Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 26, 2014, 12:32:13 pm
Ask questions about whichever one you want or all at once but be specific.
Follow forum guidelines
Don't insult each other or someone's religion
Do not insult a group
I will monitor this the best I can, PM me if anything really bad happens while I'm not watching
Please be the mature community I know you can be
Post by: ggamer on October 26, 2014, 12:38:00 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 26, 2014, 12:50:04 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 26, 2014, 12:52:19 pm
did the christianity thread get locked, or are we broadening our horizons?
I wanted to add other religions to it but people didn't like that so I opened this one up
Post by: ggamer on October 26, 2014, 12:58:20 pm
Post by: Sheb on October 26, 2014, 01:08:52 pm
Post by: burningpet on October 26, 2014, 02:24:00 pm
Post by: miljan on October 26, 2014, 03:05:54 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on October 26, 2014, 03:15:14 pm
What is Abrahamic religions, and why is it called like that?
Abrahamic religions claim to trace their origin back to Abram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham). One of the reasons this is a big deal is that, in the mythos, Abram had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, and Judaism and Islam make separate claims about which one was nearly sacrificed (and which one the ethnic group of each religion are descended from). That's one of many reasons there's always been tension between Israel and Palestine.
Post by: Leatra on October 26, 2014, 04:50:22 pm
Post by: Neonivek on October 26, 2014, 04:53:03 pm
Why and when did Muslims and Christians fought each other? Considering the fact they both believe in the same god. This one always bugged me.
Because the Muslims had a lot of wealth and the Christians wanted it. In fact you wouldn't think it now, but the middle east used to have an almost endless golden age.
In spite of what you hear in the rhetoric that religion is the cause of all war... It usually is just an excuse for much more simple reasons.
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 26, 2014, 05:21:40 pm
I definitely wouldn't call them "the same god", though.
Post by: Sheb on October 26, 2014, 05:25:50 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 26, 2014, 05:42:14 pm
But still even that was done for other political reasons.
Post by: andrea on October 26, 2014, 05:51:53 pm
I definitely wouldn't call them "the same god", though.
except, it definitely is the same god. Both faiths( 3 with judaism) worship the god of Abraham. The way they worship it in different ways and disagree strongly on prophets and messages. But they are all about the same entity.
Post by: Leatra on October 26, 2014, 06:07:39 pm
Why and when did Muslims and Christians fought each other? Considering the fact they both believe in the same god. This one always bugged me.
Because the Muslims had a lot of wealth and the Christians wanted it. In fact you wouldn't think it now, but the middle east used to have an almost endless golden age.
In spite of what you hear in the rhetoric that religion is the cause of all war... It usually is just an excuse for much more simple reasons.
Oh, I knew it was an excuse. I was just curious about what started the aggression between common people.
I definitely wouldn't call them "the same god", though.
except, it definitely is the same god. Both faiths( 3 with judaism) worship the god of Abraham. The way they worship it in different ways and disagree strongly on prophets and messages. But they are all about the same entity.
Yeah. When you look at Europe and Middle East nowadays and in Medieval times, it definitely doesn't seem like the same God. Some of the things the trio disagrees on can be incredibly trivial when looked at from a very outside perspective.
Post by: freeformschooler on October 26, 2014, 06:25:41 pm
Post by: burningpet on October 26, 2014, 06:44:13 pm
Why and when did Muslims and Christians fought each other? Considering the fact they both believe in the same god. This one always bugged me.
Its because muhammad preached and ordered muslims to not trust jews and christians, that they don't think straight and that allah will punish those who are allied with them wicked beings who walk in error. he then moved on to call us apes and swines (although, some think the apes and swines curses are only for the jews, but in the context, i think it describing christians as well) all while preaching to form a jihad against non-believers (which he defined christians and jews as non-believers) and ordered to conquer and subdue them and burn in flame all those who disbelieve in allah and his messenger.
This is all written in the Quran, so not even the muslims can deny this. its a fact. the "Endless golden age" and "Crusades were only for stealing the muslims riches" however, are historic opinions which are still being debated by historians.
Post by: 4maskwolf on October 26, 2014, 07:04:10 pm
Religion in general seems to be the rallying cry for many wars that are mostly economic in nature. Economics is something that only the trained understand, but you can rally the masses behind religion with ridiculous ease. It has been seen again and again: those who are hardline about their religion will do anything to defend it. This applies beyond the abrahamic traditions to any religion that's existed more than about 200-300 years.Why and when did Muslims and Christians fought each other? Considering the fact they both believe in the same god. This one always bugged me.
Because the Muslims had a lot of wealth and the Christians wanted it. In fact you wouldn't think it now, but the middle east used to have an almost endless golden age.
In spite of what you hear in the rhetoric that religion is the cause of all war... It usually is just an excuse for much more simple reasons.
Post by: Frumple on October 26, 2014, 07:05:48 pm
As any even remotely learned follower of an abrahamic religion will tell you, which parts do and do not get followed, to what extent, and under what interpretations and contexts, vary radically with time, culture, and so on.
Post by: 4maskwolf on October 26, 2014, 07:06:35 pm
What?Why and when did Muslims and Christians fought each other? Considering the fact they both believe in the same god. This one always bugged me.
Its because muhammad preached and ordered muslims to not trust jews and christians, that they don't think straight and that allah will punish those who are allied with them wicked beings who walk in error. he then moved on to call us apes and swines (although, some think the apes and swines curses are only for the jews, but in the context, i think it describing christians as well) all while preaching to form a jihad against non-believers (which he defined christians and jews as non-believers) and ordered to conquer and subdue them and burn in flame all those who disbelieve in allah and his messenger.
This is all written in the Quran, so not even the muslims can deny this. its a fact. the "Endless golden age" and "Crusades were only for stealing the muslims riches" however, are historic opinions which are still being debated by historians.
That entire first paragraph is actually highly untrue.
I don't have time to point out all of the fallacies in it right now, but rest assured that I will be back (if someone doesn't beat me to it).
... yeah, I really don't actually care enough to go digging through the qur'an and muslim theology and whatnot to offer a position on the subject that isn't "slavering israeli islamophobe". So I'll just kind of idly remind anyone looking at just about anything BP has and/or will say on the subject of islam that the vast majority of muslim individuals -- and, indeed, countries -- have been no more or less intolerant of their neighbors (regardless of their religious inclinations) than basically anyone else. Especially in relation to countries in similar sociopolitical situations.This.
As any even remotely learned follower of an abrahamic religion will tell you, which parts do and do not get followed, to what extent, and under what interpretations and contexts, vary radically with time, culture, and so on.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 26, 2014, 07:23:21 pm
Nice work guys
Post by: TD1 on October 26, 2014, 07:31:14 pm
Post by: Gnorm on October 26, 2014, 07:42:06 pm
They are in theory the same God, though Mohammad made several contradictions to the Bible when he was preaching his Koran. The Moslem faith, therefore, has a very distorted image of God.I definitely wouldn't call them "the same god", though.
except, it definitely is the same god. Both faiths( 3 with judaism) worship the god of Abraham. The way they worship it in different ways and disagree strongly on prophets and messages. But they are all about the same entity.
Post by: Playergamer on October 26, 2014, 07:43:00 pm
Okay, okay, okay. First of all, Muhammad didn't preach anything like that. Here's what they thought about Christians and Jews. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book)
Second of all...what. Can you quote me a passage from the Quran/Qu'ran/Koran that says that?
And third of all...that's not even close to what jihad means. Jihad is a struggle against evil. In defense.
Post by: 4maskwolf on October 26, 2014, 07:45:21 pm
*coughs*They are in theory the same God, though Mohammad made several contradictions to the Bible when he was preaching his Koran. The Moslem faith, therefore, has a very distorted image of God.I definitely wouldn't call them "the same god", though.
except, it definitely is the same god. Both faiths( 3 with judaism) worship the god of Abraham. The way they worship it in different ways and disagree strongly on prophets and messages. But they are all about the same entity.
No value judgements. Perhaps you meant to use the word "different".
Post by: Uristides on October 26, 2014, 07:51:31 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on October 26, 2014, 07:53:54 pm
Post by: Gnorm on October 26, 2014, 08:00:39 pm
Perhaps it's best that I just leave.*coughs*They are in theory the same God, though Mohammad made several contradictions to the Bible when he was preaching his Koran. The Moslem faith, therefore, has a very distorted image of God.I definitely wouldn't call them "the same god", though.
except, it definitely is the same god. Both faiths( 3 with judaism) worship the god of Abraham. The way they worship it in different ways and disagree strongly on prophets and messages. But they are all about the same entity.
No value judgements. Perhaps you meant to use the word "different".
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 26, 2014, 08:24:14 pm
Though said god is kinda different for each religion
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 26, 2014, 08:30:44 pm
Post by: Frumple on October 26, 2014, 08:35:46 pm
Post by: TD1 on October 26, 2014, 08:38:20 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on October 26, 2014, 09:02:59 pm
http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam.html
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 26, 2014, 09:30:55 pm
i was reading cracked and came across this awhile back. i think it fits the discussion.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam.html
I like this article
Post by: burningpet on October 27, 2014, 12:25:49 am
... yeah, I really don't actually care enough to go digging through the qur'an and muslim theology and whatnot to offer a position on the subject that
Ad hominem much? can't argue with facts so you try to attack the person?
Ill just remind anyone reading this response to go and read the quran, like, you know, i have.
what. wait what. no. burning pet...what.
Okay, okay, okay. First of all, Muhammad didn't preach anything like that. Here's what they thought about Christians and Jews. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book)
Second of all...what. Can you quote me a passage from the Quran/Qu'ran/Koran that says that?
And third of all...that's not even close to what jihad means. Jihad is a struggle against evil. In defense.
A struggle against evil, in defense, hmm, is that why muhammad and his later successors proceeded to conquer the middle east, north africa, india and europe?
Lets start with just two small examples, because really, i don't have the time nor interest in proving something which is so obvious.
"O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people."
"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good). "
"And when you call to prayer, they (people of the scripture) take it in ridicule and amusement. That is because they are a people who do not use reason."
I really recommend people to go read the Quran, because a specific verse here and there is not enough. you need to read it entirely and witness it for what it actually is.
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 27, 2014, 12:29:16 am
Post by: Cheeetar on October 27, 2014, 12:33:07 am
did the christianity thread get locked, or are we broadening our horizons?
I wanted to add other religions to it but people didn't like that so I opened this one up
Citation needed? According to the poll, many more liked the idea than disliked it.
Post by: Gentlefish on October 27, 2014, 12:53:41 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 27, 2014, 06:30:30 am
did the christianity thread get locked, or are we broadening our horizons?
I wanted to add other religions to it but people didn't like that so I opened this one up
Citation needed? According to the poll, many more liked the idea than disliked it.
I meant a couple people strongly disliked the idea and I saw where they were coming from so I just did this as a compromise
Post by: Bohandas on October 27, 2014, 01:10:25 pm
Abrahamic religions include Judeism, Christianity, Islam
...Druze, Bahai, Regla de Ocha, Sufiism....
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 27, 2014, 01:34:38 pm
Abrahamic religions include Judeism, Christianity, Islam
...Druze, Bahai, Sufiism....
We could list off every denomination of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the same mention of Abrahamic followers too, but we stick to the main branches when referring to Abrahamic Religions to keep it from being an endless list of denominations.
Post by: Bohandas on October 27, 2014, 02:10:15 pm
Abrahamic religions include Judeism, Christianity, Islam
...Druze, Bahai, Sufiism....
We could list off every denomination of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the same mention of Abrahamic followers too, but we stick to the main branches when referring to Abrahamic Religions to keep it from being an endless list of denominations.
IIRC the official position of the leaders of the Bahai Faith is that it is not a denomination of any of those faiths.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 27, 2014, 02:35:17 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 27, 2014, 03:03:59 pm
IIRC the official position of the leaders of the Bahai Faith is that it is not a denomination of any of those faiths.
It's a combination of all three.
Why not add Calvinism, Protestantism, Coptic Christendom to the list as well? Those have as much widespread influence and followers than the Bahai or Sufis.
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 27, 2014, 04:00:16 pm
...
Anyway, including denominations seems silly. It still falls under the banner of the same religion.
...
I'd also like to request that if anyone here has a decent understanding of Islam, could they perhaps give us a run-down? I know some basics, but I'm pretty sure most people here don't know much about it.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 27, 2014, 04:04:49 pm
The addition of "and others not listed" should be good enough to sum it up
And ya I would love to see a rundown of Islam, I don't know much about it at all
Post by: Bohandas on October 27, 2014, 04:18:46 pm
[highandmighty]We prefer the term Reformed, thank you very much.[/highandmighty]
...
Anyway, including denominations seems silly. It still falls under the banner of the same religion
And that's how Bahai differs from Protestantism, because unlike protestantism it doesn't clearly fall under the banner of one of the others.
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 27, 2014, 04:28:41 pm
Post by: Bohandas on October 27, 2014, 04:42:04 pm
I wasn't talking about Bahai?
No, but the guy before you that you were responding to said that Bahai was a denomination
Post by: WillowLuman on October 27, 2014, 04:53:24 pm
There is a lack of sources, but most likely Islam as known today began some time around the middle of the first millennium AD/CE. According to Islamic doctrine, the passages of the Qu'ran were revealed to their prophet Muhammed starting when he was 40 years old. Over his life, the religion grew until it became its own city-state. When Muhammed died, there was a crisis of succession, leading to the division of Sunnis and Shiites that persists to this day.
The core practices of the faith are called the "Five Pillars", and they are as follows:
Renunciation of any other god but the one with the capital G. (or "Allah" in Arabic.)
Five daily prayers that must be done every day
Giving to one's community (there are several rules about the specifics)
Fasting during the month of Ramadan
A pilgrimage to the city of Mecca at least one during life.
Muslims still venerate the usual figures of the other two faiths, including Christ, but view them all as Prophets, in roughly equal standing and importance.
And that's the gist of it. I should probably ask my Muslim friend for some clarifications/more details, though.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 27, 2014, 05:01:20 pm
http://bahaitext.info/btxt.asp?buk=pdc&tgt=112:1+11&wds=xxI wasn't talking about Bahai?
No, but the guy before you that you were responding to said that Bahai was a denomination
Quote
As to Muhammad, the Apostle of God, let none among His followers who read these pages, think for a moment that either Islám, or its Prophet, or His Book, or His appointed Successors, or any of His authentic teachings, have been, or are to be in any way, or to however slight a degree, disparaged. The lineage of the Báb, the descendant of the Imám Husayn; the divers and striking evidences, in Nabíl's Narrative, of the attitude of the Herald of our Faith towards the Founder, the Imáms, and the Book of Islám; the glowing tributes paid by Bahá'u'lláh in the Kitáb-i-Íqán to Muhammad and His lawful Successors, and particularly to the "peerless and incomparable" Imám Husayn; the arguments adduced, forcibly, fearlessly, and publicly by `Abdu'l-Bahá, in churches and synagogues, to demonstrate the validity of the Message of the Arabian Prophet; and last but not least the written testimonial of the Queen of Rumania, who, born in the Anglican faith and notwithstanding the close alliance of her government with the Greek Orthodox Church, the state religion of her adopted country, has, largely as a result of the perusal of these public discourses of `Abdu'l-Bahá, been prompted to proclaim her recognition of the prophetic function of Muhammad-- all proclaim, in no uncertain terms, the true attitude of the Bahá'í Faith towards its parent religion.
Post by: burningpet on October 27, 2014, 05:26:16 pm
It might give lips service to some other prophets, but in teachings, it completely denounce the core concepts of Christianity and in the debates between islam and judaism it completely take sides with Islam. its only considered Independent because Islam is a non-reformable religion (Pretty much understood from the second or third chapter... Actually, my memory is bit hazy on this part. it might came bit later in that book) and thus would have resulted in an even more extreme persecution if they had not supposedly gone indie. but ultimately, Bahai is actually the reformation of islam. don't get me wrong, i have very little against it since their core message is peaceful, but i really can't see why we even need it at this point in time. i think its too late. we should be past the religions era by now.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 27, 2014, 05:56:50 pm
Its more islam than anything else though.
It might give lips service to some other prophets, but in teachings, it completely denounce the core concepts of Christianity and in the debates between islam and judaism it completely take sides with Islam. its only considered Independent because Islam is a non-reformable religion (Pretty much understood from the second or third chapter... Actually, my memory is bit hazy on this part. it might came bit later in that book) and thus would have resulted in an even more extreme persecution if they had not supposedly gone indie. but ultimately, Bahai is actually the reformation of islam. don't get me wrong, i have very little against it since their core message is peaceful, but i really can't see why we even need it at this point in time. i think its too late. we should be past the religions era by now.
In school we are taught that one of the key components of human civilization is religion
Just about every civilization up until now has had it
And I don't see what everyone has against it, for the most part they teach people to be less violent and selfish
Post by: uber pye on October 27, 2014, 05:58:40 pm
Post by: burningpet on October 27, 2014, 06:09:09 pm
In school we are taught that one of the key components of human civilization is religion
Just about every civilization up until now has had it
And I don't see what everyone has against it, for the most part they teach people to be less violent and selfish
Some do. Some don't.
The fact we had it up until now is not something that should automatically make it right or serve as an excuse to perpetuate it.
I think i saw charts showing that the least religious countries are the most peaceful ones.
Fake edit: http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
Post by: Bohandas on October 27, 2014, 06:27:14 pm
In school we are taught that one of the key components of human civilization is religion
Just about every civilization up until now has had it
And I don't see what everyone has against it, for the most part they teach people to be less violent and selfish
The problem is two:
1. The non-philosophical portions of most religions often contain much that is demonstrably false and even more that is highly unlikely and supported only by hearsay.
