn't thunk of it that way. I may have to re-look at my conversation with T.L. yesterday on this issue. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Thank you for that.

And, Mouse, a big kudos to you for attempting to bridge gaps in our individual understanding. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick, to get back to your points. I may call it "fundamentalist" but what is BY FAR more important is the definition I'm using (which I'm still working with, of course -- this is a New Project [TM] for me). Anyway, if your understanding of the definition of fundamentalism is different, fine -- and thanks for pointing out where you think differently.

But, whether I call it "fundamentalism" or not, the defined characteristics are the important part. We can call it Fundamentalism as Understood By American Researchers, or "FUBAR" for short. Or we can call it Fundamentalism as Defined by Three Sets of Characteristics, or "FDTSC." Or simply "Bob" -- but I think we've got a few of those already. The point is that I'm trying to look at a set of characteristics which, when combined, may lead to the Ef'd up situation of religious militant extremism.

Anyway, the point is please don't take offense at the word -- especially when you and I understand it differently.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Mouse: @Yorick - a small point you may like to ponder. I'm not sure whether you have interpreted the phrase "an elect or chosen membership" quite in context. I believe what the author of the piece was getting at was the belief of these "fundamentalists" that they are "elect" in the extreme Clavinist doctrinal sense of the word i.e predestined for salvation. "Chosen" in this context is synonymous and interchangeable. In short, it is an indicator of narrow, elitist and intolerant dogma.

Not at all. It's fundamental mainstream christian doctrine. Predestination and free will hold a delicate and intertwining balance in fundamental doctrine.

1 John 4:19
We love because he first loved us.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yorick, to get back to your points. I may call it "fundamentalist" but what is BY FAR more important is the definition I'm using (which I'm still working with, of course -- this is a New Project [TM] for me). Anyway, if your understanding of the definition of fundamentalism is different, fine -- and thanks for pointing out where you think differently. But, whether I call it "fundamentalism" or not, the defined characteristics are the important part. We can call it Fundamentalism as Understood By American Researchers, or "FUBAR" for short. Or we can call it Fundamentalism as Defined by Three Sets of Characteristics, or "FDTSC." Or simply "Bob" -- but I think we've got a few of those already. The point is that I'm trying to look at a set of characteristics which, when combined, may lead to the Ef'd up situation of religious militant extremism. Anyway, the point is please don't take offense at the word -- especially when you and I understand it differently.

I don't see that works. I could use my own definition of "American". It could mean Americans who are like Jerry Falwell. You however, consider yourself American, so it affects you.

I would, I think, hesitantly call myself fundamentalist in certain areas, liberal in others. I am certainly not a "liberal christian", definitely more fundamentalist.

But with people perpetuating the definition you are espousing, it puts people like myself into a wierd no-mans land, for we are nothing like what you're portraying, yet you're using our self definition, equating us with violent extremism.

Not the same thing.

Surely, if you're going to use a label about OTHERS it's important to understand what they themselves are?

I could use "English" to mean "British (English, Welsh, Scottish). It takes away the Celts self identity.

I could use "Yankee" to mean all Americans (as is common overseas) , lumping southerners in with those from NY.

Surely what people call themselves is important in finding what that word means?

[Yorick]

If you have a tome that you live by, and you stick strictly to a fundamental manner of living as per that tome, you are a fundamentalist.
If you are selective, if you lapse, if you merge the ideas of the tome with other ideas, you are more "liberal".

[Yorick]

Timber, can you check out this thread for me.....

http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...754;p=1#000014

[Felix The Assassin]

Hear Ye, Hear YE.

Guys, this topic reminds me of a UN counsel meeting.

With that said, you are now discussing the issues that I have known, and lived with since 1990. Add this entire topic into legal sense, then you can write the ROE!

In a nutshell, it has taken Timber, our IW resident lawyer to do research, it brings in folks like Yorick to speak of church. And it all rolls into what? What our government and mainly the military has to deal with on a daily basis.

This topic started with some heated, and hated responses. Honestly, it did not even cross my aim point to look. Why? Because I have seen this first person in action. Note: I have never been to Iran. But the area down there is one in the same. Stuff like this happened, and will continue to happen. It's part of their culture, and that is WHAT we don't fully understand.

I ask that you focus your attention, like other's and research the religon, the laws, and the culture. For there is where lies the true meaning, and the difference between us and them!

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Thank you for that. And, Mouse, a big kudos to you for attempting to bridge gaps in our individual understanding. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

No problem T.L. I don't know if you saw my last post I wasn't offended. [img]smile.gif[/img]
The elect/chosen/called out was probibly the biggest point pushing me into the Fundi. camp. I hadn't even thought of the Calvinist view of predestination in 25-30 years so it didn't cross my mind.

I'd say I'm more in the 1st camp Aerich presented. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-25-2004, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Aerich: One of them, a female journalist with long-standing Canadian citizenship, went to Iran to report on the status of women in the country. She was held for a month in a state prison "for questioning", and died in state custody. The state-run trial, held at the insistence of Canadian Foreign Affairs and the international community, was a crock. Nothing happened, and the Iranian government had the gall to suggest that her multiple severe head injuries (consistent with those caused by blunt instruments) were caused by an "accidental fall." Yeah, right.

I know, I'm pretty pissed off at the Iranian government right now.

[Aerich]

Originally posted by Luvian: quote: Originally posted by Aerich: One of them, a female journalist with long-standing Canadian citizenship, went to Iran to report on the status of women in the country. She was held for a month in a state prison "for questioning", and died in state custody. The state-run trial, held at the insistence of Canadian Foreign Affairs and the international community, was a crock. Nothing happened, and the Iranian government had the gall to suggest that her multiple severe head injuries (consistent with those caused by blunt instruments) were caused by an "accidental fall." Yeah, right.

I know, I'm pretty pissed off at the Iranian government right now. [/QUOTE]Likewise. I'd be more than happy to see it go down, but I'd prefer it to come from within the country.