monkees4va wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
I think you can find that major religions have sprung up more as a political tool. If the emperor happened to dislike Christianity, how could Christianity ever become big? Europe would probably be under some paganistic religion instead. Everything makes sense in hindsight.
HA!
Chrisitanity is based on the pagan religion, did you not know that? I thought it was well known XD
It just evolved to worship some omnipowerful thing in the sky
Ooh, there's the pagan religion as well!
_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Quote:
Muslim bashing, like any form of religious bigotry, is stupid. I might not agree with a religion's teachings, but its followers are fine by me as long as they don't take a fundamentalist view, and don't force their opinions on others.
Oh, but are they true believers, in that case?
_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
monkees4va wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
I think you can find that major religions have sprung up more as a political tool. If the emperor happened to dislike Christianity, how could Christianity ever become big? Europe would probably be under some paganistic religion instead. Everything makes sense in hindsight.
HA!
Chrisitanity is based on the pagan religion, did you not know that? I thought it was well known XD
It just evolved to worship some omnipowerful thing in the sky
You suck at history and linguistics.
The word "pagan" by definition means "non-Christian." To refer to Christianity as Pagan is just outright stupid and betrays a desire to bash Christianity which is completely devoid of any historical understanding of either Christianity or Paganism.
I know it's popular on the Internet to claim that Christianity falls under Paganism, but if you post that kind of crap in here you're likely to get called out on it, so check your facts more carefully next time.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
DrizzleMan wrote:
but its followers are fine by me as long as they don't take a fundamentalist view, and don't force their opinions on others.
Unfortunately, technically, they are instructed to do just that. To fail to do so technically is apostasy. Dont bother to look it up. It means to abandon ones faith. For the sunnis, for instance, apostasy is punishable by death. How often that is carried out, I dont know.
Which is probably why we dont hear a peep out of the more liberal Muslims when the fundamentalist crazy ones do their thing. Why would a law/Koran abiding Muslim tell another not to spread the faith? He might not agree with the means, but he agrees with the message. Spread the faith. It is the moral thing to do.
_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.
Fuzzy wrote:
Unfortunately, technically, they are instructed to do just that. To fail to do so technically is apostasy. Dont bother to look it up. It means to abandon ones faith. For the sunnis, for instance, apostasy is punishable by death. How often that is carried out, I dont know.
Well, given that in heavily Islamic societies, no alternate viewpoints are able to be expressed, very few people are aware that there is something they could believe other than Islam.
Quote:
Which is probably why we dont hear a peep out of the more liberal Muslims when the fundamentalist crazy ones do their thing. Why would a law/Koran abiding Muslim tell another not to spread the faith? He might not agree with the means, but he agrees with the message. Spread the faith. It is the moral thing to do.
I know some "liberal" and "moderate" Muslims. If you ever speak to them, you will not consider them such. They are only moderates by way of contrast to suicide bombers. They still view women in an inferior role to men, they still believe Israel is the incarnation of evil and supported by a massive Western conspiracy, they still have a goal of forcing Islam on the entire world.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Orwell wrote:
I know some "liberal" and "moderate" Muslims. If you ever speak to them, you will not consider them such. They are only moderates by way of contrast to suicide bombers. They still view women in an inferior role to men, they still believe Israel is the incarnation of evil and supported by a massive Western conspiracy, they still have a goal of forcing Islam on the entire world.
Arrgghh! Smarrrt as paint ye arrrre!
ruveyn
Henriksson wrote:
Quote:
Muslim bashing, like any form of religious bigotry, is stupid. I might not agree with a religion's teachings, but its followers are fine by me as long as they don't take a fundamentalist view, and don't force their opinions on others.
Oh, but are they true believers, in that case?
Those who follow the spirit of the law are truer believers than those who follow only the letter.
_________________
The plural of platypus.
to the GUYS here, who keep spouting moralistic bs about muslim's treatment of women
as if you wouldnt want a submissive woman
your just jealous :]
when i get a gf, we're both converting. "fix me a sandwich b***h!! !"