2. Religion is often riddled with internal contradictions. One minute the lord is kind and merciful, the next minute he's blowing up cities and afflicting people with diseases and famines. The same is true about many religions' positions on how people should behave. One page of a holy text will tell you to be less violent and selfish, and the next page will say that you should torture and kill people over irrelevant piddling crap. The Bible and the Torah both contain two entire books that are almost exclusively of this second petty and violent type, the Book of Leviticus, and the Book of Deuteronomy.
Post by: TD1 on October 27, 2014, 06:37:48 pm
Quote
And I don't see what everyone has against it, for the most part they teach people to be less violent and selfish.That's true, it can do that. It can also make people aggressive and intolerant, but most of all are mainly untrue. Even you would say they're all untrue except one, yours.
And civilization has always looked for answers is all, and with most questions they had no answers. Religion seemingly answered the unanswerable, helped rulers control people, and gave comfort from the prospect of death.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 27, 2014, 06:42:34 pm
Take Christianity. In modern America most Christian churches don't teach you to go and kill sinners or condemn them or at least mine doesn't
QuoteAnd I don't see what everyone has against it, for the most part they teach people to be less violent and selfish.That's true, it can do that. It can also make people aggressive and intolerant, but most of all are mainly untrue. Even you would say they're all untrue except one, yours.
And civilization has always looked for answers is all, and with most questions they had no answers. Religion seemingly answered the unanswerable, helped rulers control people, and gave comfort from the prospect of death.
What do you mean even I would say that?
Yes on the religious and creation of the world side yes but much of the history in other religions I think are true
I think Buda was a real person that walked around and spoke of peace and even gave good lessons on pacifism
I'm not too well learned in Hindu so in staying away from that
Islam has plenty of true things that did happen
Judeism the same
Now if, when you say what you did, you mean that I don't believe what they say on the religious and creation sides then yes you are right
Post by: Bohandas on October 27, 2014, 07:09:05 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 27, 2014, 07:39:30 pm
Jim Jones and L. Ron Hubbard were real but that doesn't mean that People's Temple and Scientology are true.
When the heck did I say that the religions were true?
I said I believe the people were real and what they preached did happen and some of it was correct or at least something to learn a lesson from and that some events in the religion actually did happen not all of it
Post by: Frumple on October 27, 2014, 07:49:07 pm
And I don't see what everyone has against it, for the most part they teach people to be less violent and selfishThe biggest problem (or at least one of them) is that the strong majority of them are inherently divisive. It leads to believers looking down on non-believers, fostering in-group/out-group division... all sorts of stuff like that. They are means by which people tell others, "You are not like me."* Functionally, that's an inherently dehumanizing element -- it's saying that those others are somewhat less human than you, for they do not know the "truth" and will not convert to it, making something about them "wrong". And that's the sort of thing that assists in leading to all sorts of nastiness, even when it's not the explicit cause.
Basically, while their words may teach peacefulness and selflessness, their structure inculcates the exact opposite -- divisiveness, conflict, and a lack of consideration for other people (non-believers, particularly). That's where the problem arises.
*Of course, religion is not the only mean through which that message is passed, but they've historically been one of the strongest and most immediately obvious, as well as the most common excuse even when the underlaying reasons are different. They're also one of the least tractable and least capable of reaching compromise with other ideologies.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 27, 2014, 07:57:33 pm
Do you think I am like that?
Post by: Frumple on October 27, 2014, 08:29:47 pm
As for you, I don't really know you well enough to say. It does seem like you're trying to avoid that sort of inclination in your understanding of both your own, and other's beliefs, which is good.
But at the same time, I've also seen you condemn actions for no reason but your religious beliefs. So the effect is there, even if on the net you're avoiding that kind of behavior.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 27, 2014, 08:33:09 pm
Of course I'm not. I've met plenty of people who either don't have or have overcome those influences from their religious beliefs. I've unfortunately met considerably more that haven't, and from what I've seen in history religion has definitely been one of the stronger geopolitically divisive forces. One of those traditional things that ends up separating neighbor from neighbor, even in the face of otherwise substantial commonalities.
As for you, I don't really know you well enough to say. It does seem like you're trying to avoid that sort of inclination in your understanding of both your own, and other's beliefs, which is good.
But at the same time, I've also seen you condemn actions for no reason but your religious beliefs. So the effect is there, even if on the net you're avoiding that kind of behavior.
I would like to make the note that I try to be an open and accepting person
I try not to condemn people or persecute people for not being of the same faith or any at all
And just out of personal curiosity what was it that you saw me condemn?
Post by: Frumple on October 27, 2014, 08:56:14 pm
And... even when it's not intentional, or sought to be actively avoided, that sort of separation has an entirely too strong track record of influencing action. Almost always negatively, even if only in small ways. Many individuals do manage to avoid such separation, but... many also don't. Many, indeed, do not.
It's not the whole picture, of course -- things like in-group/out-group differentiation is a tremendously multivariant subject, of which religious beliefs are only a particular subset of influences -- but... contributing cause, y'know?
Spoiler: vaguely melancholy personal tangent (click to show/hide)
*Though, again, religious beliefs are far from the only cause of such, just to make that excessively clear.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 27, 2014, 09:08:20 pm
Do note I have nothing against them since one sin is no worse than another and it would be hypocritical to condemn someone for sins that are just as bad as my own
The other reasons for my (I don't want to say dislike) my.... Hmmm... Ummmm..... Feelings? Towards homosexuality are also that it kinda serves a purpose against the reason on why you have the parts you have (without going over detailed) I mean naturally two critters of the same gender (not including species that are both genders) can't generally reproduce, yes I know a few can.
That and it just doesn't seem like a natural thing to me
Don't let my opinions on the matter make you think I hate them or think they are disgustion or else I wouldn't have a couple homosexual and several bisexual friends
I don't try to judge people just because judging people for sins just as bad as my own has no purpose
(Sorry if I got repetitive)
Post by: Cheeetar on October 27, 2014, 09:33:51 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 27, 2014, 10:03:08 pm
If you argue along those lines Cryxis, it comes back to viewing infertile people who have sexual relationships as 'weird'. We've discussed this before, I believe.Yes and you've stumped me with the infertile people and I've yet to talk to anyone about it
I will say infertility is something that you can't control
Now I'm not saying homosexuality is something that is easy to stop but you do have the choice to do it
Just like any other sin, it may not be even close to stop but it is humanly possible
Though as I've said before I will not judge homosexuals for what they choose to do, as it would be hypocritical to do so
Edit: I hope I didn't offend anyone and I'm sorry if my views do offend anyone. My intention is not to offend anyone
Post by: Cheeetar on October 27, 2014, 10:13:45 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 27, 2014, 10:26:42 pm
Sure. A homosexual person can choose to not engage in homosexual sex. As can an infertile person choose not to engage in nonprocreational sex.
Ya like I said you've stumped me with that one and I will be seeking advise
Though I can say (and this may go against what I have said before so ya I'm changing my mind on something and say what you will of that) in recent quandary into the subject I have thought "why is sex so enjoyable for people and not animals? (Any a couple animals have sex for pleasure)"
And I thought maybe it's so enjoyable because (and take this one with a grain of salt or a ton) it is basically one of the huge parts of Christian marriage, it's so enjoyable because it can help keep a couple together (have you ever seen a husband and wife that have no sex life? They usually aren't all that happy with each other)
A Christian marriage is supposed to make up for that physical relationship you can't have with god (the one on one relationship, not the sex) and yes part of it is that god wants us to share in being able to create (in this case children/more people) and yes infertile people can't do that but they can still have the sex and have that relationship
So I have changed my mind that sex is soely for procreation, it's enjoyable for a reson
((I really hope this didn't cross the line, I tried my best to not go into detail about sex but I feel I used that word a bit too much, if it's too graphic I can delete this post. But I'm 90% sure I've seen worse in the dream thread))
Post by: Frumple on October 27, 2014, 10:28:49 pm
That and it just doesn't seem like a natural thing to meTopic probably isn't quite the right place for more general discussion on the subject, but for your illumination homosexuality, of various sorts, is actually pretty well known behavior in non-human animals. Mammalian and otherwise. By all appearances, the behavior actually is quite natural, to the extent that that matters.
That said, a behavior being natural is entirely irrelevant to most any discussion involving ethics or value judgments. Many entirely abhorrent behaviors are quite natural -- that does not make them acceptable or desirable. Naturalistic fallacy and whatnot. How natural a behavior is means one thing, and a very little else, and that is how natural it is.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 27, 2014, 10:32:41 pm
But should we compare ourselves to animals?
No, what I meant when I said natural is that it doesn't serve a purpose (ok that came across wayyyy more mean and blunt than I want it to) that and it just doesn't settle with me
It's not the religious side of me either it's something else about it I just don't especially like
That being said I have no problem with the people just the act
I dunno, it just doesn't settle with me
Post by: Bohandas on October 27, 2014, 10:34:30 pm
The other reasons for my (I don't want to say dislike) my.... Hmmm... Ummmm..... Feelings? Towards homosexuality are also that it kinda serves a purpose against the reason on why you have the parts you have (without going over detailed) I mean naturally two critters of the same gender (not including species that are both genders) can't generally reproduce, yes I know a few can.
That and it just doesn't seem like a natural thing to me
Ultimately however it is of little relevance to anybody outside of their close friends and relatives whether a couple reproduces or not, and what little relevance it does have to people outside of that small circle comes from the drain in resources generated by any children that they may have and thus favors the situation in which the couple does not procreate.
Post by: Cheeetar on October 27, 2014, 10:35:18 pm
(and this may go against what I have said before so ya I'm changing my mind on something and say what you will of that)
This is super good. Changing your mind about things when you come across things that challenge your beliefs is a great thing to do.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 27, 2014, 10:37:03 pm
(and this may go against what I have said before so ya I'm changing my mind on something and say what you will of that)
This is super good. Changing your mind about things when you come across things that challenge your beliefs is a great thing to do.
Thanks for not calling me a hypocrite
Hate it when people in the real world say that to me for changing my opinion upon thinking harder about something
Post by: Playergamer on October 27, 2014, 10:44:16 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 27, 2014, 10:47:42 pm
Yeah. It's the sad thing about the human brain, we care more about people thinking we're right than actually being correct. Good on you Cryxis.
Thanks
Now that that is cleared out
Onto Abrahamic religion discussion/cross referencing each other
How are you supposed to treat sinners as stated by or traditionally done by each religion?
Post by: Tiruin on October 27, 2014, 11:30:35 pm
...I think you mean 'greet' and not 'great'? :P
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 28, 2014, 07:03:39 am
I despise auto correct
Post by: burningpet on October 28, 2014, 07:31:13 am
Post by: Tiruin on October 28, 2014, 07:34:55 am
Actually it was supposed to be "treat"Still the same.
I despise auto correct
Treat them as people. Judge or correct them as people.
Post by: Frumple on October 28, 2014, 07:50:06 am
BP actually mostly got it. Technically speaking, all three of them have "kill the sinner" (often rather horrifically) as part of their scripture when it comes to sinners, to varying extents. Christianity has arguably the most scriptural wiggle-room when it comes to that, iirc, but the message is still there and there has been historic incidences of cultural groups claiming to follow the religion doing some pretty disgusting shit towards perceived sinners.
Of course, most of them have strictly contradictory messages to that directive, too, but hey, what's an abrahamic religious text without contradiction?
The actual measure has indeed been highly cultural. It's actually fairly rare, from what I understand, that any particularly religiously influenced country will execute or torture those that sin in the eyes of the religion in question, or go out to kill non-believers, etc., etc. With the exception of the obvious immoral sins (murder and theft, mostly.), they're generally just kinda' ignored.
As to the supposed aspect, I'll actually bow out on that one. So far as I'm aware, all three of them, roughly speaking, want to talk people in to avoiding sin, but how it's gone about varies heavily enough based on culture, time, denomination, etc. that I wouldn't be terribly comfortable making much of a summation. Mostly because, s'far as I know, there isn't an actual summation to be made, since doctrinal or traditional guidelines for interacting with the sinful vary just that much.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 28, 2014, 12:55:40 pm
Quote
O ye who believe! When ye go forth (to fight) in the way of Allah, be careful to discriminate, and say not unto one who offereth you peace: "Thou art not a believer," seeking the chance profits of this life (so that ye may despoil him). With Allah are plenteous spoils. Even thus (as he now is) were ye before; but Allah hath since then been gracious unto you. Therefore take care to discriminate. Allah is ever Informed of what ye do.
It's actually stated multiple times in the Qu'ran that transgression against and targetting of non-Muslims is something that Allah pays especially large attention to. Violence is only acceptable to defend to faith [problem with this statement is its open for very large interpretation, damnit Muhammed!]. If the motivation to your transgression is loot/land, you've already failed the first Allah motivation check. And in Islam you seriously don't want the attention of Allah for transgressions. It's a shame these verses are ignored for the most part.
I believe this is a good quote that many Jews and Muslims would do well to heed and be very aware of..
Quote
"Do not confer on me superiority over Moses, for people will be struck unconscious of the day Resurrection and I will be the first to regain consciousness. And behold! There I will see Moses holding one of the pillars of Allah’s Throne. I will wonder whether he has become conscious before me or he has been exempted because of the unconsciousness he experienced on Mount Sinai." (Al-Bukhari, 2411)Muhammed says so himself that the founder of Judaism will be in heaven before him. That's the amount of respect Muhammed had for Moses's teachings and revelations.
There are similar verses in both the Torah and the Testaments. Then there's also the overtly warmongering bits brought to us by Jesus
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Tiruin on October 28, 2014, 01:21:02 pm
Like in the Bible, the idea of 'Hate' is used, though the problem is assuming and interpreting 'hate' as [one_definite_interpretation], given that it differs in usage/feeling/meaning despite the word being the same. There was a verse on God hating Esau, yet that kind of hate does not reflect what is commonly described as hate (wrath/anger). Or the idea of 'lust' which can be interpreted and even expanded past where it is limited. :-\
...Among many other things. >_< Sorry for my messy wording.
Post by: ggamer on October 29, 2014, 09:12:14 am
Unfortunately this is more true than people think. There are a lot of people in the church that talk mad shit about basically everybody that isn't them (up to and including people in the church(!!)). It gets to the point where church members are oh-so-happy to condemn the actions of sinners in the community, but when it comes time to actually go and witness to them they've got several excuses. Luckily enough the church is starting to realize this, and there's a movement against this sort of thing (starting with the college SS classes, funnily enough).
Also, aside from BP arguing against Islam like a suburban housewife argues against high grocery prices, I'm liking how this thread is going.
Post by: burningpet on October 29, 2014, 11:18:48 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 29, 2014, 02:20:12 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 29, 2014, 03:19:23 pm
Post by: Sheb on October 29, 2014, 04:02:44 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 29, 2014, 04:29:06 pm
Post by: ggamer on October 29, 2014, 05:34:38 pm
noone is supposed to know
Post by: burningpet on October 29, 2014, 05:53:58 pm
If the housewife, which as strangely implied devalues the currency in her perception by not working to get it, is the one protesting against high grocery prices, i'd sure as hell stop and listen because damn, they must be real high to get someone who usually thinks everything is so cheap to go out and protest.
This analogy fails, no matter how you examine it.
QuoteO ye who believe! When ye go forth (to fight) in the way of Allah, be careful to discriminate, and say not unto one who offereth you peace: "Thou art not a believer," seeking the chance profits of this life (so that ye may despoil him). With Allah are plenteous spoils. Even thus (as he now is) were ye before; but Allah hath since then been gracious unto you. Therefore take care to discriminate. Allah is ever Informed of what ye do.
It's actually stated multiple times in the Qu'ran that transgression against and targetting of non-Muslims is something that Allah pays especially large attention to. Violence is only acceptable to defend to faith [problem with this statement is its open for very large interpretation, damnit Muhammed!]. If the motivation to your transgression is loot/land, you've already failed the first Allah motivation check. And in Islam you seriously don't want the attention of Allah for transgressions. It's a shame these verses are ignored for the most part.
I believe this is a good quote that many Jews and Muslims would do well to heed and be very aware of..Quote"Do not confer on me superiority over Moses, for people will be struck unconscious of the day Resurrection and I will be the first to regain consciousness. And behold! There I will see Moses holding one of the pillars of Allah’s Throne. I will wonder whether he has become conscious before me or he has been exempted because of the unconsciousness he experienced on Mount Sinai." (Al-Bukhari, 2411)Muhammed says so himself that the founder of Judaism will be in heaven before him. That's the amount of respect Muhammed had for Moses's teachings and revelations.
There are similar verses in both the Torah and the Testaments. Then there's also the overtly warmongering bits brought to us by Jesus so the books themselves are really hard to gauge as a whole religion's stance of those who aren't in the denomination. I'll give each major branch its credit for attempting to sneak non-hostility and peaceful relations into their scripture.. But it wasn't their main focus. It never was. The scripture and statement I quote at the top is mostly completely ignored by modern Muslims, as is the 'turn the other cheek' BS in the Testament by many Christians. They'd do very well to read up on what the progenitors of what their religions had to say about the respective other founders and how to act towards eachother.
I really wanted to refrain from doing so, but i guess mr ggamer has inspired me to reply.
Its definitely not only some modern muslims who ignore the "peaceful" verses, the original muslim and his direct successors have done so themselves through their actions. its not something you can pin on relatively new radicalism. its right there from the start of islam.
