Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Khem on August 19, 2007, 08:34:59 PM
-
Alright i would just like for someone to try and convince me that there is a god/afterlife/anything like that. i have no faith in such things and often have to defend my non-believing status. so i am giving you an open oportunity to try and convince me of having faith in "God".
come on give it your best shot!
-
Who cares, if you don't believe in God, you just don't. Religion is something that imo is a touchy subject, I personally don't like to talk about my religion, and often times when I see them debated on a forum they turn into a flame war of sorts.
One thing I will say is no one has the right to give you shit for your religion.
-
If ur already a staunch atheist, why bother? :P
If you're happy with it then be love with ti and be happy ;)
-
oh thats the problem i am not happy with it. i am merely content with it and contentment is never good enough for me.
-
Then research on the faith of various religious group...though in essence do not forget that they are man-made and God is not bound to the image created by men.
And in my faith we got the 3 divine "virtues": faith, hope, love: with love being the greatest amongst three. If you love, you know God. Faith is secondary.
-
Well there is no way to logically tell someone something to get them to believe in God. For me starting to believe in God was a very personal moment for me. Mind you I don't go to church, but I am not ashamed of that.
If your willing to search for a belief in God, I would say you will find it but only if you search in the right way.
-
Well there is no way to logically tell someone something to get them to believe in God. For me starting to believe in God was a very personal moment for me. Mind you I don't go to church, but I am not ashamed of that.
If your willing to search for a belief in God, I would say you will find it but only if you search in the right way.
Aye, the church can sometimes be the wrong place to look for..but if you're lucky, you got a priest who understands what religion should be about..and not some fundie nutcrack.
-
There's no way to logically tell someone there is a God because God is not logical. As George Carlin put it...
"The Invisible Man in the Sky".
Go PUR. Challenge the absurdities of religion.
-
And in my faith we got the 3 divine "virtues": faith, hope, love: with love being the greatest amongst three. If you love, you know God. Faith is secondary.
You don't need any God if you have faith, though.
Myro, the concept of the traditional father figure God is logical. Someone who protect and whom to blame.
Personally, I just turned the whole thing around until I found the right line. Created something that was greater than myself and realised it was me.
-
There's no way to logically tell someone there is a God because God is not logical. As George Carlin put it...
"The Invisible Man in the Sky".
Go PUR. Challenge the absurdities of religion.
That's an oversimplified view of religious belief. I have some sort of faith, but my idea of God isn't quite an "invisible man in the sky". Maybe some religious types have that view of God, but I don't.
And PUR, sometimes contentment is the best we can do. Doubts over issues like the existence of God or an afterlife, or lack thereof, are only human. Maybe you can be happy being content in this case.
-
Die Gottesformel...there is an invisible 'something', my best shot is Shiva's dance. You know, i don't like to say it, but i had a moment, inside an Evangelic camp. I don't believe in the christian god, and have reasons to hate Catholicism, yet, i believe in something, I'm not atheist, but i don't know what i am. I believe in Truth as omniscient, the closest thing i have to believe is in Buddhism. I wouldn't say i believe in Karma, but i believe the past and future influences the present, and saying so, i believe that past and future exist. Then gets more complicated if i try to bring scientific proofs into this thread, i don't think that's what you want.
I've studied religions on my own, if you understand a few you will see they all have similar concepts. It's not a problem of knowledge, it's not 'why the fuck do religions exist, there must be something in the sky'.
-
I'd recommend looking at pantheistic faith systems, as they seem fairly logical to me from an atheistic point of view. Though personally I've abandoned my faith in science and this physical world. It might everything or it might not. So what?
-
Spirituality and religion are different things. They are related, but not the same at all. Religion is an external organization, while spirituality is the individual heart-felt beliefs. One can be very spiritual without being religious in the least.
Spirituality is something that every person has to find for themselves. You have to search your heart for what you truly believe. Other people can say things that might ring true, but in the end, they can only offer thoughts to ponder.