_________________
''In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.''
ZEGH8578 wrote:
to the GUYS here, who keep spouting moralistic bs about muslim's treatment of women
as if you wouldnt want a submissive woman
your just jealous :]
when i get a gf, we're both converting. "fix me a sandwich b***h!! !"
as if you wouldnt want a submissive woman
your just jealous :]
when i get a gf, we're both converting. "fix me a sandwich b***h!! !"
Obviously no sane intellectually competent and fully capable woman wants to enslave herself to a testosterone driven dictatorial jerk and why would any compassionate intelligent male infused with decency want a woman he merely uses to relieve his sex drive?
EnglishLulu wrote:
I'm now a bit confused about what we're arguing about.
What I'm saying is that it's perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone, in a polite and courteous way, say if you don't believe in creationism, you might say that you don't share their beliefs and you believe in Darwinist style evolutionary theory, as you believe this has a basis in evidence that can be scientifically proven.
I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't disagree with people. But what I am saying is that hate speech isn't the same as polite disagreement, or 'agreeing to disagree'.
Personally speaking, I thought ruyveyn's comments - and I paraphrase here - about 'should have nuked them' (referring to muslims/Iraqis) was abhorrent. And it's indicative of the Islamophobia that some people on WP seem to find acceptable. I actually find things like that to be offensive. Because it's not saying, ok, you have your beliefs, and I have mine, and we may disagree, and we can have a polite and courteous disagreement. It's wishing death and destruction on other people. It's arguably incitement to racial and religious hatred. And there have been quite a few anti-Islam/anti-muslim comments that amount to just abuse, instead of trying to engage and discuss and reason, and to 'agree to disagree'.
What I'm saying is that it's perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone, in a polite and courteous way, say if you don't believe in creationism, you might say that you don't share their beliefs and you believe in Darwinist style evolutionary theory, as you believe this has a basis in evidence that can be scientifically proven.
I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't disagree with people. But what I am saying is that hate speech isn't the same as polite disagreement, or 'agreeing to disagree'.
Personally speaking, I thought ruyveyn's comments - and I paraphrase here - about 'should have nuked them' (referring to muslims/Iraqis) was abhorrent. And it's indicative of the Islamophobia that some people on WP seem to find acceptable. I actually find things like that to be offensive. Because it's not saying, ok, you have your beliefs, and I have mine, and we may disagree, and we can have a polite and courteous disagreement. It's wishing death and destruction on other people. It's arguably incitement to racial and religious hatred. And there have been quite a few anti-Islam/anti-muslim comments that amount to just abuse, instead of trying to engage and discuss and reason, and to 'agree to disagree'.
The question is what is respect - I do not have any respect for superstition, neither Christian, Islamic or otherwise. I think such superstition is in the modern world a threat to our survival. Bronze age idea, slightly recooked in centuries to follow, and technology of the 21th century just do not fit.
I do not that we shall "nuke", that's utterly nonsense, but, I also do not accept that their world view is any way in pair with the world view developed out of Antiquity, recovered and reinstated in Renaissance and the Enlightenment; a world view which made more progress for the god of humanity than all religions together,
We can't afford to be tolerant to any kind of intolerance - No Freedom for the Enemies of Freedom!
Dussel wrote:
I do not that we shall "nuke", that's utterly nonsense, but, I also do not accept that their world view is any way in pair with the world view developed out of Antiquity, recovered and reinstated in Renaissance and the Enlightenment; a world view which made more progress for the god of humanity than all religions together,
We can't afford to be tolerant to any kind of intolerance - No Freedom for the Enemies of Freedom!
And if the Hajis and Jihadists come to bomb the underground and kill a thousand the next time they try it, what do you propose?
Since there is no litmus test for "reasonableness" there is no ready way to distinguish a Muslim who is willing to kill and die for Allah, from a Muslim who has a decent respect for the lives and property of kaffirs.