Btw, since all muslims adhere to the quran and differ on the hadith, quoting stuff from it is not exactly telling. the quran is the universally accepted source material so the quran should be judged. just like i won't judge islam to the good by looking at bahai texts.
And another btw, that verse you did quote from the quran, it refers to those who were already converted to islam. the "ones who offereth you peace" is actually a reference to the "ones who greet you in the islamic salutation", signaling they had converted to islam. so this verse, what it actually says is that when you go on killing disbelievers in the name of allah, don't automatically kill the ones who converted just so you could loot them, investigate whether they are true muslims first.
Don't bother to bring other verses that actually show islam tolerance of other religions or ones that don't imply its ok to kill those who haven't converted yet, i am fully aware of them and i can safely say that most of those verses only appear peaceful when taken out of the larger context and theme and some are actually peaceful. it doesn't matter because reading the quran as a whole with a critical eye and reason expose it for what it is.
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 29, 2014, 05:59:17 pm
Quote
all muslims adhere to the quran
Quote
stated multiple times in the Qu'ran that transgression against and targetting of non-Muslims is something that Allah pays especially large attention toUh huh.
Post by: TD1 on October 29, 2014, 07:31:56 pm
Also, am I imagining it or does it say somewhere that what Muhammad says should be taken over what earlier writing says, if they are in conflict? A lot of peaceful, earlier passages may be obsolete if I am indeed remembering correctly.
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 30, 2014, 12:01:56 am
Post by: WillowLuman on October 30, 2014, 01:25:42 am
You have to admit though, as a whole Islam is a fairly violent religion. Of course, it again depends on interpretation, as with Christianity, which is why you have moderate Muslims. But to do this they often ignore other parts of the religion. (Like most Christians.)It's only as violent as any other religion. Barring particular small sects or cults, no religion is really inherently violent.
Also, am I imagining it or does it say somewhere that what Muhammad says should be taken over what earlier writing says, if they are in conflict? A lot of peaceful, earlier passages may be obsolete if I am indeed remembering correctly.
Post by: burningpet on October 30, 2014, 01:37:34 am
You have to admit though, as a whole Islam is a fairly violent religion. Of course, it again depends on interpretation, as with Christianity, which is why you have moderate Muslims. But to do this they often ignore other parts of the religion. (Like most Christians.)It's only as violent as any other religion. Barring particular small sects or cults, no religion is really inherently violent.
Also, am I imagining it or does it say somewhere that what Muhammad says should be taken over what earlier writing says, if they are in conflict? A lot of peaceful, earlier passages may be obsolete if I am indeed remembering correctly.
Nope. As i have shown and can clearly also be seen in the quran and its adherents actions today and throughout history, the quranic islam is inherently violent.
Post by: WillowLuman on October 30, 2014, 01:42:32 am
Also, aside from BP arguing against Islam like a suburban housewife argues against high grocery prices, I'm liking how this thread is going.Ah, I see who you meant now.
Perhaps a better way to say what I mean is that it's no more violent by nature than either of the other two.
Post by: smjjames on October 30, 2014, 01:43:44 am
You have to admit though, as a whole Islam is a fairly violent religion. Of course, it again depends on interpretation, as with Christianity, which is why you have moderate Muslims. But to do this they often ignore other parts of the religion. (Like most Christians.)It's only as violent as any other religion. Barring particular small sects or cults, no religion is really inherently violent.
Also, am I imagining it or does it say somewhere that what Muhammad says should be taken over what earlier writing says, if they are in conflict? A lot of peaceful, earlier passages may be obsolete if I am indeed remembering correctly.
Nope. As i have shown and can clearly also be seen in the quran and its adherents actions today and throughout history, the quranic islam is inherently violent.
Christians have been pretty violent through history as well. Heck, in the bible, God almost seems like a bit of a war God at times.
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 30, 2014, 01:49:52 am
Incidentally, what ever happened to the stereotype of a gun-toting, bible-bashing 'Murican? Seems pretty violent to me. Hell, Christians in the USA might well have more guns than sodding ISIS.
Post by: Bohandas on October 30, 2014, 02:14:12 am
"Destroy them utterly", yes. Arguing that a religion is violent because the holy book advocates violence in a given circumstance is kind of... not right.
Incidentally, what ever happened to the stereotype of a gun-toting, bible-bashing 'Murican? Seems pretty violent to me. Hell, Christians in the USA might well have more guns than sodding ISIS.
But it's not as definitvely an effect as Abrahamic religion in their case because ISIS uses their guns as a tool to advance their particular brand of abrahamic faith but for the American right the guns appear to be an seperate object of worship in and of themselves, and venerated alongside the Lord rather than used to advance his faith
-------------------------
EDIT:
Side Note: Another good bad example of a faithful christian is the insane serial killer Albert Fish, who killed and ate more than nine children because (due to hallucinations) he thought that Saint John the Apostle and several other people from the Bible had told him to.
Post by: Sheb on October 30, 2014, 04:56:14 am
Post by: Frumple on October 30, 2014, 05:13:14 am
But it's not as definitvely an effect as Abrahamic religion in their case because ISIS uses their guns as a tool to advance their particular brand of abrahamic faith but for the American right the guns appear to be an seperate object of worship in and of themselves, and venerated alongside the Lord rather than used to advance his faithNah, we've had some pretty high-up nutjobs specifically state that their reason (and, to an extent, the US as a whole) for supporting israel and generally destabilizing the middle-east is due to (their particularly warped) christian beliefs. Pretty sure US christians, veneer of faith-inspired actions or not, have either killed or directly and strongly contributed to the deaths considerably more people than IS-whatever has, over the years. Maybe not in regards to proportion of population/time scale, but by and far away more by raw numbers.
Basically, the gun thing in particular, not so much, but violence and geopolitical asshattery caused and/or strongly influenced by religious belief? Ho yez. States got that shit all up in our grill, we're just a little more on the low-down about it than your average terrorist group.
Post by: burningpet on October 30, 2014, 05:18:47 am
Ok, this thread cannot survive BP, I vote we close it.
On what grounds? a different opinion? the discussion is pretty civil given the subject matter. i vote its more than ok to keep this thread open.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 30, 2014, 06:34:17 am
Ok, this thread cannot survive BP, I vote we close it.Have you seen the Christian thread?!?
You guys aren't even close to getting this thing locked
Though things do escalate quickly at times so I guess we will see
Post by: ggamer on October 30, 2014, 08:10:33 am
I won't try for another analogy, so i'll just say this:Ok, this thread cannot survive BP, I vote we close it.On what grounds? a different opinion? the discussion is pretty civil given the subject matter. i vote its more than ok to keep this thread open.
have you ever seen the family guy skit with the stubborn donkey?
that's basically what you're doing.
Post by: TD1 on October 30, 2014, 08:26:18 am
All I can think of is "I rode into a town on an ass" thing, but I doubt that's what you meant :P
Hm, I'd always heard that Muhammad made the messages lean more towards violence than Jesus' messages, for example.
But yea, it's a whole pick and choose thing. I think the bother with Muslim isn't the faith, which doesn't automatically raise blood-seeking murderers, but the cultures in which they are born usually, which tend to be violent in nature. If Christianity were more common in such countries, perhaps it would be more extreme....but then, you also get those British Muslims who now have blood on their hands over seas...so perhaps it is how the Muslim faith is taught, rather than anything else.
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 30, 2014, 08:30:45 am
...
All I can think of is "I rode into a town on an ass" thing, but I doubt that's what you meant :P
Hm, I'd always heard that Muhammad made the messages lean more towards violence than Jesus' messages, for example.
But yea, it's a whole pick and choose thing. I think the bother with Muslim isn't the faith, which doesn't automatically raise blood-seeking murderers, but the cultures in which they are born usually, which tend to be violent in nature. If Christianity were more common in such countries, perhaps it would be more extreme....but then, you also get those British Muslims who now have blood on their hands over seas...so perhaps it is how the Muslim faith is taught, rather than anything else.
I would suggest a combination of the two. In the past, Christianity was embroiled in all sorts of horrible violence, yet Europe in particular has come out the other side of that into peaceful wealthy nations, and religions "native" to those nations reflect this - fairly benign. The middle east however has not gone through that transition - religion there echoes what you see in society, and you have feedback loops going on. It is a modern phenomenon though of that violent rhetoric being an export product, presumably due to our better communication and transport technologies.
Post by: Sheb on October 30, 2014, 09:11:35 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 30, 2014, 09:45:45 am
Post by: TD1 on October 30, 2014, 09:49:23 am
Noticed the edit.
Post by: Sheb on October 30, 2014, 09:54:04 am
Quote
5- It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6- It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7- It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to
kill journalists and aid workers.
Quote
10- It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the
Scripture’.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 30, 2014, 10:22:42 am
I'd love to discus the religions I've read the holy books of and analyze their simlarities and how the divergence begins, but it's a bit hard when you have someone who doesn't know the holy books spouting off how one branch is more violent than the Genocidal sons of David or the RCC. Fun fact, you're all genocidal. The founders weren't advocates of blind hatred. But it's okay, continue with the predisposed opinions influencing your conclusions.
Post by: burningpet on October 30, 2014, 10:24:30 am
You mean Islam isn't a religion dedicated to violence like certain people with predisposed racist opinions like to state over and over despite them being blatantly wrong and biased?
Its also dedicated to control through fear.
If i am blatantly wrong, prove it. so far, ironically, you only brought quotes that proved me right.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 30, 2014, 10:27:57 am
Post by: TD1 on October 30, 2014, 10:29:51 am
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 30, 2014, 10:30:42 am
Nope. As i have shown and can clearly also be seen in the quran and its adherents actions today and throughout history, the quranic islam is inherently violent.
I've actually read the Holy Books, and he's completely fucking wrong. He's a racist and he shows it when he opens his mouth about Islam. I'm tired of it. He gives Jews a terrible image. If you haven't forgotten, I am also a son of Israel but I'm not genocidal.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 30, 2014, 10:34:02 am
knock it off
YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SOMEONE ELSE, TAKE IT TO ANOTHER THREAD OR LEAVE IT AT THE DOOR
Post by: smjjames on October 30, 2014, 10:34:41 am
I don't pander to racists with predisposed opinions who says things like;Nope. As i have shown and can clearly also be seen in the quran and its adherents actions today and throughout history, the quranic islam is inherently violent.
I did counter that with the fact that historically, christians have been just as violent in fighting in the name of religion. Though the dark ages and the middle ages were a pretty violent time, even without getting religion into it.
HEY!
knock it off
YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SOMEONE ELSE, TAKE IT TO ANOTHER THREAD OR LEAVE IT AT THE DOOR
Yeah, getting a bit into flame territory.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 30, 2014, 10:37:46 am
Post by: smjjames on October 30, 2014, 10:38:40 am
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 30, 2014, 10:40:57 am
Post by: Frumple on October 30, 2014, 10:41:34 am
I did counter that with the fact that historically, christians have been just as violent in fighting in the name of religion. Though the dark ages and the middle ages were a pretty violent time, even without getting religion into it.Somewhat significantly more violent, actually, iirc. Islam actually has (pretty progressive, honestly) rules of war built into the religion, and adherents did a pretty good job of sticking to them, historically. Christianity... not so much. Or judaism, really, when followers have had the option to get their murder on. In terms of atrocities, everything I can recall points to islam holding the low count compared to the other two. Especially if you discount radical offshoots. You've got extremist heretics giving them a bad name nowadays, but it's a comparatively undeserved one.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 30, 2014, 10:43:54 am
sure their excuse was spreading the religion and such but it was for different purposes just using religion as an excuse for it
Post by: smjjames on October 30, 2014, 10:44:59 am
New topic of discussion: Jews and Christians are the most violent people ever. Prove me wrong. This is what this topic is about, right?
No, the mongols were the most violent people ever, end of discussion.
Since this current direction of the topic is starting to go somehwere that we don't want it to, we should deflect it.
No idea what to deflect it to though...... iconography???
Post by: Sheb on October 30, 2014, 10:45:42 am
Anyway, Mict, I've been tempted to go on a troll post about how Jews are the most violent people ever just to see how BP react (the internet is full of antisemite crap to use as template) but I though better. If you don't want to talk to BP, just ignore him, don't go on ranting.
Post by: WillowLuman on October 30, 2014, 10:48:53 am
Christians themselves have been violent but the religion itself doesn't really support it
sure their excuse was spreading the religion and such but it was for different purposes just using religion as an excuse for it
And, discounting extremist offshoots, Muslim empires did much the same historically. Though their height was several centuries before the colonial age.
Post by: smjjames on October 30, 2014, 10:51:37 am
A lot of the time, in the past, it's been people using religion as an excuse to be violent, not neccesarily that the religion itself is violent.
Post by: Frumple on October 30, 2014, 10:52:33 am
Christians themselves have been violent but the religion itself doesn't really support itWe actually hit on that over in the christian thread, remember? The religion kinda' does, or at least doesn't do much to undermine it. It doesn't particularly speak against killing or atrocity in war and specifically commands proselytizing. And particularly because of the connection to the OT, it's got plenty examples of the righteous going out and doing utterly horrific things in the name of their god. If you wanted to use the religion as a framework to promote violence, especially against the non-believer or other nations, well... it's a pretty decent one for doing so. As history, both past and present, has shown fairly well :-\
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 30, 2014, 10:55:35 am
Discounting OT since if we are just going with the OT we would be talking about the jewish and not the christian who base themselves more on the teachings of Christ over killing the non believersChristians themselves have been violent but the religion itself doesn't really support itWe actually hit on that over in the christian thread, remember? The religion kinda' does, or at least doesn't do much to undermine it. It doesn't particularly speak against killing or atrocity in war and specifically commands proselytizing. And particularly because of the connection to the OT, it's got plenty examples of the righteous going out and doing utterly horrific things in the name of their god. If you wanted to use the religion as a framework to promote violence, especially against the non-believer or other nations, well... it's a pretty decent one for doing so. As history, both past and present, has shown fairly well :-\
also the killing non believers doesn't exactly work anymore to spread religion since you know, people have changed over the past 10,000 years
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 30, 2014, 10:58:03 am
Spoiler: Reasoning (click to show/hide)
And, discounting extremist offshoots, Muslim empires did much the same historically. Though their height was several centuries before the colonial age.
Actually, the first caliphate gave special protections to Jews and Christians in its borders. Proselytizing was allowed, obviously, but not forced conversion of Jews and other minorities. It's kind of crazy to think the people who accepted Jews the most before the middle ages were Muslims. This could have been overt populism to get the people of Mesopotamia to be more accepting of the new empire controlling the territory, though. The later rulers of the Caliphate changed course significantly after the crusader era.
Post by: Sheb on October 30, 2014, 11:00:15 am
This might be of interest (http://lettertobaghdadi.com/): a rebuke of ISIS by leading Islamic scholars (Including people with name as impressive as "Sultan of Sokoto" and "Grand Mufti of Egypt", "Grand Cheikh of the Sufi Tarifah", and a whole bunch of academics and scholars)Quote5- It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6- It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7- It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to
kill journalists and aid workers.
Sergarr:This post.Quote10- It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the
Scripture’.
Post by: Frumple on October 30, 2014, 11:04:06 am
also the killing non believers doesn't exactly work anymore to spread religion since you know, people have changed over the past 10,000 years... killing to spread christianity was done in the states... less than two, three hundred years back? Fair amount of that done during the whole native american mess. It's only been really ruddy recent, historically, that that has fell out of favor, and it's still not entirely gone in certain areas, iirc.
People haven't really changed all that much in the last 10k years -- our environment has (and fairly significantly, over the last half millennium or so), but we're still mostly the same sort of jumped up monkey. Christianity's only been around for less than 2k, anyway, and it's certainly had its periods of conversion by the sword...
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 30, 2014, 11:07:53 am
and yes it has had its fair bit with that
but up until recently a religious group going out and demolition a city or killing a bunch of people was pretty ok since everbody else was doing it anyways
but nowadays if a few thousand religious folk gathered up and attacked a sinful city, all of them would be held for crimes of one sort or another and the world would look down upon said behavior
Post by: smjjames on October 30, 2014, 11:09:08 am
Post by: Cheeetar on October 30, 2014, 11:10:35 am
HEY!
knock it off
YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SOMEONE ELSE, TAKE IT TO ANOTHER THREAD OR LEAVE IT AT THE DOOR
There's no need for us to shout, here. Perhaps you should take a break from the thread for a while?
Post by: Frumple on October 30, 2014, 11:11:25 am
I wonder if the other two major religions (Hinduism and Buhddism) ever had 'conversions by the sword' at some point'?Yup.
E: Honestly, all the major religions and a host of the minor ones have had periods where they and their spread were propped up by pretty nasty material support. Whether it's the religion hijacking the state or the state hijacking the religion (or both) is debatable, but the influence of force on the spread of religious belief is pretty close to ubiquitous.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 30, 2014, 11:13:38 am
HEY!
knock it off
YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SOMEONE ELSE, TAKE IT TO ANOTHER THREAD OR LEAVE IT AT THE DOOR
There's no need for us to shout, here. Perhaps you should take a break from the thread for a while?
I was trying to stop a fight
they had crap from outside the thread and I don't want any of it
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 30, 2014, 11:16:23 am
This might be of interest (http://lettertobaghdadi.com/): a rebuke of ISIS by leading Islamic scholars (Including people with name as impressive as "Sultan of Sokoto" and "Grand Mufti of Egypt", "Grand Cheikh of the Sufi Tarifah", and a whole bunch of academics and scholars)Quote5- It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6- It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7- It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to
kill journalists and aid workers.