-
i remember something funny for this topic, let me try to find the right words:
"If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist."
there was another one about omniscient, but couldn't find it.
Some say Science is another religion.
-
Mama Khab says it best, as usual! Though I'm a Christian, I don't consider myself "religious" as I don't believe that's what Jesus intended; I believe strongly in the importance of seeking faith personally and without the hindrance of 8,000,000 rules and bits of hierarchy. I'm a very non-traditional Christian, clearly.
Christianity aside (I'm NOT starting that particular debate :P), I think it would be very worthwhile for you to search yourself and your surroundings for faith in a higher power whether you discover it to be internal or external. Hell, even if it confirms your atheism it will have been a learning experience and a positive affirmation. Go PUR and may you find joy in whatever you discover and believe!
-
i remember something funny for this topic, let me try to find the right words:
"If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist."
there was another one about omniscient, but couldn't find it.
Some say Science is another religion.
Science is a religion, but that proof is invalid. Lifting requires leverage from a heavier object. So in order for even God to "lift" the rock, He must be standing on a bigger one.
-
i remember something funny for this topic, let me try to find the right words:
"If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist."
Total red herring. :trout: (<-- see?) I don't know about Islam or Judaism, but Christianity at least has affirmed for centuries that God's omnipotence is bounded by logic. God can't make 2+2 = anything other than 4, but I don't suppose that bothers anyone.
Some say Science is another religion.
Depends on how you think of science.
-
::) exactly, whoever is right earns a place in heaven.
-
Total red herring. :trout: (<-- see?) I don't know about Islam or Judaism, but Christianity at least has affirmed for centuries that God's omnipotence is bounded by logic. God can't make 2+2 = anything other than 4, but I don't suppose that bothers anyone.
As far as I know, the other faiths also bind God's power by logic. Of course, they wouldn't think of it as logic binding his power, but rather his power defining the boundaries of logic. There was, however, a debate among some Muslims over whether the Koran existed along with God in "the beginning", before there was anything else, which I find a little silly and contrary to logic. Then again, some believe the whole idea of God is silly.
-
The concept of omnipotence is self-negatory. If an omnipotent being exists, everything is because of it.
Which reminds me. The Heavenly Host never had free will, hence Lucifer rebelled. But if he couldn't decide it by himself, did God make him do it?
-
The concept of omnipotence is self-negatory. If an omnipotent being exists, everything is because of it.
Which reminds me. The Heavenly Host never had free will, hence Lucifer rebelled. But if he couldn't decide it by himself, did God make him do it?
I'm not sure how Christianity explains that one, but Islam throws Satan into the "djinn" category instead. Unlike angels, djinn (where our word "genie" comes from) are said to have free will while angels don't, although they're both pretty much imperceptible to humans. The story about Satan's fall from grace is also a little different.
-
I'm not sure how Christianity explains that one, but Islam throws Satan into the "djinn" category instead. Unlike angels, djinn (where our word "genie" comes from) are said to have free will while angels don't, although they're both pretty much imperceptible to humans. The story about Satan's fall from grace is also a little different.
That's true.The Islam Philosophy said that:Djinns are created by Allah from the smokeless fire.Humans created from land.Angels are created from divine radiance.The Djinns lived Earth before humans.They are very powerful,very smart,too fast,humans cannot see them.But they can see us.The story about Satan's fall from grace is also a little different.Satan fell from grace because he don't prostrate to Adam.
-
Which reminds me. The Heavenly Host never had free will, hence Lucifer rebelled. But if he couldn't decide it by himself, did God make him do it?
Like many modern or "blasphemous" Christians, I don't believe in a literal devil; I think it's a metaphor for the concept of evil, which was necessary so humans had something tangible to oppose. It's all well and good to say "Be good and do nice things to keep your soul pure." but people are much more likely to understand and respond if you say, instead, "There's an evil being after your soul, so you have to be good to fight his destructive temptation."