At the very least, Muslims should be deported from Britain. They are a troublesome lot, are they not?
Deporting the lot has the virtue of simplicity and directness even if it lacks the virtue of justice.
Once deported they can be conveniently deposited on a "killing ground". Even if they are not killed their, at least they are out of your hair.
One of my favorite quotes from the Babylonian Talmud.
Sanhedrin 72a -Eem yavoah l'hargetcha, haskeem l'hargo. Translation: If he is coming to kill you, rise up early and slay him first.
Good advice from the Jewish survival manual.
ruveyn
Sand wrote:
ZEGH8578 wrote:
to the GUYS here, who keep spouting moralistic bs about muslim's treatment of women
as if you wouldnt want a submissive woman
your just jealous :]
when i get a gf, we're both converting. "fix me a sandwich b***h!! !"
as if you wouldnt want a submissive woman
your just jealous :]
when i get a gf, we're both converting. "fix me a sandwich b***h!! !"
Obviously no sane intellectually competent and fully capable woman wants to enslave herself to a testosterone driven dictatorial jerk and why would any compassionate intelligent male infused with decency want a woman he merely uses to relieve his sex drive?
I'm going off tangent from this topic here, but do you really want to discover the fetishes that are out there amongst the BDSM spectrum?
DrizzleMan wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
Quote:
Muslim bashing, like any form of religious bigotry, is stupid. I might not agree with a religion's teachings, but its followers are fine by me as long as they don't take a fundamentalist view, and don't force their opinions on others.
Oh, but are they true believers, in that case?
Those who follow the spirit of the law are truer believers than those who follow only the letter.
OK, I think the spirit of what you just wrote is that those follow only by the letter are the true believers.
_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
ruveyn wrote:
Dussel wrote:
I do not that we shall "nuke", that's utterly nonsense, but, I also do not accept that their world view is any way in pair with the world view developed out of Antiquity, recovered and reinstated in Renaissance and the Enlightenment; a world view which made more progress for the god of humanity than all religions together,
We can't afford to be tolerant to any kind of intolerance - No Freedom for the Enemies of Freedom!
And if the Hajis and Jihadists come to bomb the underground and kill a thousand the next time they try it, what do you propose?
It is not really a danger: The IRA was (is?) a much more deadly danger and I am quite certain that other fouls are also around. We had to live with a certain amount of such danger.
I think the policy Sir Francis Walsingham imposed to fight those with police and intelligence on the one side and to insulate those on the political side is still the best one. Each person they kill make their goals more unlikely.
ruveyn wrote:
Since there is no litmus test for "reasonableness" there is no ready way to distinguish a Muslim who is willing to kill and die for Allah, from a Muslim who has a decent respect for the lives and property of kaffirs.
If the UK would use such a idea in the fight with the IRA Chicago with its Irish population, of which some openly supported the IRA, would be the victim of British nuclear bomb a long time ago; or perhaps just Dublin.
ruveyn wrote:
At the very least, Muslims should be deported from Britain.
Also: Britain has with such questions longer experience. Catholics were tolerated, even long after the Bull "Regnans in Excelsis" of Pope Pius V 1570, insofar they accepted the Queen's supremacy. The change of this policy, provoked partly by Catholics - partly to please more radical Protestant lead finally to Gun Powder Plot. "Remember , remember the fifth of November" has much more teachings than the most realize.
I don't see a point in repeating the harmful accepts of late Elizabethan and early Stuart politics, especially without the need which was in this time well to argue.
ruveyn wrote:
Deporting the lot has the virtue of simplicity and directness even if it lacks the virtue of justice.
This would destroy the west in its very foundations more than any idiot, of which believe system ever, could do. We German have here our experiences and moved back to older and better pattern.
ruveyn wrote:
One of my favorite quotes from the Babylonian Talmud.
What about Emperor Ferdinant I: "Fiat iustitia aut pereat mundus" - Justice had to be done, otherwise the world will decay.
(often wrongly quoted "Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus" - Let there be justice, though the world perish)