Sergarr:This post.Quote10- It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the
Scripture’.
I've just read through this and some of the insights are pretty revealing for me... It's quite lengthy and Islamic scholars can be very long winded, but it's a good read.
Post by: smjjames on October 30, 2014, 11:16:27 am
Though maybe Buhddism would be a bit iffy because it's kind of more along the lines of philosophy, but then again, you could claim Jesus's teachings to be philosophy as well.
Post by: burningpet on October 30, 2014, 11:23:06 am
I wonder if the other two major religions (Hinduism and Buhddism) ever had 'conversions by the sword' at some point'?
You mean between them? or by external religions?
I wonder if the other two major religions (Hinduism and Buhddism) ever had 'conversions by the sword' at some point'?Yup.
E: Honestly, all the major religions and a host of the minor ones have had periods where they and their spread were propped up by pretty nasty material support. Whether it's the religion hijacking the state or the state hijacking the religion (or both) is debatable, but the influence of force on the spread of religious belief is pretty close to ubiquitous.
Citation?
Post by: Frumple on October 30, 2014, 11:23:50 am
Of course, the reaction from the abrahamic side of the equation tends to be somewhat more volatile and vitriolic. They... don't play well with others, doctrinally.
Post by: smjjames on October 30, 2014, 11:25:16 am
I wonder if the other two major religions (Hinduism and Buhddism) ever had 'conversions by the sword' at some point'?
You mean between them? or by external religions?I wonder if the other two major religions (Hinduism and Buhddism) ever had 'conversions by the sword' at some point'?Yup.
E: Honestly, all the major religions and a host of the minor ones have had periods where they and their spread were propped up by pretty nasty material support. Whether it's the religion hijacking the state or the state hijacking the religion (or both) is debatable, but the influence of force on the spread of religious belief is pretty close to ubiquitous.
Citation?
I meant if they had ever done 'conversions by the sword', bad wording on my part.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 30, 2014, 11:27:53 am
Also, I'm curious, since Hinduism and Buhddism both have scriptures of their own, would the abrahamic religions consider them 'people of the scripture too'? I realize that the term refers to the abrahamic scriptures as a whole, but if you remove the 'book' part of it and just go by religious writing, would that include those two other major religions?
Though maybe Buhddism would be a bit iffy because it's kind of more along the lines of philosophy, but then again, you could claim Jesus's teachings to be philosophy as well.
People of the scripture is a rather direct reference to Jews in most cases. But usually the references are just to the other Abrahamic religions directly. The other references you'll find are typically disparaging stuff like 'Do not have multiple gods [Implied: YKNO LIKE SOME PEOPLE DO]' 'You are prescribed one life [Implied: UNLIKE WHAT SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE ~ HO HO HO]' which may or may not be a reference to the eastern religions,
Correction, I now remember there is one less than ambiguous bit:
Quote
I will utter My judgments Against them concerning all their wickedness, because they have forsaken Me, burned incense to other gods, and worshiped the works of their own hands. (Jeremiah 1:16)
Incense is used in the eastern religions rather exclusively for religious purposes back then and can be considered a direct reference to the Indian gods. Or Zoroastrians. It's a bit hard to differentiate when they get so angry and vengeful in verses.
Post by: TD1 on October 30, 2014, 11:28:12 am
brah-whatever
Brahman.
Post by: Frumple on October 30, 2014, 11:37:24 am
Post by: burningpet on October 30, 2014, 12:03:01 pm
Also, I'm curious, since Hinduism and Buhddism both have scriptures of their own, would the abrahamic religions consider them 'people of the scripture too'? I realize that the term refers to the abrahamic scriptures as a whole, but if you remove the 'book' part of it and just go by religious writing, would that include those two other major religions?
Though maybe Buhddism would be a bit iffy because it's kind of more along the lines of philosophy, but then again, you could claim Jesus's teachings to be philosophy as well.
People of the scripture is a rather direct reference to Jews in most cases. But usually the references are just to the other Abrahamic religions directly. The other references you'll find are typically disparaging stuff like 'Do not have multiple gods [Implied: YKNO LIKE SOME PEOPLE DO]' 'You are prescribed one life [Implied: UNLIKE WHAT SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE ~ HO HO HO]' which may or may not be a reference to the eastern religions,but I don't think there was many people crossing the Kush around the time when holy literature was written.
Correction, I now remember there is one less than ambiguous bit:QuoteI will utter My judgments Against them concerning all their wickedness, because they have forsaken Me, burned incense to other gods, and worshiped the works of their own hands. (Jeremiah 1:16)
Incense is used in the eastern religions rather exclusively for religious purposes back then and can be considered a direct reference to the Indian gods. Or Zoroastrians. It's a bit hard to differentiate when they get so angry and vengeful in verses.
It was also used in Judaism and other local religions.
Post by: WillowLuman on October 30, 2014, 12:40:12 pm
I wonder if the other two major religions (Hinduism and Buhddism) ever had 'conversions by the sword' at some point'?
Hinduism and Buddhism are explicitly non-proselytizing religions, like Judaism, but of course doctrine has never stopped people with their own interpretation of it who want to spread their way of life, sometimes through any means at their disposal. Yes, there are even violent Buddhist extremist groups. (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22356306) Violence tends to happen when large groups of X people begin migrating to historically Y area, unfortunately.
Interestingly, at least today, no matter the religion, most of the leaders of a religion tend to condemn the violent sects for betraying the teachings.
Post by: XXSockXX on October 30, 2014, 02:02:20 pm
Also, I'm curious, since Hinduism and Buhddism both have scriptures of their own, would the abrahamic religions consider them 'people of the scripture too'? I realize that the term refers to the abrahamic scriptures as a whole, but if you remove the 'book' part of it and just go by religious writing, would that include those two other major religions?IIRC the Muslim Mughal Emperors of India made Hindus (the majority of their subjects) "people of the book" by decree, so they could tax them.
That's a local exception though I think.
Pretty much this. Buddhism declined in India, due to a revival of Hinduism, but that was a peaceful transition, not like the Islamic conquests in the area.I wonder if the other two major religions (Hinduism and Buhddism) ever had 'conversions by the sword' at some point'?Hinduism and Buddhism are explicitly non-proselytizing religions, like Judaism, but of course doctrine has never stopped people with their own interpretation of it who want to spread their way of life, sometimes through any means at their disposal. Yes, there are even violent Buddhist extremist groups. (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22356306) Violence tends to happen when large groups of X people begin migrating to historically Y area, unfortunately.
Post by: Bohandas on October 30, 2014, 02:06:58 pm
You mean Islam isn't a religion dedicated to violence like certain people with predisposed racist opinions like to state over and over despite them being blatantly wrong and biased?
Its also dedicated to control through fear.
That's true of abrahamic religion in general
Post by: burningpet on October 30, 2014, 02:09:01 pm
Post by: Bohandas on October 30, 2014, 02:13:39 pm
Post by: burningpet on October 30, 2014, 02:42:16 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 30, 2014, 04:59:40 pm
...
Anyway, let's leave that there. New discussion topic! Modern-day Jews! Why don't they sacrifice goats/cattle/etc. any more?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 30, 2014, 05:03:36 pm
Post by: burningpet on October 30, 2014, 05:20:05 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 30, 2014, 05:21:16 pm
...
Wait, why is the temple necessary in the first place? My understanding was that an altar was necessary, but you could just build one out of rocks or whatever.
Post by: WillowLuman on October 30, 2014, 05:30:32 pm
Post by: Sheb on October 30, 2014, 05:37:41 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 30, 2014, 05:41:52 pm
Yeah, the Temple of Jerusalem. But yeah, apart from the fact that razing the Al-Aqsa mosque to rebuild it would create the mother of all intifada, what prevent Jews from rebuilding it?
Maybe it would be too expensive.
[/cheap stereotype joke]
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 30, 2014, 05:50:14 pm
-.-Yeah, the Temple of Jerusalem. But yeah, apart from the fact that razing the Al-Aqsa mosque to rebuild it would create the mother of all intifada, what prevent Jews from rebuilding it?
Maybe it would be too expensive.
[/cheap stereotype joke]
Post by: burningpet on October 30, 2014, 05:57:15 pm
And its not allowed to sacrifice outside the temple, because at some point, the sacrifices became strictly public (as opposed to private), confined to the temple and were carried solely by a specific tribe.
Yeah, the Temple of Jerusalem. But yeah, apart from the fact that razing the Al-Aqsa mosque to rebuild it would create the mother of all intifada, what prevent Jews from rebuilding it?
Maybe it would be too expensive.
[/cheap stereotype joke]
We could just make the goyim pay for it, like they have for building one in brazil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Solomon_(S%C3%A3o_Paulo)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andersonantunes/2014/07/30/god-has-a-new-home-a-300-million-mega-temple-in-sao-paulo/
Post by: Sheb on October 30, 2014, 06:13:28 pm
Post by: burningpet on October 30, 2014, 06:47:23 pm
Btw, even if we were as genocidal demonic as some suggest and bomb al aqsa out of the skies, we could not rebuild the temple because it cant be built with "bloody hands". that's the reason it was solomon who built the temple and not david, who was far more devoted to god and wanted to build the temple himself.
That spot is, according to legend, where the foundation stone lies, which is supposed to be the first stone god created when creating earth so its the closest point on earth between mankind and god.
Post by: Sheb on October 30, 2014, 06:52:27 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 30, 2014, 06:53:33 pm
So you need Nethanyahu to blow up the Mount then whoever wins elections next can build the Temple? :P
That wasn't needed
Post by: Frumple on October 30, 2014, 06:59:52 pm
How does oldschool YWHW deal with inter-group complicity, anyway? Would it actually take a non-israeli jew to qualify for unbloodied hands, given how the nation has been flapping about killing innocents over the last handful of decades? Or is it strictly personal killing?
Post by: Sheb on October 30, 2014, 07:06:34 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 30, 2014, 07:09:32 pm
Oh, sorry if I offended anyone, I didn't want to. 'was just an innocent joke.It's ok, just try to keep any jokes involving the religions themselves and or leaders of people's countries out of it just to keep anything from happening
And what was the racial slur? I didn't catch it
Post by: Frumple on October 30, 2014, 07:10:47 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on October 30, 2014, 07:15:19 pm
"Goyim" is not a particularly polite phrase.Noted, I did not know that
BP please refrain from using offensive language, please
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 30, 2014, 07:24:32 pm
Post by: burningpet on October 30, 2014, 10:58:08 pm
"Goyim" is not a particularly polite phrase.
You humor radar is broken, again. i was making a "racial" joke as a response to another racial joke.
Post by: ggamer on October 30, 2014, 11:21:49 pm
also the killing non believers doesn't exactly work anymore to spread religion since you know, people have changed over the past 10,000 years... killing to spread christianity was done in the states... less than two, three hundred years back? Fair amount of that done during the whole native american mess. It's only been really ruddy recent, historically, that that has fell out of favor, and it's still not entirely gone in certain areas, iirc.
People haven't really changed all that much in the last 10k years -- our environment has (and fairly significantly, over the last half millennium or so), but we're still mostly the same sort of jumped up monkey. Christianity's only been around for less than 2k, anyway, and it's certainly had its periods of conversion by the sword...
okay, realtalk
do you honestly believe that religion was the first thing on every american settler's mind? If so, you're buying into the excuse they were using, that they wanted the indian's land solely because the indians weren't christian, and not because they had hilariously fertile land. That's a really sad fact of history: people use religion to justify a goal that they want. Saying "God hates those strange people so I should supervise their land" sounds a lot better than "I want more money so that I can buy eeeeevery hooker in London."
Also, those people with that kind of attitude that exist today are also probably the same that fuck their cousins and think that America should create genetic diseases to kill all black people, so their opinion doesn't count.
Post by: WillowLuman on October 30, 2014, 11:53:01 pm
Post by: Glowcat on October 30, 2014, 11:55:42 pm
Trying to conceptualize the entirety of these violences as petty greed is inaccurate because often enough those espousing these beliefs were not themselves beneficiaries of the action. Instead they believed in a divine/transcendental right and whether they acted themselves to further their goals or justified the atrocities of their fellows with it, their belief system still reflected itself in their collective actions because if it didn't there would've been enough push back against them to make it impossible. Eventually they stopped "conversion by the sword", but again, that's only a few hundred years ago.
Post by: Frumple on October 31, 2014, 07:06:29 am
do you honestly believe that religion was the first thing on every american settler's mind?Full stop. Nope. Even with the revisionist bullshit trying to be pulled in the US, I'm well aware that religion was not the primary motivation for the vast majority of american settlers.
But Glowcat covered it pretty well. Even if it wasn't the primary motivation, that doesn't mean it wasn't a significant one. Doesn't help that, from what I've personally seen, most people using their religion to make excuses don't actually realize they're doing that -- they're just fitting their actions into how they see the world or what they desire to be done. There's relatively little metaphorical mustache twirling involved with that sort of thing, y'know? It's usually fairly sincere. Often badly misguided, but sincere none the less.
Post by: ggamer on November 01, 2014, 12:58:18 am
Puritans went because they didn't think England was Protestant enough for them
IIRC there was a very violent backlash against puritans in england, seeing as how they wanted to purify the Anglican church. They got pretty much abused right the hell out of england, consequences be damned.
snip
Well put, but I still think that this was a perversion more on the part of man than on christianity. IIRC, there are several verses in the new testament where peter tells newborn churches to leave gentiles alone if they refuse to convert, because it's only going to make witnessing harder if the church starts murdering people.
However, once missionaries converted as many native americans as they could, those in power couldn't very well leave the pagan remainder there, could they? Squatters, on land legally belonging to the crown! they must be murdered by the dozen!
Furthermore, I do think violent zealots existed; every religion has their fair share, and most competent church leaders use their religious fervor for good. However, I dont believe these zealots could have significantly affected the native american population without the guidance and support of those in power who were motivated by greed.
Post by: Helgoland on November 01, 2014, 12:41:23 pm
Me neither - I thought it was a pretty neutral way to say non-Jew."Goyim" is not a particularly polite phrase.Noted, I did not know that
Anyway, PTW to let the flames warm me.
Post by: Frumple on November 01, 2014, 01:52:49 pm
Post by: Bohandas on November 01, 2014, 02:58:13 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on November 01, 2014, 03:37:03 pm
There aren't any terms for races or creeds that no one will take offense to. That's why "negro" was replaced by "colored", "colored" was replaced by "black" and "Black" was replaced by "african american" (and also why "oriental" was replaced by "asian") - despite none of the aforementioned being derogatory terms (by the twenties "asian" and "african american" will probably be considered impolite) - and it's also why no one can agree on what to call people from South America and Central America.
...Call them what their home/ancestor nation is? It's honestly not that difficult. They're also still "native americans".
Post by: WillowLuman on November 01, 2014, 03:46:21 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 01, 2014, 09:24:44 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 01, 2014, 09:42:40 pm
The other reason tends to be because they're just kinda' insulting/inaccurate, such as with oriental, or indian being used to refer to native americans.
Post by: TD1 on November 01, 2014, 09:54:28 pm
Post by: Bohandas on November 01, 2014, 10:21:50 pm
Generally because they ended up being used by an outside group as a derogatory term for the group in question. Basically, even if they didn't begin as an outright slur, they became one, over time.
I don't think that "colored" or "oriental" were were slurs. They were used by people with prejudices against those races, but only because they were used by everybody.
Generally because they ended up being used by an outside group as a derogatory term for the group in question. Basically, even if they didn't begin as an outright slur, they became one, over time.What's inaccurate about "Oriental"? It's actually more accaurate than "asian" because most of Asia is Russia (and yet Russians inexplicably aren't considered "Asian") whereas "the orient" (and thus "oriental") refers specifically the the southeastern part of Asia that the words are meant to refer to. Furthermore, "the orient" and "oriental" don't have any other meanings whatsoever that are even close to still being in use nor any particularly notable root words, so how could it be inaccurate when the meaning that it's used for is the only meaning it has*?
The other reason tends to be because they're just kinda' insulting/inaccurate, such as with oriental,
*I do recall hearing that it is derived from an ancient word for "east", but that isn't a problem because even if we only consider the continent of Asia by itself China and Japan are still in the east
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 01, 2014, 10:37:43 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 01, 2014, 10:46:51 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 01, 2014, 10:53:24 pm
Actually, I think it's mostly Bohandas meandering on a tangent?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 01, 2014, 10:54:36 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 01, 2014, 11:00:46 pm
Post by: burningpet on November 02, 2014, 06:13:12 am
Ok well can we discuss on topic?
Islam and women rights maybe?
Post by: Helgoland on November 02, 2014, 06:24:52 am
Post by: smjjames on November 02, 2014, 06:26:30 am
Ok well can we discuss on topic?
Islam and women rights maybe?
You just want an opportunity to bash Islam don't you? And yes I'm aware of the issues Islam has with women's rights, it's just that you'd rather troll Islam with glee.
How about Judaism and abortion? Or BP, perhaps you can pick something that is controversial for Judaism? Besides all the politics related stuff of course.
Post by: TD1 on November 02, 2014, 10:02:20 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 02, 2014, 11:06:01 am
By my understanding a majority of non middle easern Islamic women still maintain their civil rights
Also why does everyone want to bash the crap out of each other?