A lot of things in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, I feel you have to take with a grain of salt. Things like the creation stories and whatnot were very well-constructed metaphor, or so say most reputable Biblical scholars of our time (and I am inclined to agree after all that I've studied). Ancient Hebrew literature was rife with metaphor and all sorts of other literary devices across the board, both religious and secular writings included. The authors, being immersed in their own culture, took it for granted that the reader would recognize when they were using metaphor and felt no need to announce the fact.
We do this in our writings today; take a classic book from your homeland, preferably an old one using well antiquated phrasing and allusions, take it to a country on the other side of the globe translated for someone who does not speak your language, and see exactly how much of what's going on "between the lines" they miss when reading the text.
Wow, what a tangent I'm on today! ;D
-
exactly why the bible was always just more of a story book to me.
-
usted sabe, sé que puedo ser uno de 13 años, pero heres lo que digo:
Si usted encuentra un relgion que le hace sentirse bien, vaya para ello. im peronaslly no que relgious, pero im ont yendo a forzarlo sobre otros.
No seguro si este está en el tema, pero sólo yendo a decirlo de todos modos:
Pienso que su mal matar peolpe en nombre de su relgion. tan, relious guerras = mal para mí.
(Translation:you know, i know i may be a 13 year old, but heres what i say:
If you find a relgion that makes you feel good, go for it. im peronaslly not that relgious, but im ont going to force it upon others.
Not sure if this is on topic, but just going to say it anyway:
I think that its wrong to kill peolpe in the name of your relgion. so, relious wars= bad for me.)
-
exactly why the bible was always just more of a story book to me.
Well it's not meat to be taken literally.
-
exactly why the bible was always just more of a story book to me.
for me it's a moral guidance book. And the miracles are damn possible, they just...exaggerate, maybe blame the catholics when they revised the bible? If you have 1 bread and 2 people, how can you get 2 breads? just cut the bread in half and everyone is happy. people needed moral guidance so they could evolve to civilized world...that's my thoughts
-
i agree with Delfos.
-
For me, the complexity of the universe and life are too great for it to be completely chance. Obviously, I don't think of God as some 'Invisible Man in the Sky', or anything like that. Many people debate the concept of God because of time, but many forget that time is but one dimension, and that something can exist outside of it. I really don't claim to know what God's laws are, or what He wants us to do, but as one would think a Creator is benign, you would also think that He would wish his intelligent creations to be the same. Do not impede on others, even if they don't agree with you, etc.,
I also think that the human conscience is so enormously complicated, it can not be destroyed for eternity. However, I am not sure if this leads to an afterlife of pure being of thought, or reincarnation.
-
except the part you don't believe in reincarnation, that seems to be Buddhism, have you read Siddhartha or other books of the same sort?
Also, in a post of 6 lines, only 2 were of your judgment. Do you know what you believe in?
-
No, not really. I forgot to mention I frequent Episcopalian churches because I also feel that at least the true teachings and values of Jesus Christ are ones that we could all use. In fact, most of Christ's teachings reflect Buddhism or Jainism (sp?), so I am willing to bet his teenage and tweens were spent in India.
-
Science is not a religion, because with science you need proof for it to be accepted. With religion, you just need to spout out some crap and people believe it because some spirit supposedly said it.
-
Myroria, I'm afraid you know too little of religion. You generalize anyone who has any sort of faith in any sort of metaphysical activity. Blatantly denying such things without proof of nonexistance is as bad as blind faith in a book. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
-
Science is not a religion, because with science you need proof for it to be accepted. With religion, you just need to spout out some crap and people believe it because some spirit supposedly said it.
I'd like to note that I'm not calling science "a religion" (maybe someone is, but I wouldn't agree with that.) In that sense, you're right. Scientific thought and religious thought face different standards, but that's because they address different aspects of life. You can't require a religious believer to verify his beliefs the way you'd ask a scientist to provide proof for his arguments, precisely because the former isn't based on evidence but on an impression, a sense of the way things are or should be. It can't possibly be based on evidence as science is; that's the point of faith.
