No subscription or hidden extras
Read through the most famous quotes by topic #the
وضمن هذا السعي إلي الإمساك بالدولة, فإن دعاة الإسلام السياسي لا يختلفون- من جهتهم- عن غيرهم من الذين عملوا, من جهة أخري, تحت رايات الأيديولوجيات التحديثية( الليبرالية والقومية والاشتراكية وغيرها). وأعني من حيث إنهم جميعا يراوحون تحت مظلة ذات الأطروحة التي لا تري للتغيير سبيلا إلا بتسكين الجوانب التقنية الإجرائية من الحداثة فوق ذات البنيات التقليدية المتوارثة للوعي التي تحتفظ للجمهور بوداعته وهدوئه وطاعته. وفقط فإن الاختلاف بينهما يأتي من نوع المفردات التي يستخدمها كل فريق في سعيه إلي الهيمنة علي المجال العام. إذ فيما ظل دعاة الأيديولوجيات الحداثوية يستخدمون المفردات المتداولة في إطار الأيديولوجيات التي يبشرون بها( من قبيل الحرية والديمقراطية والدستور والاشتراكية والطبقة العاملة والقومية وغيرها); والتي لم يقدروا علي السيطرة بها علي المجال العام لعدم امتلاك الجمهور- المقصود التأثير عليه بها- للتراث المعرفي والتاريخي الذي تقف عليه هذه المفردات, فإن دعاة الإسلام السياسي يستخدمون مفردات تنتمي للرأسمال الرمزي الديني للجمهور للسيطرة علي المجال العام( من قبيل الشريعة والحكم بما أنزل الله وتطبيق الحدود وغيرها); وبما سيجعل من دولة الإسلام السياسي, الدولة التنين فعلا ↗
Christianity rejects tolerance and demands choice, wherein lies its greatest flaw - one of a multitude of contradictions found throughout the Bible and the historical doctrine of the Church. ↗
For Dawkins, atheism is a necessary consequence of evolution. He has argued that the religious impulse is simply an evolutionary mistake, a ‘misfiring of something useful’, it is a kind if virus, parasitic on cognitive systems naturally selected because they had enabled a species to survive. Dawkins is an extreme exponent of the scientific naturalism, originally formulated by d’Holbach, that has now become a major worldview among intellectuals. More moderate versions of this “scientism” have been articulated by Carl Sagan, Steven Weinberg, and Daniel Dennett, who have all claimed that one has to choose between science and faith. For Dennett, theology has been rendered superfluous, because biology can provide a better explanation of why people are religious. But for Dawkins, like the other “new atheists” – Sam Harris, the young American philosopher and student of neuroscience, and Christopher Hitchens, critic and journalist – religion is the cause of the problems of our world; it is the source of absolute evil and “poisons everything.” They see themselves in the vanguard of a scientific/rational movement that will eventually expunge the idea of God from human consciousness. But other atheists and scientists are wary of this approach. The American zoologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) followed Monod in his discussion of the implications of evolution. Everything in the natural world could indeed be explained by natural selection, but Gould insisted that science was not competent to decide whether God did or did not exist, because it could only work with natural explanations. Gould had no religious axe to grind; he described himself as an atheistically inclined agnostic, but pointed out that Darwin himself had denied he was an atheist and that other eminent Darwinians - Asa Gray, Charles D. Walcott, G. G. Simpson, and Theodosius Dobzhansky - had been either practicing Christians or agnostics. Atheism did not, therefore, seem to be a necessary consequence of accepting evolutionary theory, and Darwinians who held forth dogmatically on the subject were stepping beyond the limitations that were proper to science. ↗
Christianity grasped perfectly that there is an element in the apparent contingency of love that can’t be reduced to that contingency. But it immediately raised it to the level of transcendence, and that is the root of the problem. This universal element I too recognize in love as immanent. But Christianity has somehow managed to elevate it and refocus it onto a transcendent power. It’s an ideal that was already partly present in Plato, through the idea of the Good. It is a brilliant first manipulation of the power of love and one we must now bring back to earth. I mean we must demonstrate that love really does have universal power, but that it is simply the opportunity we are given to enjoy a positive, creative, affirmative experience of difference. The Other, no doubt, but without the “Almighty-Other”, without the “Great Other” of transcendence. ↗
#difference #god #identity #love #otherness
It is when we stop believing that religions have been handed down from above or else that they are entirely daft that matters become more interesting. ↗
There is only one salvation for you: take yourself up, and make yourself responsible for all the sins of men. For indeed it is so, my friend, and the moment you make yourself sincerely responsible for everything and everyone, you will see at once that it is really so, that it is you who are guilty on behalf of all and for all. Whereas by shifting your own laziness and powerlessness onto others, you will end by sharing in Satan's pride and murmuring against God. The Brothers Karamazov Book VI - The Russian Monk, Chapter 3 - Conversations and Exhortations of Father Zosima. ↗
We should consider that the brightness of the Divine countenance, which even an apostle declares to be inaccessible, (1Ti 6: 16) is a kind of labyrinth — a labyrinth to us inextricable, if the Word do not serve us as a thread to guide our path; and that it is better to limp in the way, than run with the greatest swiftness out of it. ↗