Just because it's a volatile topic doesn't mean you have to be a jerk about it
Post by: burningpet on November 02, 2014, 11:21:24 am
So, yeah, pick a controversial judaism topic and lets discuss it. abortions is not one of them, btw, since there was never a law forbidding it and most jews now days (more than 90% i'd say) are in favour of it.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 02, 2014, 11:49:46 am
Post by: WillowLuman on November 02, 2014, 12:33:01 pm
Re:Islam: The criticisms I have for it apply to the other two, and most religions in general. Perhaps a less bigotted way to state the usual ones people bring up is not to generalize them to all of Islam, but to apply them to certain individuals and governments/groups. You could liken it to judging Christianity by the KKK and the 30 Years War era Roman Catholic Empire.
Post by: TD1 on November 02, 2014, 12:36:23 pm
What about amalek mitzvah? It seems like a fairly violent place to start.
Amalek mitzvah, if I recall correctly, is where God orders the Jews to commit genocide against their enemies, under the thought that the other tribe's ways would infect the true religion.
Post by: burningpet on November 02, 2014, 01:26:05 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 02, 2014, 01:34:09 pm
They essentially wanted to force their laws down the other tribes' throats. Sure, the laws are good ones, but that doesn't mean you should wipe out anyone who doesn't say they follow them.
Post by: burningpet on November 02, 2014, 01:48:40 pm
Not only that, in the oral version, it has a sort of double meaning there by how you sing/emphasis those passages, where jews are not only ordered to "Remember amalek crimes and wipe them from under the skies", but to also to "Not be forgotten from under the skies", as in, not get exterminated by pure evilness.
Post by: Frumple on November 02, 2014, 02:09:15 pm
Post by: burningpet on November 02, 2014, 02:30:12 pm
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humor (oops, i just linked a different definition of a term you are probably not entirely familiar with)
Post by: TD1 on November 02, 2014, 02:32:12 pm
As in "Kill all the Americans! Their soldiers kill our children!"
Post by: burningpet on November 02, 2014, 02:34:38 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 02, 2014, 02:36:20 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 02, 2014, 02:38:54 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 02, 2014, 02:39:30 pm
Post by: burningpet on November 02, 2014, 02:44:21 pm
... yeah, when you say that killing the weakest of a (your) nation is the blackest of evil, and then turn around and say you should slaughter the entirety of another nation (including, of course, their weakest) that's about as hypocritical as hypocritical can get.
Nope. a condemned reaction, yes, but its also an understandable reaction, actually. especially considering they didn't actually slaughter them.
And if you take into account the times then, those israelites probably thought that evilness is a genetic trait or something in the amalekits, so they wanted to uproot it.
History suggests it is a phase all religions go through - kind of a rebellious teenage angry phase involving kicking and screaming before a calm maturity which understands such things are not good for the long term settles.
Still waiting for islam to mature then.
Post by: WillowLuman on November 02, 2014, 02:54:17 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 02, 2014, 02:56:34 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 02, 2014, 02:58:29 pm
Post by: Bohandas on November 02, 2014, 03:00:57 pm
History suggests it is a phase all religions go through - kind of a rebellious teenage angry phase involving kicking and screaming before a calm maturity which understands such things are not good for the long term settles.
At least all western religion. Judaism went through it in ancient times, and Christianity went through it in the middle ages
Post by: burningpet on November 02, 2014, 03:02:45 pm
Which... the vast majority already do, by and large.
When the minority is 200-300 million people, that's not comforting at all. the fact the vast majority are silent about it, is far more troubling.
Post by: WillowLuman on November 02, 2014, 03:08:33 pm
Post by: burningpet on November 02, 2014, 03:16:29 pm
And its not just that "small" (Small almost the size of the united states small) figure. its the vast majority who are silent on this issues.
Where are the mass muslim protests against ISIS? where are the mass muslim protests against women inequality in the middle east?
And i'd say we are at the stage where we should remove all religions, not just islam. islam is just the most dangerous of them all.
(And don't confuse belief and/or faith with religion).
We should look at it practically and ask what had religion gave us and whether its still needed at this stage.
Post by: Sheb on November 02, 2014, 03:22:08 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 02, 2014, 03:27:48 pm
Where are the mass muslim protests against ISIS?
Here (http://rt.com/news/189168-german-muslims-protest-isis/) is (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/heathrow-airport-terminal-blocked-by-antiislamic-state-protesters-9779813.html) a (http://online.wsj.com/articles/french-muslims-protest-against-islamic-state-1411755890) small (http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/08/muslims-against-isis-bring-the-protests-fox-news-says-dont-exist/) selection (http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2014/10/10/moderate-muslims-speak-out-against-terrorism/) of (http://kfor.com/2014/09/19/oklahoma-muslims-rally-against-isis/) stories. (http://www.demotix.com/news/5132431/no2-isis-protest-held-outside-saudi-embassy-london#media-5132391)
This might cause cognitive conflict in you, BP. Or maybe not, depending on how deep your preclusions go.
Post by: WillowLuman on November 02, 2014, 03:34:13 pm
There is, perhaps, a more interesting discussion to be had about the relevancy of religion in general, but you get away from that when you single any of them out.
Post by: burningpet on November 02, 2014, 05:18:29 pm
Where are the mass muslim protests against ISIS?
Here (http://rt.com/news/189168-german-muslims-protest-isis/) is (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/heathrow-airport-terminal-blocked-by-antiislamic-state-protesters-9779813.html) a (http://online.wsj.com/articles/french-muslims-protest-against-islamic-state-1411755890) small (http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/08/muslims-against-isis-bring-the-protests-fox-news-says-dont-exist/) selection (http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2014/10/10/moderate-muslims-speak-out-against-terrorism/) of (http://kfor.com/2014/09/19/oklahoma-muslims-rally-against-isis/) stories. (http://www.demotix.com/news/5132431/no2-isis-protest-held-outside-saudi-embassy-london#media-5132391)
This might cause cognitive conflict in you, BP. Or maybe not, depending on how deep your preclusions go.
That's not a mass protest. there were less than 50 people there. nothing like the riots when someone made a caricature of muhammad, or the anti-jews protests in europe.
Post by: TD1 on November 02, 2014, 05:24:18 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 02, 2014, 05:34:35 pm
Where are the mass muslim protests against ISIS?
Here (http://rt.com/news/189168-german-muslims-protest-isis/) is (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/heathrow-airport-terminal-blocked-by-antiislamic-state-protesters-9779813.html) a (http://online.wsj.com/articles/french-muslims-protest-against-islamic-state-1411755890) small (http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/08/muslims-against-isis-bring-the-protests-fox-news-says-dont-exist/) selection (http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2014/10/10/moderate-muslims-speak-out-against-terrorism/) of (http://kfor.com/2014/09/19/oklahoma-muslims-rally-against-isis/) stories. (http://www.demotix.com/news/5132431/no2-isis-protest-held-outside-saudi-embassy-london#media-5132391)
This might cause cognitive conflict in you, BP. Or maybe not, depending on how deep your preclusions go.
That's not a mass protest. there were less than 50 people there. nothing like the riots when someone made a caricature of muhammad, or the anti-jews protests in europe.
BP, there were like 6 separate links there, from hundreds a simple googling threw back at me from all over the EU, north Africa and the US. I notice you missed link about the 20,000 Muslims who marched in Germany - that is comparable to the number of people who show up to any major protest in the EU about nearly anything. Or the link to the "hundreds" who marched in Paris. Or link to the article that discusses how FOX news is not reporting on the significant number of American Muslims protesing up and down the US. Or the link to the article that discusses a group of Moroccans developing a large following on YouTube for speaking out against ISIS - a process being repeated by British Muslims, also reported in the same article. Nor the link form a local news station in Oklahoma, again showing how Muslims in the US are voicing their opposition. Or the hundreds of Muslim protestors who had a protest outside the Saudi embassy in London. You go ahead and ignore those links just like you are apparently ignoring the fact that a majority of Muslims in the west are actually speaking out against ISIS. Single in on the example I posted that almost conforms to your preclusions - in any case, 50 Kurds organising a protest at an London airport that closes a terminal is still a big deal - considering the level of security present there.
Post by: smjjames on November 02, 2014, 07:06:37 pm
History suggests it is a phase all religions go through - kind of a rebellious teenage angry phase involving kicking and screaming before a calm maturity which understands such things are not good for the long term settles.
At least all western religion. Judaism went through it in ancient times, and Christianity went through it in the middle ages
It was kind of a proccess, through the Spanish Inquisition and the reformation, and all the witchhunt stuff.
Post by: WealthyRadish on November 02, 2014, 09:39:51 pm
Spoiler: Wall o' Hate (click to show/hide)
Post by: Baffler on November 02, 2014, 10:48:31 pm
a fictional nation.
u wot m8?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 02, 2014, 11:09:17 pm
Nothing bad going on that I'm missing is there?
Post by: Gentlefish on November 02, 2014, 11:18:52 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 02, 2014, 11:34:58 pm
That would be like saying you should outright abolish Jewish worship or Christian worship or [insert religion] worship
Post by: smjjames on November 02, 2014, 11:46:36 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 02, 2014, 11:49:04 pm
Post by: smjjames on November 02, 2014, 11:54:44 pm
It meandered a bit on something about Judaism and then BP steered it right back onto Islam.
I have no problem discussing anything related to judaism, controversial or not because i am not religious. the sad thing is, though, that it seems there is a real problem when starting to speak about islam controversial issues. suddenly every critic becomes a racist/bigot/islamophobe.
So, yeah, pick a controversial judaism topic and lets discuss it. abortions is not one of them, btw, since there was never a law forbidding it and most jews now days (more than 90% i'd say) are in favour of it.
Ah yeah, I was initially going to say Christianity and abortion, but we all know how volatile discussions can get about that, so I changed it to Judaism, and not knowing what controversies judaism has that aren't political....
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 03, 2014, 12:00:29 am
Didn't go too bad
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 03, 2014, 12:12:49 am
Post by: burningpet on November 03, 2014, 01:38:53 am
Spoiler: Wall o' Hate (click to show/hide)
Well, we agree on one thing (Actually, Two, i also agree about christianity contribution to anti-semitism). its not a phase in islam. it was always here, sometimes below surface, sometimes as apparent as always but hidden from the western masses because the media was not as far reaching as it is now.
And of course it has to do with religion itself, like it had been for a thousand years, its just that lately, decades of years or so, the issues had different side causes that made people think religion has had nothing to do with it, but it was always there below the surface.
Lets take that claim of yours of the creation of israel as an "excuse". obviously, its an interesting opinion that disregard one very important factor: The creation of israel was only opposed by the arab countries because israelis were jews. if they had been muslims, there wouldn't be a problem at all, as evidently, no arab country attacked jordan in 1948. of course, there would be small territorial disputes here and there, but the independence war, six days war and yom kipur wars? only the result of religion, not an excuse for other motives or sentiments, a definite reason.
And obviously you should judge christianity first and foremost on the New testament and the bible, just like Islam should be judged on the Quran. i mean, we could judge islam by bahai texts, but that wouldn't be very telling.
a fictional nation.
u wot m8?
Call the drama police and arrest this man. Amalek has no mention in any other source but the bible, as opposed to many other nations that are mentioned in the bible and has other sources that also mention them.
Where are the mass muslim protests against ISIS?
Here (http://rt.com/news/189168-german-muslims-protest-isis/) is (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/heathrow-airport-terminal-blocked-by-antiislamic-state-protesters-9779813.html) a (http://online.wsj.com/articles/french-muslims-protest-against-islamic-state-1411755890) small (http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/08/muslims-against-isis-bring-the-protests-fox-news-says-dont-exist/) selection (http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2014/10/10/moderate-muslims-speak-out-against-terrorism/) of (http://kfor.com/2014/09/19/oklahoma-muslims-rally-against-isis/) stories. (http://www.demotix.com/news/5132431/no2-isis-protest-held-outside-saudi-embassy-london#media-5132391)
This might cause cognitive conflict in you, BP. Or maybe not, depending on how deep your preclusions go.
That's not a mass protest. there were less than 50 people there. nothing like the riots when someone made a caricature of muhammad, or the anti-jews protests in europe.
BP, there were like 6 separate links there, from hundreds a simple googling threw back at me from all over the EU, north Africa and the US. I notice you missed link about the 20,000 Muslims who marched in Germany - that is comparable to the number of people who show up to any major protest in the EU about nearly anything. Or the link to the "hundreds" who marched in Paris. Or link to the article that discusses how FOX news is not reporting on the significant number of American Muslims protesing up and down the US. Or the link to the article that discusses a group of Moroccans developing a large following on YouTube for speaking out against ISIS - a process being repeated by British Muslims, also reported in the same article. Nor the link form a local news station in Oklahoma, again showing how Muslims in the US are voicing their opposition. Or the hundreds of Muslim protestors who had a protest outside the Saudi embassy in London. You go ahead and ignore those links just like you are apparently ignoring the fact that a majority of Muslims in the west are actually speaking out against ISIS. Single in on the example I posted that almost conforms to your preclusions - in any case, 50 Kurds organising a protest at an London airport that closes a terminal is still a big deal - considering the level of security present there.
I missed that 20K march in germany. care to link to it? (The rest are very small)
No, he said that we should just abolish ALL religion, but ESPECIALLY Islan.
Well, we should aspire to it. i don't think we should outright ban any and all religious practice because obviously, that would result in a war between non-religious and religious people, but i do think that we should lawfully forbid religious indoctrination and any religious practice or education prior to the age of 18. its not surprising that 99% of all religious followers have parents that follow the same religion.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 03, 2014, 02:02:32 am
Because we all know that the Bible is always wrong! Unless it matches up with these other sources we have, then it's only right because it stole from them.Call the drama police and arrest this man. Amalek has no mention in any other source but the bible, as opposed to many other nations that are mentioned in the bible and has other sources that also mention them.a fictional nation.u wot m8?
Now, in all seriousness, I can absolutely agree that (holistically) we shouldn't take the Bible as a 100% reliable historical record.
But is it that hard to imagine the book having at least semi-accurate recounts of events?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 03, 2014, 08:52:49 am
Post by: Leatra on November 03, 2014, 09:35:34 am
"lawfully forbid religious indoctrination" could mean anything. It just sounds too abstract. I can call a lot of stuff "religious indoctrination" just with the right rhetoric, kinda like how people throw the word "commie" at anything. I don't like parents who bombard bullshit on their children too, but it is an oppressive way of fixing that problem. It would only strengthen fundamentalist terrorists' cause and resolve, and polarize people further.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 03, 2014, 09:55:31 am
One bad country ruins it for the rest of us, ok several bad countries, but it's not like it's all bad
Same with insulting Muslims and calling them "terrorists", the majority of them aren't even bad people.
Post by: TD1 on November 03, 2014, 11:41:45 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 03, 2014, 11:43:25 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 03, 2014, 11:43:53 am
They have potentially negative traditions, though they themselves may not be bad.Well when your whole nation does it they don't generally consider it a bad thing
Especial when your whole nation has done it for hundreds of years.
Post by: TD1 on November 03, 2014, 11:46:24 am
I woulda thought you'd be more down the line of absolutism.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 03, 2014, 11:53:36 am
They have been taught that it's ok what they do and the rest of the world they know thinks the same
I mean they have the ability to change it but it's just kinda the norm for them
Post by: TD1 on November 03, 2014, 11:57:18 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 03, 2014, 12:19:02 pm
Yes, and you believe in absolute laws from God which would paint some of those cultural norms as bad.
Ya the norms are bad but the people aren't bad for having known no different
Can't really be mad at someone for something they don't know any better about
Post by: WealthyRadish on November 03, 2014, 01:22:15 pm
Spoiler: Wall o' super hate (click to show/hide)
Post by: TD1 on November 03, 2014, 01:25:55 pm
Quote
The reason why people bring up similar examples from the old/new testament is to point out how ridiculous it is to take specific passages as representative of the entire religion, considering the incoherence and inconsistency of every religious text out there.
To be fair though, more Muslims would look to these than a Christian would.
Post by: Bohandas on November 03, 2014, 02:21:35 pm
Muslim protests against ISIS go unheard, since it doesn't attract media a lot.
"lawfully forbid religious indoctrination" could mean anything. It just sounds too abstract. I can call a lot of stuff "religious indoctrination" just with the right rhetoric, kinda like how people throw the word "commie" at anything. I don't like parents who bombard bullshit on their children too, but it is an oppressive way of fixing that problem. It would only strengthen fundamentalist terrorists' cause and resolve, and polarize people further.
I agree with "religious indoctrination" being too vague a term
I disagree with the implications of your last statement however. Just because something further polarizes an already contentious issue and makes people angrier and more contentious doesn't automatically make it bad; the Emancipation Proclamation, for example, polarized a contentious issue (IIRC that was actually its primary intent; it was more about pissing off the south than actually freeing slaves). As another example, Hitler might've won World War II if we hadn't been deliberately rude to Japan's diplomats.
Post by: Bohandas on November 03, 2014, 02:42:34 pm
I always hated that insult,"You dirty commie".
One bad country ruins it for the rest of us, ok several bad countries, but it's not like it's all bad
The main problem I have with it is the implication that because communism doesn't work that that makes capitalism somehow good.
There can be more than one bad system, and it is fully possible for one system to be better than another and for both of them to neverteless still be bad. And this is precisely what we find with capitalism and communism.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 03, 2014, 02:58:53 pm
Then again that's pretty impossible if it's done in a democratic nation because people generally vote for the most charismatic one which means it's not that hard for corruption to slip it's way in
Post by: Sheb on November 03, 2014, 03:06:22 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 03, 2014, 03:07:11 pm
Wait do you mean communism or socialism?Socialism and to an extent communism
Post by: TD1 on November 03, 2014, 03:09:29 pm
If you don't get corrupt people in power
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Post by: Sheb on November 03, 2014, 03:10:00 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 03, 2014, 03:13:34 pm
Well, there is plenty of reasons why a fully socialist system couldn't work. Bureaucracies are inefficients, and having many small business is better than having workers in a building in Moscow trying to determine how many socks should be spun.