Naturally, if you don't accept the bases of any kind of religious or spiritual faith, you're free to call it a load of crap. You're hardly hurting anyone's feelings.
-
Well, the way I see it, theistic religion assigns God(s) powers that people don't believe they possess. As people gain less and less control over what they produce, they assign God(s) that control. People have the capacity to remake the world. Everyone knows that by now. And yet the still continue to assign that power to God(s). Why? Because though we can remake the world, most people don't decide how it is to be remade, nor do they reap the fruits of that remodeling.
God(s) become unnecessary when people realize their full productive capacity, and are able to take full advantage of it. Till then...
?
-
Well, the way I see it, theistic religion assigns God(s) powers that people don't believe they possess. As people gain less and less control over what they produce, they assign God(s) that control. People have the capacity to remake the world. Everyone knows that by now. And yet the still continue to assign that power to God(s). Why? Because though we can remake the world, most people don't decide how it is to be remade, nor do they reap the fruits of that remodeling.
God(s) become unnecessary when people realize their full productive capacity, and are able to take full advantage of it. Till then...
?
I'd rather say that over history, we've assigned God less willful control over the world, if not less power. Take the trials of ordeal practiced in Europe back in the Dark Ages - people actually expected God to intervene for the accused if he or she was innocent, by preventing their hand from being burned by boiling water, or keeping the accused's feet from being burned by hot coals, etc. We also used to attribute natural phenomena we just couldn't explain to God expressing his pleasure or displeasure over something or other.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by humanity's power to "remake the world" either, unless you mean we basically give up trying to improve our lives when we start to put our trust in some deity instead.
-
nice, ryaz, I've read somewhere that the Muslims (i think it's the Muslims) believe that Jesus was some dark magician that learned his magics in India. So yes, as i said in a past post in this topic, allot of religions have the same basis. They normally adopt certain values of existent ones (being Catholicism one of the youngest (of the strongest in history i mean), it's the most altered one, but not Christianity.). Buddhism has stuff from Hinduism, but pointing for the enlightenment, always a smart explanation for something exterior. Even Shiva's dance is represented in Buddhism as harmony. Then came the Tao using Buddhism basis, but with Lao(or Mao? I get confused) he is certainly a philosopher. Some say that most of this 'sciences' are all the same, even science itself.
About science, the demon of La Place was confirmed by Einstein, so science it's pretty much like science, you believe because scientists say it's true, it's the truth. It's after all a form of faith. An example is when science failed, science got it wrong more than once, but the people had faith on science to tell the truth. Now let's add Shiva into this, atomic physics are very similar with Shiva's rhythm.
Now a thing that generally all this religions have, a 'creation of the universe' theory...
Oh and it doesn't matter if someone's calling science a religion, everyone has their opinion and what i state in this post is exactly that. Maybe you are stereotyping religion with guys sitting in churches and praying allot? Well the scientists have seminars.... :shrug: lol
God(s) become unnecessary when people realize their full productive capacity, and are able to take full advantage of it. Till then...
heh That's why i like Buddhism, being a god or not it's up to you.
-
Ryaz, maybe God is Chance? We can't really experience how things might have gone, so we take the way they did for granted.
Religion has proof of itself as well. Faith.
-
Myroria, I'm afraid you know too little of religion. You generalize anyone who has any sort of faith in any sort of metaphysical activity. Blatantly denying such things without proof of nonexistance is as bad as blind faith in a book. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
hmm well i suppose i do have faith in certain metaphysical activites but i just see them as an inate part of life the universe and everything. the one thing i have trouble with is the higher power bit. i just don't agree with the idea that anything can be greater than what man can become ( theres my transhuman beliefs kicking in). i suppose if i have faith in anything its humanity, which is why my faith is disappointed so often. the current state of humanity is very depressing while our future is just full of possibilities.