Ya I think about any DF player can vouch for that
Post by: Helgoland on November 03, 2014, 06:06:13 pm
There can be more than one bad system, and it is fully possible for one system to be better than another and for both of them to neverteless still be bad. And this is precisely what we find with capitalism and communism.If you call all availible systems bad though, you might want to readjust your metric.
Post by: burningpet on November 04, 2014, 01:26:42 am
Spoiler: Wall o' super hate (click to show/hide)
The religious war:
1) The hostility toward jews began long before 1948. there was no centralized hostility toward muslim immigrants. the difference was only because jews were jews.
2) Nasser didn't lead egypt in 1948 and so the first trigger (and the real triggers for the rest of the wars, bar the sinai short operation) is well established. it was simply because israel was jewish. the anti-imperialisim and other side effects, only rise when you look at the only difference between israel and jordan. israel is filled with jews. anti-imperialism was a means to an end. "with the following actions on Israel's part (and to this day) being nothing short of atrocious" - Ah, i understand where you'r coming from now :)
3) Abdul Rahman Azzam, the Arab League's first secretary-general: the establishment of a Jewish state would lead to "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades." why not about jordan? why because jordan was not a jewish state.
Islam and Hadith:
I have refrained from the hadith, because a) there isn't a unified acceptance of them, b) its doesn't help the islamic apologetics since you can find even worse stuff in the hadith than in the quran.
Muslim protests against ISIS go unheard, since it doesn't attract media a lot.
"lawfully forbid religious indoctrination" could mean anything. It just sounds too abstract. I can call a lot of stuff "religious indoctrination" just with the right rhetoric, kinda like how people throw the word "commie" at anything. I don't like parents who bombard bullshit on their children too, but it is an oppressive way of fixing that problem. It would only strengthen fundamentalist terrorists' cause and resolve, and polarize people further.
Muslim protests against ISIS go unheard, because there aren't as many who attend those. except for kurdish protests, which is like Sunnis protesting against Shias.
It could be problematic and an inner family indoctrination law would be impossible to enforce (rightfully so) but a good and effective start would be to abolish religious schools of pupils below 18 and forbid entrance to religious temples for people below the age of 18. religion teachings (Note, not religious, religion) should also contain the same volume of lessons about different religions other than the accepted norm in that culture and should be handled by people of no meaningful religious affiliation.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 04, 2014, 02:15:53 am
Quote
abolish religious schools of pupils below 18 and forbid entrance to religious temples for people below the age of 18
Quote
it is an oppressive way of fixing that problem. It would only strengthen fundamentalist terrorists' cause and resolve, and polarize people further
...
Possibly a slight tangent here, but bp, why do you seem to think the best way to "solve" the "problem" of religion is to forcibly ban it?
Post by: Sheb on November 04, 2014, 02:49:35 am
Post by: Helgoland on November 04, 2014, 04:26:09 am
Seriously, :D
This is hilarious :D
:D
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sheb on November 04, 2014, 05:24:54 am
Post by: burningpet on November 04, 2014, 07:40:10 am
the hostility against jews happened long before 1947.
the jews that came to a mostly vacant country only "kicked" the newly immigrated muslims out in 1947 after the muslims tried to exterminate the jews (more than 90% of the muslims actually left by themselves, thinking they would return once the muslims exterminate the jews)
All of this just prove the point that the violence against the jews was only because the jews were jews.
Post by: Sheb on November 04, 2014, 07:54:46 am
Yeah, not everything was perfect and nice in the region before Israel came into being. Yeah, you had sectarian tension in Palestine at some times (Although not at others: I'm reading a fascinating book on Ottoman nationalism in the early 19th century Palestine at the moment, and you also had genuine feeling of belonging to one nation at some points). But it wasn't one-sided antisemitic violence: you also had Jewish terrorists attacking non-Jews to clear the land. Irgun, the organization that killed 90 people when blowing the King David Hotel is the best known, but by no mean the only one.
The country was also not "mostly vacant". (I find it hilarious that you're claiming the land was vacant yet that Jews had lived there forever). You had 1.700.000 people living in British Mandate Palestine in 1945 (With about a million Muslims and half a million Jews). Those Muslims also were not newly immigrants. And saying they "left by themselves", is entirely dishonest. Sure, most of them weren't expelled at gunpoints, they fled after the stories of massacre like the Deir Yassin massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre) reached them. And they were not waiting for "Muslims to exterminate the Jews", but for things to calm down, like refugees everywhere.
Muslims and Jews had been living side by side in Palestine for hundred of years, with occasional flare-up, but mostly in peace. That is, until Israel showed up.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 04, 2014, 08:12:43 am
I get it that he's got stuff wrong but no need for an insult like that!
Post by: Sheb on November 04, 2014, 08:46:28 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 04, 2014, 09:03:38 am
It's hard to keep calm
But insults and yelling won't change his opinion
Post by: Sheb on November 04, 2014, 09:12:07 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 04, 2014, 09:20:01 am
just not insulting
Also yes, the truth should be represented properly when we are speaking on historic records that we do have record of. Good record of that is, not possibly tainted or falsified records (yes i know religious documents can be considered this and that's why this stuff is up for debate).
Post by: Bohandas on November 04, 2014, 09:23:53 am
Okay, the country was createdmore or less out of nowhere, but the people there are the people that lived there. It's not like in 1948 a bunch of European decided to get a new state after some pretty horrible shit happened to them and kicked the Arab population out.
Don't bring race into it unnecessarily. Nationality works as well and is less controversial. They kicked the British population out.
Post by: Helgoland on November 04, 2014, 11:31:55 am
Sure, most of them weren't expelled at gunpoints, they fled after the stories of massacre like the Deir Yassin massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre) reached them. And they were not waiting for "Muslims to exterminate the Jews", but for things to calm down, like refugees everywhere.Uh, Sheb, maybe it's just me being German, but you are missing two vital points: One, the refugees were encouraged to leave by the Arab leaders, being promised a swift return after the Glorious Arab Armies would drive the Jews into the sea. That's a big factor in addition to persecution (not debating that) by the Jews. And two, a crapload of Jews came to Israel from Arab countries because of persecution there. It was more of a population swab, and certainly not the Jews cleansing the land of Arabs. And two, 'mostly in peace' is a thoroughly false description of life in Palestine before 1948 - go read up on the Mufti of Jerusalem and his SS membership, or the chummy relationship between ex-Nazis (and other antisemitic Europeans) and Arab anti-Zionists during the events leading to Israel#s declaration of independence.
Muslims and Jews had been living side by side in Palestine for hundred of years, with occasional flare-up, but mostly in peace. That is, until Israel showed up.
Not trying to change your opinion, but mostly making sure a balanced (as well as I can manage) view is presented here.
Post by: burningpet on November 04, 2014, 12:32:39 pm
We are speaking about religion here. religion is not a race.
This really fits into the middle east thread.
Ok, after a very serious study and number crunching that took me almost all of my day. i am retracting the immigration argument. it seems that while the muslims did have unusually high population growth rate for the time and reliable data is absent, even if we take the reported muslim growth and deduct the expected natural growth that was in this region at the time, we are left with nigh insignificant numbers. so, yeah, in this department, i must admit i was wrong. most of them were not newly immigrated.
Israel was mostly vacant when jews started to emigrate to it and even in 1945 when we started coming in masses. hell, it was mostly vacant in the mid 50's when more people lived in it than in 1945. a simple population density check should suffice.
The Irgun was organized and set up precisely because of the muslims hostility against the jews. anyway, it can't be a proof that the hostility wasn't religious in nature. on the contrary.
Yeah, the muslims fled because they were afraid. war is messy and scary, and? were they forced out? the vast majority of them weren't. a lot fled even before the war started. those that fled after that massacre, didn't do it because of that specific massacre or because the jews scared them, they done so because they finally figured out they weren't going to win so easily and the arab leaders scared them to do so. did they hope for the muslims to win over the jews? only a handful of probably insane people would argue that the fleeting muslims secretly hoped for the jews to win. hence a logical conclusion: probably ~90% left by their own decision and wished for the musilms to win over the jews so they could return after the war and since we established the arab secretary general and many others argued that they will exterminate the jews, winning over the jews is basically, well, exterminating the jews. there are numerous admissions that the arab leaders greatly encouraged the muslims to flee with some citing it as some of their biggest errors.
Of course muslim and jews lived side by side. with the occasion massacre, pogrom, special tax and continual depriving of equal rights for jews.
Post by: Sheb on November 04, 2014, 01:12:30 pm
Now, I did a simple population density check, and I got about 60 hab/sq km. Countries with less population density than that include the US, Belarus and Estonia. Ireland is at 64 hab/sq km. I wouldn't call them "mostly vacant", especially if we keep in mind that in 1945 there were just less people around.
Regarding pre-1948 tensions, yeah, there were Jewish-Muslims clashes. Just as you had Muslim-Christian, Christian-Jewish, Kurdish-Turkish, Turkish-Greek, Armenian-Kurdish etc etc clashes. The Ottoman Empire was never entirely stable. But as far as I know, Muslims-Jewish clashes weren't worse than the others. Anyway, my point stand that if the Muslim's goals was to exterminate the Jews in Palestine, they did a piss-poor job of it, since it was still full of Jews after over a thousand year of Muslim rule.
Also, another point of interest is that while non-Muslims lacked several right until the 1908 revolution, and indeed had to pay an extra tax (in exchange for not being conscripted), many of them, Jews and Christian alike, held a foreign passport, which under the Article of Capitulation exempted them from taxes and made them beyond the reach of Ottoman justice, understandably brewing resentment.
Helgoland: I'm not disputing those facts, the Arabs had their part of responsabilities too. But no one on these boards is claiming they were entirely innocent people being attacked by the evil Jews that wanted to exterminate them, so I don't feel the need to delve on those points.
burningpet: If the resentment is reigious in nature, how do you explain that a) the opposition to Israel was led by secular organization like the PLO until the 1980's and b) The desire to "drive the Jews into the sea" only arrived after a large influc of European jews?
Post by: burningpet on November 04, 2014, 02:11:26 pm
Post by: smjjames on November 04, 2014, 02:15:12 pm
Jews started to emigrate back to israel in 1890-1903. 17 hab/sq km.
Israel as the state that exists now, didn't exist in 1890-1903, and you're dodging the questions.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 04, 2014, 02:37:02 pm
The thing is, BP, Jews (both cultural and religious) aren't innocent by default. Just because you've been persecuted doesn't mean that you're a saint and can get away with massacres.
Speaking of which, is it just me or has Israel been QUICKLY falling out of favour with most countries recently?
EDIT: removed redundancy. Tiredness and a headache makes a great combination ::)
I hear part of it is the bombing of Palestinian hospitals and schools and such
if that's the case, first Palestine has been randomly throwing bombs and artillery into Israel, two Israel is trying to take out the buildings where the shells are coming from/stored at, three they do warning shots to tell the civies ¨Hey we're bombing the crap out of this building soon
If that isn't the big problem then nevermind, I don't much care about middle east stuff that has been happening recently
Post by: Sheb on November 04, 2014, 02:44:10 pm
Post by: WealthyRadish on November 04, 2014, 02:44:39 pm
Spoiler: Towering Ziggurat o' Hate (click to show/hide)
And yeah, this can probably go in the Middle Eastern thread.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 04, 2014, 02:46:23 pm
I trust someone to do it and I will stop it as quick as I can
Post by: Sheb on November 04, 2014, 02:58:13 pm
Cryxis, I'll try to stay extra calm and polite then.
Post by: smjjames on November 04, 2014, 03:03:31 pm
Post by: burningpet on November 04, 2014, 04:12:35 pm
How do you get 17 habitant per square kilometer? 1.700.000/~2600 km² is way more than that. Even if you only count the muslim population (~1000000), you get around 40 habitant/ km².
As said, when jews started to migrate and settle to the mostly vacant israel, it was ~18 hab/ square KM
Even in 1945, ~50/square Km (Obviously you should not count the jews) is having most of the state vacant. there is enough historic evidence of this which i am totally too lazy to cite here.
Jews started to emigrate back to israel in 1890-1903. 17 hab/sq km.
Israel as the state that exists now, didn't exist in 1890-1903, and you're dodging the questions.
So? it didn't exist in 1945 and 1947 as well. what's your point?
the desire was there, as seen in the unusual hostilities between jews and muslims long prior to the larger influx of jewish immigration. the option to conduct a full scale attack was not available because the british and the french ruled the place.
Also, evidently, Muslims have no problems with jews so long they pay their special taxes, bow down and take the occasional pogrom/massacre peacefully.
PLO: Irrelevant. An organization that was set up with the sole purpose of forming a palestinian state would naturally need to be a nationalistic organization and not a religious one if it wants to be taken seriously by the world. what country would recognize an organization that calls itself the "The jews destroyers"? you can't accept remarks like "Arab countries didn't give a damn about palestinians" and think that the PLO, which was established by the arab countries, was only set up so the poor palestinians could have a state as if it had nothing to do with wanting to throw the jews.
the religious difference between jews and muslims was and still is the root of this conflict.
Also, Fatah, the biggest and most prominent group in the PLO - The word "fatḥ" or "fatah" is used in religious discourse to signify the Islamic expansion in the first centuries of Islamic history –as in Fatḥ al-Sham, the "conquering of the Levant". "Fatah" also has religious significance in that it is the name of the 48th sura (chapter) of the Qu'ran which, according to major Muslim commentators, details the story of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.
This is a clear case of religion that evoke/use nationalism, not nationalism that evoke/use religion.
Post by: Sheb on November 04, 2014, 04:29:15 pm
Even in 1945, ~50/square Km (Obviously you should not count the jews) is having most of the state vacant. there is enough historic evidence of this which i am totally too lazy to cite here.
Well, I'm too lazy to take you seriously then.
the desire was there, as seen in the unusual hostilities between jews and muslims long prior to the larger influx of jewish immigration. the option to conduct a full scale attack was not available because the british and the french ruled the place.
Source? As I've said, there was tensions between the various constituents of the Ottoman Empire but the Jews' case wasn't unusual. Also, Muslims ruled the place for ~1000 years before the French and British ruled the place, and the Jews were not exterminated.
Quote
Also, Fatah, the biggest and most prominent group in the PLO - The word "fatḥ" or "fatah" is used in religious discourse to signify the Islamic expansion in the first centuries of Islamic history –as in Fatḥ al-Sham, the "conquering of the Levant". "Fatah" also has religious significance in that it is the name of the 48th sura (chapter) of the Qu'ran which, according to major Muslim commentators, details the story of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.
Nice copy-paste from wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah#Etymology). Now, seriously, that's you argument: their acronym evoke conquest, so they're shadow islamists?
You also keep evading the fact that the mostly ashkenazi Jews that immigrated in the 20th centuries were very different from the Sefardi Jews that had lived there for centuries. The Ashkenazi were European colonists, after the shit the locals suffered at the hand of European colonists for the past century, isn't it hard to understand they might be less than thrilled about a new crowd coming in to take their land, no matter the new crowd's religion?
Post by: smjjames on November 04, 2014, 05:19:21 pm
Post by: burningpet on November 05, 2014, 12:59:52 am
Source? As I've said, there was tensions between the various constituents of the Ottoman Empire but the Jews' case wasn't unusual. Also, Muslims ruled the place for ~1000 years before the French and British ruled the place, and the Jews were not exterminated.
As said, they were not exterminated because the muslims are fine with jews being a minor second grade citizens that pay special tax and subject to the occasional pogrom or massacre. if they thrive to a certain point, they could always go and dwindle their numbers or shift them around.
Quote
Also, Fatah, the biggest and most prominent group in the PLO - The word "fatḥ" or "fatah" is used in religious discourse to signify the Islamic expansion in the first centuries of Islamic history –as in Fatḥ al-Sham, the "conquering of the Levant". "Fatah" also has religious significance in that it is the name of the 48th sura (chapter) of the Qu'ran which, according to major Muslim commentators, details the story of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.
Nice copy-paste from wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah#Etymology). Now, seriously, that's you argument: their acronym evoke conquest, so they're shadow islamists?
[/quote]
And the problem with quoting wikipedia is? if you think its not right, you are more than welcome to change the wikipedia page and provide a reliable source for that change.
And the argument is that its not just conquest, its islamic conquest. and yes, PLO are driven by islamic sentiments and were set up by an islamic desire to rid israel of jews.
Quote
You also keep evading the fact that the mostly ashkenazi Jews that immigrated in the 20th centuries were very different from the Sefardi Jews that had lived there for centuries. The Ashkenazi were European colonists, after the shit the locals suffered at the hand of European colonists for the past century, isn't it hard to understand they might be less than thrilled about a new crowd coming in to take their land, no matter the new crowd's religion?
I am entirely not sure it was mostly sefardi jews that lived in israel at that time.
Post by: Sheb on November 05, 2014, 02:40:31 am
As said, they were not exterminated because the muslims are fine with jews being a minor second grade citizens that pay special tax and subject to the occasional pogrom or massacre. if they thrive to a certain point, they could always go and dwindle their numbers or shift them around.
Why did Muslims create the 1908 constitution that gave every citizen of the Ottoman Empire equal rights and yet waited for 40 years (and the establishment of Israel) to suddenly find out that what they wanted all along was to exterminate the Jews?
Quote
And the argument is that its not just conquest, its islamic conquest. and yes, PLO are driven by islamic sentiments and were set up by an islamic desire to rid israel of jews.
At this point I'm just going to assert that Israel was founded by lizardmen looking for a way to kill puppies. We both have source of the same quality (read, none) so our readers can decide.
Post by: Lt_Alfred on November 05, 2014, 08:05:58 am
Post by: Leatra on November 05, 2014, 09:41:22 am
Source? As I've said, there was tensions between the various constituents of the Ottoman Empire but the Jews' case wasn't unusual. Also, Muslims ruled the place for ~1000 years before the French and British ruled the place, and the Jews were not exterminated.
As said, they were not exterminated because the muslims are fine with jews being a minor second grade citizens that pay special tax and subject to the occasional pogrom or massacre. if they thrive to a certain point, they could always go and dwindle their numbers or shift them around.
All non-Muslims were exempt from conscription but they had to pay a tax. It wasn't just for Jews. Jews were quite rich and known for their expertise in finance. With the money they brought to Ottoman Empire after getting exiled from Europe, their banks flourished there and dominated the economy of Ottoman Empire.
For the "occasional pogrom or massacre" this is flat-out wrong. A lot of Jews ended up in Ottoman empire after getting a hard treatment in Europe and they didn't get massacred. I have no idea where you got this from. Non-Muslim couldn't join the army or work in many governmental areas (probably all of them but I might be wrong, Google it) but they weren't treated as second-class citizens in the European sense. "Muslims exterminate Jews" also sounds... abstract. Governments operate genocides, not nations or members of a religion as a whole group. We can talk shit about atheism by looking at Stalin with the same logic. I'm really the last guy to defend Ottoman Empire, and its' emperors, to be more specific, but facts are there. After mid 19. century the situation got worse. And massacres really did happen (especially on eastern parts), but not at a level of genocide and certainly not state sponsored. They were also very rare, but strong enough to force many Jews to move to less religious regions in the empire.
edit: TBH I see a lot of misinformation here (this is not directed at anyone), as an ex-Muslim now-Atheist, and even those who are aware of this misinformation do not know enough to prove the misinformed wrong. I don't have the time and not much can change beliefs set in stone in the minds of many even though we can reach information with one click at this age (and I don't care really, misinformation is everywhere and this forum is the least). I do not give a shit about any religion (especially Islam) but at least let's criticize them with facts, not things we hear on oh-so-very-unbiased news sources. Those who are religious, they are people too, and most atheists used to be theists. Hate breeds hate, and all that good stuff.
Post by: Sheb on November 05, 2014, 01:26:45 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 05, 2014, 01:37:33 pm
Hey, glad to see you again Leatra. :)
^
Post by: burningpet on November 06, 2014, 05:46:15 am
I dont see how the bad treatment jews got in christian countries says anything about the bad treatment they got in muslim countries.Source? As I've said, there was tensions between the various constituents of the Ottoman Empire but the Jews' case wasn't unusual. Also, Muslims ruled the place for ~1000 years before the French and British ruled the place, and the Jews were not exterminated.
As said, they were not exterminated because the muslims are fine with jews being a minor second grade citizens that pay special tax and subject to the occasional pogrom or massacre. if they thrive to a certain point, they could always go and dwindle their numbers or shift them around.
All non-Muslims were exempt from conscription but they had to pay a tax. It wasn't just for Jews. Jews were quite rich and known for their expertise in finance. With the money they brought to Ottoman Empire after getting exiled from Europe, their banks flourished there and dominated the economy of Ottoman Empire.
For the "occasional pogrom or massacre" this is flat-out wrong. A lot of Jews ended up in Ottoman empire after getting a hard treatment in Europe and they didn't get massacred. I have no idea where you got this from. Non-Muslim couldn't join the army or work in many governmental areas (probably all of them but I might be wrong, Google it) but they weren't treated as second-class citizens in the European sense. "Muslims exterminate Jews" also sounds... abstract. Governments operate genocides, not nations or members of a religion as a whole group. We can talk shit about atheism by looking at Stalin with the same logic. I'm really the last guy to defend Ottoman Empire, and its' emperors, to be more specific, but facts are there. After mid 19. century the situation got worse. And massacres really did happen (especially on eastern parts), but not at a level of genocide and certainly not state sponsored. They were also very rare, but strong enough to force many Jews to move to less religious regions in the empire.
Also, this just prove that religion was the main motivator for the pogrom and occasional massacre. and yes, a full scale genocide didn't happen (probably because the jews were too thinly spread and too scared to even show themselves as jews), unlike, say, the christians who enjoyed a full scale genocide by the same people that established that constitution sheb praised here.
Quote
edit: TBH I see a lot of misinformation here (this is not directed at anyone), as an ex-Muslim now-Atheist, and even those who are aware of this misinformation do not know enough to prove the misinformed wrong. I don't have the time and not much can change beliefs set in stone in the minds of many even though we can reach information with one click at this age (and I don't care really, misinformation is everywhere and this forum is the least). I do not give a shit about any religion (especially Islam) but at least let's criticize them with facts, not things we hear on oh-so-very-unbiased news sources. Those who are religious, they are people too, and most atheists used to be theists. Hate breeds hate, and all that good stuff.
If this does direct to me, then by all means, Point to the misinformation.
At this point I'm just going to assert that Israel was founded by lizardmen looking for a way to kill puppies. We both have source of the same quality (read, none) so our readers can decide.
Just so we're clear, i am going to summarize our arguments in plain simple words, just so anyone and especially you could actually realize what exactly you are saying.
For the record, I agree with everything UrbanGiraffe said (including the part about Arab leader don't giving a shit about Palestinians).Your argument is basically: The arab leaders don't give a shit about the palestinians. The arab leaders set up the PLO because they cared about the palestinians.
Cryxis, I'll try to stay extra calm and polite then.
My argument is basically: The arab leaders didn't give a shit about the palestinians. The arab leaders set up the PLO because they wanted the jews out of israel.
(Or wait, are you basically arguing that the PLO was not founded by the arab leaders?)
Post by: Sheb on November 06, 2014, 06:04:29 am
And again, I'm not discussing than in the 1960's, the Arab leadership wanted the Jews out of Israel. I (and everyone but you) is arguing that they wanted the Jews out of Israel because they (rightly, IMO) saw them as Europeans colonists, not for religious reasons.
Post by: Helgoland on November 06, 2014, 09:36:10 am
Don't we have a Middle-East thread for this kind of stuff? I was kinda hoping to learn some Islamic theology here... For example: What is the Islamic concept of salvation? Is there a good deeds/proper faith split like in Christianity? (If these even are meaningful terms in Islam.)
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 06, 2014, 09:39:46 am
Post by: TD1 on November 06, 2014, 12:30:06 pm
Post by: burningpet on November 06, 2014, 01:23:17 pm
Jews were actually concentrated in a few large cities of the Empire. Istanbul was only 5% Jewish, but Salonica, the Empire's thrid city (and seat of the revolutionary CUP), was 39% Jewish. In what is now Israel, Jews accounted for 5% of the Ottoman population at the turn of the century, concentrated in Jerusalemn, Tiberias, and Saffad. Jerusalem itself was 40% Jewish.
And again, I'm not discussing than in the 1960's, the Arab leadership wanted the Jews out of Israel. I (and everyone but you) is arguing that they wanted the Jews out of Israel because they (rightly, IMO) saw them as Europeans colonists, not for religious reasons.
Yeah, we will end this discussion, since its not entirely relevant. but calling them "european colonists" is maliciously and intentionally overlooking the fact that they were not colonists, but refugees (the vast majority). if there's one reason for the arab countries to oppose refugees by a systematic genocide, returning to a mostly vacant country, its only because those refugees were jews, not europeans. had they been sunni muslims returning from europe, the arab countries would have done nothing at all to try and stop them. i don't remember full scale assault of 5 countries and countless organizations against the european muslim colonists that came from spain.
Post by: Sheb on November 06, 2014, 01:49:01 pm
Post by: Lt_Alfred on November 06, 2014, 02:41:28 pm
What is the Islamic concept of salvation? Is there a good deeds/proper faith split like in Christianity? (If these even are meaningful terms in Islam.)I don't know how to simplify this but basically its like this.
During your lifetime, all your good deeds and sins are recorded until you die, Once you're in your grave, an angels comes down to you and wakes you up from you sleep, he asks if you believe in God and his prophet Muhammad, if you do you are shown a glimpse of heaven, if you don't then you are shown hell, so you can see what's waiting for you.
On Judgment day once everyone is dead, all the people of earth are lifted up from earth into the afterlife where you get judged by God (you don't get to see him though) If you have more good deeds then sins you go to heaven and if you have more sins you go to hell, also you can expect to go into one of 7 different levels of heaven, the highest is where all of God's previous prophets are and only those with very few sins if any go to, while the lowest one is where those who believe in God and worship him but have slightly less sins than good deeds go to.
I would also like to know what Islam believes on judgment day.
IIRC, Judgment day starts when This beast appears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_of_the_Earth) and the sun rises from the west, It will be signaled by an Angel "Israfil" blowing into a horn killing everyone on earth except those whom God spares, he blows into it again and people are resurrected and lifted up to be judged.
Post by: Helgoland on November 06, 2014, 02:48:15 pm
Post by: Sheb on November 06, 2014, 02:49:13 pm
Post by: Lt_Alfred on November 06, 2014, 02:58:14 pm
Is faith necessary? Could a heathen get into heaven? You weren't quite clear on that...
I'd say faith is very important, Believing in God and prophet Muhammad is one of the five pillars of Islam, but don't quote me on that, I'm not a muslim scholar so I have no right to say this is right and that is wrong.
What happens to people that do not die on judgement day? What's the point of showing you a glimpse of heaven and hell after you die?What happens to those who do not die is not mentioned, maybe they're lifted up straight to the afterlife and are not killed first, I can't say for sure.
Showing you a glimpse of heaven or hell is to offer you some peace while you rest knowing that heaven awaits you or to the opposite if you're destined to hell.
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2014, 01:11:52 am
What happens to people that do not die on judgement day? What's the point of showing you a glimpse of heaven and hell after you die?
I think you have to commit mass suicide.
Post by: Bohandas on November 08, 2014, 03:30:42 am
...all of this unnecessary Islam-bashing.
It seems a bit one-sided, but the Christian-bashing is on the Christianity thread, and people tend to shy away from Jew bashing after that german guy took it too far and ruined it for everybody.
Post by: Sheb on November 08, 2014, 03:37:32 am
Post by: Phmcw on November 08, 2014, 06:19:27 am
Post by: Helgoland on November 08, 2014, 06:45:50 am
He was Austrian....all of this unnecessary Islam-bashing.
It seems a bit one-sided, but the Christian-bashing is on the Christianity thread, and people tend to shy away from Jew bashing after that german guy took it too far and ruined it for everybody.
Post by: Frumple on November 08, 2014, 07:45:19 am
Post by: Sheb on November 08, 2014, 07:55:56 am
Post by: Frumple on November 08, 2014, 08:08:06 am
That's actually one of the most personally irritating parts of the religion, honestly. It's bloody annoying to have an ethnic group and a religious group sharing the exact same ruddy name. Whoever decided it was a good idea to set up a situation where Jew =/= Jew can be a true statement should be pummeled.
Post by: Helgoland on November 08, 2014, 08:57:16 am
Post by: smjjames on November 08, 2014, 09:22:00 am
Nope - Judaism is inherited in a matrilinear fashion IIRC, presumably because genetic testing to determine fatherhood is a fairly recent innovation. You could convert though if you wanted to.
Uh, since when was a specific religion a genetically inherited trait? Yes there are genetic markers from ethnic groups and regions, but a religion is not inherited.
Post by: Frumple on November 08, 2014, 09:26:54 am
It would be nice if two of those three would kindly bugger off from the english language. Get better words, damnit!
Post by: Helgoland on November 08, 2014, 09:28:42 am
Quote
The Mishnah (Kiddushin 3:12) states that, to be a Jew, one must be either the child of a Jewish mother or a convert to Judaism, (ger tzedek, "righteous convert").Religion can very much be inherited; Hinduism operates on this principle as well, as does Yezidism, I think. Aquiring membership only by conversion is a trait characteristic of the expansionist religions: Islam and Christianity.
Post by: burningpet on November 08, 2014, 12:06:13 pm
active islamophobes flapping about.
Phobe suggest an Irrational fear, while the differences between me and muslims fear for islam, is that i "fear" islam because it tells people to either kill me, force to convert me or be demanded to pay special tax to have the luxury of becoming a second grade citizen, while they fear islam because if they don't, they believe allah will paint their faces in black and punish them with everlasting fire.
Out of those two fears against islam, mine is actually the rational one.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 08, 2014, 03:22:19 pm
Post by: Cheeetar on November 08, 2014, 04:30:46 pm
Post by: Sheb on November 09, 2014, 11:52:24 am
Post by: TD1 on November 09, 2014, 12:18:48 pm
Post by: Reelya on November 09, 2014, 12:26:41 pm
Jews were actually concentrated in a few large cities of the Empire. Istanbul was only 5% Jewish, but Salonica, the Empire's thrid city (and seat of the revolutionary CUP), was 39% Jewish. In what is now Israel, Jews accounted for 5% of the Ottoman population at the turn of the century, concentrated in Jerusalemn, Tiberias, and Saffad. Jerusalem itself was 40% Jewish.
And again, I'm not discussing than in the 1960's, the Arab leadership wanted the Jews out of Israel. I (and everyone but you) is arguing that they wanted the Jews out of Israel because they (rightly, IMO) saw them as Europeans colonists, not for religious reasons.
Yeah, we will end this discussion, since its not entirely relevant. but calling them "european colonists" is maliciously and intentionally overlooking the fact that they were not colonists, but refugees (the vast majority). if there's one reason for the arab countries to oppose refugees by a systematic genocide, returning to a mostly vacant country, its only because those refugees were jews, not europeans. had they been sunni muslims returning from europe, the arab countries would have done nothing at all to try and stop them. i don't remember full scale assault of 5 countries and countless organizations against the european muslim colonists that came from spain.
Don't repeat the "mostly vacant" bit. It's entirely propaganda. In the aid of genocide. You might as well repeat NAZI propaganda, it's just as offensive.
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story414.html
Quote
From the early stages of Zionism to the present, Zionists have propagated the myth that the most important land-bridge in human history (Palestine) has been empty and destitute for two thousand year until it was later developed by the Israeli Jews. To facilitate such disinformation, the Zionists adopted the following slogan to entice European Jewry to emigrate to Palestine:
"A land with no people is for a people with no land".
As the Ottoman census records show Palestine was widely inhabited in the late 19th and early 20th century, especially in the rural areas where agriculture was the main profession. According to Justine McCarthy (p. 26), an authority on the Ottoman Turks, Palestine's population in the early 19th century was 350,000, and in 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews (including many European Jews from the first and second Aliyah).
So the Jewish population in Palestine as of 1914 were under 8% of the total population, which was much smaller than the Palestinian Christian Arab population. It should be noted that our source, Justine McCarthy was quoted by many Israeli Jewish scholars like Benny Morris and Tom Segev. In that regard, it's worth quoting one of the most ardent Zionists, Israel Zangwill, who stated as early as 1905, that Palestine was twice as thickly populated as the United States. He stated:
"Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ..... [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Righteous Victims, p. 140 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7-10)
OK Palestine was twice as densely populated as the USA by WWI. After WWII there were almost 1 million non-Jewish people there. What's the criteria for "empty" though? 1 million suddenly not enough?
And it's the exact same stuff white Australian colonists told themselves which made it ok to genocide the aborigines. The principle of Terra Nullius. And its easily debunked. Israel gets attacked as a colonial state not because they come from somewhere else, but because they act like a colonial state complete with the genocide and herding the locals into camps. And their propaganda is replete with ALL the stuff that colonial states have used over centuries to justify exterminating or otherwise removing the indigenous population. Demonizing the original population, controlling the movement of those people, and replacing local populations with planned "settlers" of a specific race ("settlers" is an Orwellian code used by colonial usurpers for the guy who stole your farm). None of this is new: they are the same tactics of colonialism and ethnic cleansing as used by every major colonialzing group.
A lot of writing just by Jews already tells you how screwed up it is. I was looking for something else but came across this one:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/ray-filar/why-i-am-antizionist-jew
Post by: Sheb on November 09, 2014, 02:01:15 pm
Th4DwArfY1: That's the etymology, but the current meaning is prejudice of Muslims. Just open a dictionary if you don't believe me.
Post by: TD1 on November 09, 2014, 02:03:57 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 09, 2014, 02:34:08 pm
Also, yeah, probably better suited for the middle-east thread or somethin'. We're not even hearing about the judaic or christian theological consideration of islam, here, just distorted secular views (of islamic minorities, even!).
Post by: Gentlefish on November 09, 2014, 07:53:57 pm
I'm not talking actual meaning. I'm talking association. Most people associate it with an irrational fear-it's only natural with something called a phobia.
Okay so we associate homphobia with people who scream in fright at the sight of a gay couple because it's obviously an irrational fear and not a prejudice against them and homophobic statements are totally "I'm so afraid of gay people" and not "I hate fags"?
Totally just an irrational fear of gay people.