-
And the last man said, "Let there be light."
-
I've read somewhere that the Muslims (i think it's the Muslims) believe that Jesus was some dark magician that learned his magics in India.
I never heard that.We(Muslims) are believe Jesus was prophet but his teachings were changed by Catholics.
-
I've read somewhere that the Muslims (i think it's the Muslims) believe that Jesus was some dark magician that learned his magics in India.
I never heard that.We(Muslims) are believe Jesus was prophet but his teachings were changed by Catholics.
Kind of arrogant to speak for all Muslims, don't you think.
-
OK, i'm not a religious fanatic or stuff. I've been baptised as an Christian Orthodox. i, for one believe in an supreme power who orders things around, may it be called God, Allah, Mother Nature or whatever. I have quite a number of issues with the Christian religion of any sort, because there are many things in The Holy Bible which simply cannot be available today. Also, i found a couple of absurdities. I mean, let's be serious, who the hell can put 2 of each living being on Earth on a stupid boat? Plus, what was Noah feeding them? :P Anyway...that book was written by people , and the things that we "should" believe were put in a the Niceea Council in 300 smth if i'm not mistaking. So, i just cannot believe what a bunch of not-so-saint people tell me, but i have a spirituality of my own based on the Christian religion.
-
lol yes it's always arrogant, but don't you all? Maybe it wasn't the muslims...anyway, someone believes in what i said.
-
I can speak for my faith 'cause it's my faith. Personal religions ftw!
-
Science is not a religion, because with science you need proof for it to be accepted. With religion, you just need to spout out some crap and people believe it because some spirit supposedly said it.
How can you prove something you cannot see? Once you have observed every possible instance of a given phenomenon in all of space and time, you have proven a scientific theory to be factual. Until then, you are making an assumption on faith; faith in the orderly, observable nature of the universe, that absolutely cannot be proven.
P.S. I wrote a post about this a couple days ago that I now cannot find. I would almost swear it was in this topic. If someone locates it, please let me know.
-
Well, the way I see it, theistic religion assigns God(s) powers that people don't believe they possess. As people gain less and less control over what they produce, they assign God(s) that control. People have the capacity to remake the world. Everyone knows that by now. And yet the still continue to assign that power to God(s). Why? Because though we can remake the world, most people don't decide how it is to be remade, nor do they reap the fruits of that remodeling.
God(s) become unnecessary when people realize their full productive capacity, and are able to take full advantage of it. Till then...
?
I'd rather say that over history, we've assigned God less willful control over the world, if not less power. Take the trials of ordeal practiced in Europe back in the Dark Ages - people actually expected God to intervene for the accused if he or she was innocent, by preventing their hand from being burned by boiling water, or keeping the accused's feet from being burned by hot coals, etc. We also used to attribute natural phenomena we just couldn't explain to God expressing his pleasure or displeasure over something or other.
Congratulations on completely missing the point. The point is not that human beliefs evolve over time, because they do. It's that the more our productive capacity increases, and the less control people have over the fruits of production, the more productive power we assign to God. Notice that I say "productive power," rather than "power of intervention." Productive power is the capacity to create new things. In the oldest religions, for example the Sumerian, Greek and Egyptian, the Gods (or the chief god) and the Universe emerged out of Chaos at the same time. Gods then created humans. Only later was God assigned the power to create the world as well as its inhabitants, a power most people believe God holds to this day.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by humanity's power to "remake the world" either, unless you mean we basically give up trying to improve our lives when we start to put our trust in some deity instead.
Humans are productive creatures. Over the last hundred years, our productive power has greatly increased, so much that we are able to change the shape of coastlines, to create artificial mountains and valleys, to eliminate and then recreate forests, and even to contemplate terraforming other worlds. That's what I mean by our power to remake the world.
However, due to the nature of our society at the present time, most people don't have a hand in deciding how the world is to be reshaped. Only a few people have that authority. The majority of people, because the decisions are out of their hands, are willing to assign the power of creation to God, willfully ignoring the fact that it resides in their fellows, and may be seized from their fellows.