Islamophobia is totally just an irrational fear of adherents to a religion.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 09, 2014, 10:24:30 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on November 09, 2014, 11:34:26 pm
I feel like Jack Chick would have written something about how every good Christian should be terrified of gay people.
I'm sure. "There's a Tract for That" is like, his catchphrase.
Post by: Reelya on November 10, 2014, 04:11:24 am
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0084/0084_01.asp
It's amazingly relevant, if screwed up.
Post by: TD1 on November 10, 2014, 02:32:26 pm
I'm not talking what it actually is. I'm saying that calling it Homophobia/Islamophobia naturally leads to people believing it is an irrational fear, whilst the person concerned may have a rational fear, e.g. religious reasons.I'm not talking actual meaning. I'm talking association. Most people associate it with an irrational fear-it's only natural with something called a phobia.
Okay so we associate homphobia with people who scream in fright at the sight of a gay couple because it's obviously an irrational fear and not a prejudice against them and homophobic statements are totally "I'm so afraid of gay people" and not "I hate fags"?
Totally just an irrational fear of gay people.
Islamophobia is totally just an irrational fear of adherents to a religion.
Post by: Sheb on November 10, 2014, 05:28:12 pm
Post by: TD1 on November 10, 2014, 05:29:35 pm
Post by: Tiruin on November 11, 2014, 09:47:17 am
...I can't believe [am surprised] that the author even uses very bad misinterpretations (ie In the Bible/Biblical verses) to forward his views :/ instead of what is actually objective.LMGTFYOh lord, that is so hilariously moronic and offensive I have no idea what face to make.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0084/0084_01.asp
It's amazingly relevant, if screwed up.
'Nuuuu! Teh gayz are cuming to tak ovr the gubbermunt! Fnd ur salvaton in Christ!'
Post by: Frumple on November 11, 2014, 09:52:52 am
Post by: Tiruin on November 11, 2014, 10:03:08 am
... tiru, that's Jack Chick. The man is bughumping insane. This is a person that would sodomize a squirrel if it somehow demonized the catholic church, and claim it was an order from god. Not... someone you can expect anything approaching rational contemplation from.I did not know him.
...Nor do I think anyone else around me does, here xD
So...yeah. Thanks for that though :)
Post by: Frumple on November 11, 2014, 10:06:59 am
Would that none of the world knew of jack chick. It would be a brighter place. Assuming something even worse didn't take his place.
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2014, 11:54:17 am
Post by: Arx on November 11, 2014, 01:15:28 pm
I have a question: why is it that it seems Christians are always being asked about the Bible, and Muslims don't get many questions on the Qur'an?
Post by: Sheb on November 11, 2014, 01:16:59 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 11, 2014, 02:52:10 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on November 11, 2014, 02:57:36 pm
I love how nobody can remember where to put the apostrophe.
'Q'u'r'a'n'? At least one of them is right...
Post by: WillowLuman on November 11, 2014, 02:58:41 pm
Post by: burningpet on November 11, 2014, 03:29:32 pm
I'd never heard of him either.
I have a question: why is it that it seems Christians are always being asked about the Bible, and Muslims don't get many questions on the Qur'an?
Since i am jewish, i'll answer your question with a question.
What is the global illiteracy rates of muslims?
Post by: smjjames on November 11, 2014, 03:34:09 pm
I'd never heard of him either.
I have a question: why is it that it seems Christians are always being asked about the Bible, and Muslims don't get many questions on the Qur'an?
Since i am jewish, i'll answer your question with a question.
What is the global illiteracy rates of muslims?
What is the global illiteracy rate of jews? :P *
You'd also have to go on a country by country basis to understand the literacy rate because the literacy rate is going to vary country by country.
*Trying to show how stupid the question is, not trying to be anti-semitic.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 11, 2014, 04:15:21 pm
Although, the factual accuracy is disputed. Possibly because the data was gathered from the CIA World Factbook and the CIA totally isn't biased at all, right guys?
Post by: Neonivek on November 11, 2014, 04:19:43 pm
Post by: smjjames on November 11, 2014, 04:25:11 pm
Who the heck in Vatican city can't read?
Probably the very youngest of children who haven't learned how to read just yet.
More likely is that the data size is so small or there isn't any data on it. Georgia and Somalia don't have data either.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 11, 2014, 04:31:21 pm
Post by: Sheb on November 11, 2014, 04:33:38 pm
Post by: Neonivek on November 11, 2014, 04:35:48 pm
Also, I don't think Vatican City is known for its plentiful supply of young citizens.
OHH dear goodness... Why did you just say this!?!
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 11, 2014, 05:06:23 pm
Are we on a non tangent topic?
Post by: smjjames on November 11, 2014, 05:20:44 pm
Honestly I think we're just kind of drifting with occasional attempts by BP to bash Islam.
Post by: burningpet on November 11, 2014, 05:24:52 pm
You don't seriously try to counter it with the question of jewish literacy rates, right? i mean, forget the fact i made that jewish remark only since its a common joke that jews only answer to questions with more questions and so this silly counter argument shouldn't even happen (and seriously, stop trying to counter valid arguments with anti-christian or anti-jewish arguments, its becoming pathetic), but, are you seriously trying to compare islam illiteracy rates with judaism?
Of course it varies by countries, so?
The muslim population, as a whole, has a literacy rate. find out what it is. find out what percentage of muslims who can actually read and write ever finish high school. find out what percentage of muslims have access to a computer with internet connection. find out what percentage of muslims can actually speak english. realize why there's relatively so few muslims who can answer questions about the quran:
1) The majority of them can't even read it in any language.
2) The majority of those who can read, can't read the quran in arabic (Which many of them believe is mandatory for reading it)
3) The majority of those who can actually read it, never actually read it.
4) The majority of those who can and have read it, can't communicate it with you.
hence. there's a very small minority of muslims who can answer questions about the quran and since they are probably not here, its pointless to ask "them" questions about it. (There is a highly literate, highly intelligent egyptian bay12er in the creative board, but i dunno if he is muslim though)
Post by: Sheb on November 11, 2014, 05:28:55 pm
Post by: WillowLuman on November 11, 2014, 05:32:24 pm
cooking recipe about Muslims.Is that about in the same way an apple pie recipe is about apples?
Post by: smjjames on November 11, 2014, 05:36:00 pm
I think a lot of the problems are with the way you say things though. You'd make a cooking recipe offensive if it was about Muslims.
Pretty much this.
As for muslims on the forum, the only one that I know who could be muslim would be Leatra, but that's only because I know he's from Turkey.
Post by: Sheb on November 11, 2014, 05:37:52 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 11, 2014, 05:38:19 pm
Post by: aenri on November 11, 2014, 05:38:42 pm
I think a lot of the problems are with the way you say things though. You'd make a cooking recipe offensive if it was about Muslims.
Pretty much this.
As for muslims on the forum, the only one that I know who could be muslim would be Leatra, but that's only because I know he's from Turkey.
AFAIK he is closet atheist and hates his muslim president.
Post by: Orange Wizard on November 11, 2014, 05:40:15 pm
Mm-m, Muslim pie.cooking recipe about Muslims.Is that about in the same way an apple pie recipe is about apples?
...
Also, bp? Please stop going on about Islam. I don't care how justified you think your opinions are - I (and likely many other people on this thread) am tired of hearing them.
Post by: smjjames on November 11, 2014, 05:40:38 pm
Post by: smjjames on November 11, 2014, 05:41:32 pm
Also, bp? Please stop going on about Islam. I don't care how justified you think your opinions are - I (and likely many other people on this thread) am tired of hearing them.
Same here, it's just going in neverending loops.
Edit: Why did I double post.....
When I tried to ask BP to suggest a topic about maybe something controversial with Judaism (besides political and possibly historical) or if there was anything about it he wanted to talk about and basically said no, and since he's the only active jew (AFAIK) on the thread, that leaves Christianity, which defeats the point of the thread.
The suggestion I had earlier about judaism and abortion was just a random stab in the dark attempt to get the thread somewhere other than bashing islam.
Actually, I wonder if BPs islambashing is scaring off other muslim forumers from participating.
Post by: Sheb on November 11, 2014, 05:51:08 pm
Post by: WillowLuman on November 11, 2014, 05:52:08 pm
We could talk about Zoroastrianism. Not technically Abrahamic, but it probably influenced the formation of Abrahamic religions. Certainly has some philosophic ties, and not by coincidence, having emerged in the same region semi-contemporaneously.
Post by: Lt_Alfred on November 11, 2014, 06:03:28 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 11, 2014, 06:04:24 pm
How about some lesser known religions under this umbrella?
We could talk about Zoroastrianism. Not technically Abrahamic, but it probably influenced the formation of Abrahamic religions. Certainly has some philosophic ties, and not by coincidence, having emerged in the same region semi-contemporaneously.
The Muslims* hated Zoroastrians AFAIK. Not much love lost between parties when you're constantly struggling for control over the gateways to the east.
Y'know, and the vestiges of Zoroastrianism were typically Persian during their interactions.
*Muslims chosen instead of 'Abrahamic' because they were the only group out of the three that would have had extensive cross-populace interaction. Sun gods especially don't jive with the writings, with god being the one who made the sun.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 11, 2014, 06:09:57 pm
I'm muslim, ask me.I think we all would ask about it but I'm just getting annoyed by BP's constant anti Muslim stuff
Post by: burningpet on November 11, 2014, 06:14:47 pm
Smjjames, i didn't "basically said no", i basically said i won't bother with coming up with judaism controversial topics but i would happily discuss relevant things if other bring them up.
And i can't see why i should scare muslims forumers from participating. so far, the environment here is pretty much all against me. they would feel safely in the majority and have a golden opportunity to defend their religion from a superior position.
Post by: aenri on November 11, 2014, 06:16:33 pm
I'm muslim, ask me.
So have you read the Quran? If yes what part of it spoke the most to you.
Post by: Sheb on November 11, 2014, 06:18:14 pm
Post by: smjjames on November 11, 2014, 06:19:00 pm
So muslims just happen to live in those poor third-world countries? religion has nothing to do with it?
Smjjames, i didn't "basically said no", i basically said i won't bother with coming up with judaism controversial topics but i would happily discuss relevant things if other bring them up.
And i can't see why i should scare muslims forumers from participating. so far, the environment here is pretty much all against me. they would feel safely in the majority and have a golden opportunity to defend their religion from a superior position.
Hey come on, the only reason that it seems like everybody is against you is because you keep bashing islam and everybody else pushing against that.
Maybe if you stopped bashing islam for a while, it won't seem like everybody is against you.
Incidentially, isn't the 'the environment is against us' also the Israel governments mindset?
Post by: burningpet on November 11, 2014, 06:23:21 pm
Do you actually think that religion has no implications on society?
Post by: WillowLuman on November 11, 2014, 06:25:06 pm
Zoroastrianism may possibly predate Judaism, though. Conflicts like that wouldn't have been a thing for a millennium at least. It's interesting to look at as a monotheistic religion not descended from the Abrahamic tree, but with some interchange.How about some lesser known religions under this umbrella?
We could talk about Zoroastrianism. Not technically Abrahamic, but it probably influenced the formation of Abrahamic religions. Certainly has some philosophic ties, and not by coincidence, having emerged in the same region semi-contemporaneously.
The Muslims hated Zoroastrians AFAIK. Not much love lost between parties when you're constantly struggling for control over the gateways to the east.
Y'know, and the vestiges of Zoroastrianism were typically Persian during their interactions.
I'm muslim, ask me.
Can you elaborate on the daily practices?
So muslims just happen to live in those poor third-world countries? religion has nothing to do with it?Yes. South Asia and Central/Western Africa tend to be poor and undeveloped in general, and contain countries with majorities of other religions. The link between religion and lack of development is a bit tenuous, since very affluent countries have majorities of the same religions.
Post by: smjjames on November 11, 2014, 06:26:15 pm
Bashing islam? i am bashing religion. since sheb and others bash christianity in the other thread, i am targeting islam here.
Do you actually think that religion has no implications on society?
*Sigh*
I don't see people calling each other savages on that thread or flaming each other, which seems to be what you think of islam.
And I never said that I thought religion has no implications on society.
Post by: Lt_Alfred on November 11, 2014, 06:36:21 pm
I'm muslim, ask me.
So have you read the Quran? If yes what part of it spoke the most to you.
Yes I have read the Quran, I don't know how to answer your second question to be honest, The Quran is (for those who believe in Islam) the words of God sent to his prophet and his followers, one part of it should not be more important than the others.
I'm muslim, ask me.
Can you elaborate on the daily practices?
The daily practices are simple, as a Muslim you have to pray 5 times a day to the direction of Mecca, everything you set out to do must be done with God in mind, you have to offer charity to the poor etc...
Anything you'd like to know in particular?
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2014, 06:39:44 pm
Post by: Lt_Alfred on November 11, 2014, 06:43:13 pm
How do you differentiate between Muhammad and pre-Muhammad teachings? Is there a discernible difference, as in the Old and New testaments?I honestly don't understand what you're asking, are you asking if there's any difference between Islam and Christianity/Judaism?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 11, 2014, 06:45:03 pm
Also Muslims aren't just in poor countries, there are plenty in Europe and I'm sure they are fine, you can say,"Muslims are illiterate" since that is more of a location problem
As for Isreal, they have a reason to say everyone is against them. I mean most (if not all) of their neighbors have been constantly attacking them since they became a country.
Starting now, no more extremely anti religion stuff. There are ways to word things so they don't create a lot of offence/size]
Just an off the wall question, if a Muslim were to go into space, like to mars, would they pray towards earth or would they need to calculate exactly what direction Mecca is in at that time, or would they just pray and not worry about that part?
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2014, 06:47:42 pm
How do you differentiate between Muhammad and pre-Muhammad teachings? Is there a discernible difference, as in the Old and New testaments?I honestly don't understand what you're asking, are you asking if there's any difference between Islam and Christianity/Judaism?
Em, no...more how the teachings of Muhammad, and the teaching before Muhammad...emmm, coexist? Trying to think of a way to reword it :/ Em, how they are compatible/incompatible?
Post by: Sheb on November 11, 2014, 06:48:34 pm
Now, more seriously, what the important of Jesus and other non-Mahommed prophets in Islam?
Post by: TD1 on November 11, 2014, 06:49:26 pm
Post by: Lt_Alfred on November 11, 2014, 06:52:06 pm
EDIT: I have to go get some sleep, I'll be back tomorrow.
Post by: Frumple on November 11, 2014, 06:55:28 pm
Hasn't America been mostly Christian and Europe? Those countries seem to be doing pretty wellThat... that's a painful statement to consider. I mean, sorta'? But the US is well known for its atrocities outside the country and the fairly terrible conditions in certain internal areas, and europe's been a bit of a mess over the years. There's plenty of places that are majority christian (South America and Africa both have a fair number of note, iirc, particularly of a catholic bent) that haven't been doing too hot. The vast, vast (vast) majority of local conditions have their causes coming from entirely non-religious sectors. And most of the remainder are genuinely connected to religious issues only nominally, at best.
People are people. Religious beliefs (unfortunately or fortunately, depending on who you ask) don't really seem to have much of an overall effect on behavior. Changes the particular manifestations of certain habits, but that's generally about it.
Post by: smjjames on November 11, 2014, 06:56:43 pm
They would have to pray towards earth. The direction doesn't have to be exact, just a general direction would do, for example, Muslims in North Africa pray towards the East, Muslims in Russia pray towards the south, Muslims in Europe would pray towards the South East.
EDIT: I have to go get some sleep, I'll be back tomorrow.
What if you're on Mars (or anyplace else in the solar system)? Or even further out like some distant colony light years away? At least until a holy site is established I guess.
@cryxis, why the large text suddenly?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 11, 2014, 06:58:28 pm
Post by: Helgoland on November 11, 2014, 06:58:49 pm
And what about a Muslim on the ISS? Is the prayer long enough that he'd need to turn mid-prayer as the station whizz over Mecca?In the same vein: How would sunrise and sunset and thus the prayers' timing be calculated while on the ISS?
Post by: Frumple on November 11, 2014, 07:14:03 pm
everything you set out to do must be done with God in mind, you have to offer charity to the poor etc...So, with these two... when you say, "done with God in mind", is there something specific when it comes to that -- like, a checklist of thoughts, particular mindframe, etc. -- or is it a general "manage as well as you can" sort of thing? For charity, is there any specifics when it comes to that? Certain amount, to certain groups, at certain times, etc. Basically, how formalized are those two bits? From what I understand Islam is considerably more explicit about stuff like wartime practices than the other major abrahamic religious, but I'm curious how much (if) that extends to other things.
Anything you'd like to know in particular?
Also, any words to offer on the hadiths? Which (if any) are particularly important, which you (or, perhaps more interestingly, whichever denomination-equivalent of islam you adhere to) emphasize or discard... that sort of thing.
And denominational stuff in general would be interesting to hear about. I know there tends to be some conflict there (gods know there is with christianity, ha!), but what are your personal interactions with that sort of thing, if you don't mind sharing? Amicable, hostile, etc.
Post by: Gentlefish on November 11, 2014, 07:24:53 pm
Now, more seriously, what the important of Jesus and other non-Mahommed prophets in Islam?
Muslims totally recognize jesus as another prophet. There's really not reason for them not to. Mohammed simply happens to be more important to them than "streaker J"
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 11, 2014, 07:29:33 pm
Though I don't think they consider him the son of god but just another prophetNow, more seriously, what the important of Jesus and other non-Mahommed prophets in Islam?
Muslims totally recognize jesus as another prophet. There's really not reason for them not to. Mohammed simply happens to be more important to them than "streaker J"