Better?
-
Congratulations on completely missing the point.
Oh, come on, there's no need to be like that.
The point is not that human beliefs evolve over time, because they do. It's that the more our productive capacity increases, and the less control people have over the fruits of production, the more productive power we assign to God. Notice that I say "productive power," rather than "power of intervention." Productive power is the capacity to create new things. In the oldest religions, for example the Sumerian, Greek and Egyptian, the Gods (or the chief god) and the Universe emerged out of Chaos at the same time. Gods then created humans. Only later was God assigned the power to create the world as well as its inhabitants, a power most people believe God holds to this day.
Fair enough. In that sense, I suppose the further some people are removed from the direct fruit of their labor, the more uncertainty they have about their fate and the more of it they entrust to God. You have to realize that "production" here is also a little abstract as a concept, since you seem to be talking about creation on all sorts of scales.
Humans are productive creatures. Over the last hundred years, our productive power has greatly increased, so much that we are able to change the shape of coastlines, to create artificial mountains and valleys, to eliminate and then recreate forests, and even to contemplate terraforming other worlds. That's what I mean by our power to remake the world.
However, due to the nature of our society at the present time, most people don't have a hand in deciding how the world is to be reshaped. Only a few people have that authority. The majority of people, because the decisions are out of their hands, are willing to assign the power of creation to God, willfully ignoring the fact that it resides in their fellows, and may be seized from their fellows.
Better?
Your idea is much clearer now, I think. I don't agree that God doesn't have creative power simply because individuals are able take the power of production into their own hands, though.
-
and i wouldn't expect GC with another theory: "Religion is the opium of the people"
-
I was raised in a staunchly Catholic family and I believe religion is a way for an Intelligent minority to control an ignorant majority..a way to make people believe they were dying for the right causes,a excuse to start wars..please no one hate me for this I do not hold religion against anyone I believe in free thought and was just putting down the simplistic theory I created myself...I love you all no matter what.... :) :'(
-
sweet. That's control, that's what catholic became even before the collapse of the roman empire. control the population. More than a third of the world's population paying taxes to an empire, empire collapses, where does the money go? oooo greedy popes! i cannot even imagine how much money they can have.
-
forgot to underline, catholicism
seems you only know Catholicism, my advice to you, read about other religions. It's not all about control, they go everywhere, physics, astronomy, philosophy most of all, but basically: moral guidance and ethics. That's my view, and i know quite a few.
-
Me too I should've been more specific in that I'm not an Atheist but more of a karma chameleon :'(sorry for bringing Boy George anywhere near this thread....ouch....don't have smiley shooting self in head....I believe that all good you do will return to you in some way or form,and I mean to animals and humans..I 'am with you on the philosophy aspect but I'm not well booked on it so I just went with what I knew most about....and I'm not close-minded at all I give all things a chance ;)
-
Well, I don't have any with guns, but you could always borrow this one, Bialy. (http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/fighting/fighting0045.gif)
-
:o ??? ??? ??? :o
-
that would work,thank you!!!
-
i think that the bs that religion wants to make you believe first why would god want you to live your life and be happy. why would this kind forgiving god want you to live in constant fear of being damned to hell and to spend every living second of your life focused on that? i have a belief of god, but i havent shown up in church since easter. i dont think that that makes you better at being religious. and the bible is being taken too literal. the bible is to be a guideline to live your life like dont steal be kind to everyone. that is my take
-
you are exactly right Towlie,those insane fanatics are ridiculous! If they want to believe that god wants us to sit down here in fear,and I believe they are fools for living such a meek lifestyle,you do not have to be poor to appease god nor rich,you just have to be a good person!
-
i cannot even imagine how much money they can have.
The richest single organization in the entire world. This includes corporations. Harvard University is a distant second.
And to expand on Rycesz and towlie's posts:
God loves you, unless...
You're homosexual
Athiest
Agnostic
Protestant
Muslim
Jewish
Catholic (see Protestant)
You breathe
You think the Big Bang is reasonable
You think we evolved from apes
You invent the telescope (God no longer will send you to hell if you invent the telescope, He changed his mind. Accept it.)
etc.
etc.
-
And to expand on Rycesz and towlie's posts:
God loves you, unless...
You're homosexual
Athiest
Agnostic
Protestant
Muslim
Jewish
Catholic (see Protestant)
You breathe
You think the Big Bang is reasonable
You think we evolved from apes
You invent the telescope (God no longer will send you to hell if you invent the telescope, He changed his mind. Accept it.)
etc.
etc.
you cannot be remotely serious about that i know that there is things about being a homo in there but only a complete moron would go to a t
hence the verbiage guideline not rules.
how you came up with that list is beyond me. my intended words are that any one that god loves everyone no matter what your beliefs are as long as you are a good person
-
Catholic protestant isn't catholic, and that's only the catholic version of blacklist for heaven. And don't forget to add Turkish.
-
I'm agreeing with you towlie. I, like you, are criticizing religion's extensive blacklist.
-
sweet i was i a heavily religious area and people usually jump down my throat because of me challenging what they were taught from day one
-
Myroria, I believe I have addressed that particular issue on more than once occasion. The simple fact of the matter is that NONE of the New Testament was written by Jesus, and the four that describe his life have likely been altered. The only part of the Bible I take for accuracy is the Old Testament.
Anyway, think about this:
A human life is finite, limiting the amount of sin one can do.
God is just, therefore He would make an appropriate punishment if there is to be one. With that in mind, Hell as it is taken by modern Christians simply contradicts the image of an all-merciful and just God.
-
I'm not rejecting that God - if there is one - would be just. Hell is simply not just. I've always been a believer in "[If there is a Heaven and Hell], one cannot be sent to an eternity in Hell for a sin they committed during a limited life".
-
you don't seem to be believing much, are you christian at all?
-
He hasn't said he was, and he basically repeated what I said.
-
yes but he says his nation is Catholic but doesn't believe in Christ, which is it? I sense some confusion in that.
Talking about God, but not talking about god, that's my only doubt, are we talking about God, Religion or Catholics?
The New Testament is actually different from the original as many say and practically scientifically proved. That's the basis for Dan Brown's novel. Is religion just about faith in something transcendent, or the cult of metaphysics? or is it a regime of established concepts and ideas about this unquestionable transcendence?
Now we will have 'commies' saying it's a regime
believers saying it's faith
what do you think?
You don't have to believe in God to say it's faith, i have faith in the truth but I'm not Buddhist nor i believe in any specific God. But my faith is self-questionable because i assume it may not be right at all times, as a principle, making it a regime of ideals or principles.
-
Delfos: I hover between atheism and Deism. And the Myrorian Catholic Church accepts Jesus as the son of God and is thus Christian, it's just very different from most Christian churches. Myrorian Catholicism is nothing like Roman Catholicism besides its name and the fact its run by a single, Pope-like person. But that's beside the point.
-
then it's christian and not catholic. main difference in religious figures of Catholicism and protestant religions is the fact catholics worship other figures beyond God, like saints and stuff, the pope is another holy figure, and priests are like kings imposing a law. Protestants normally only believe in God and Christ, or christian God, and there's no other figures beyond that. But you talk about other Prophets, so it's more like a special doctrine, and if you accept other prophets to be sons of God or sent by God then it's not christian either. Catholics are specific, a group of Christians, and Christians are all that believe in a Christian God and Christ, doesn't matter if they accept abortion or not. So i would suggest you chance Myrorian Catholicism to...Myrorianism? sounds good to me, and you are not specifying a specific religion besides your own national religion.
I'm not very informed about Deism, maybe we call it another name around here, but Atheists don't believe anything transcend them, if you have a religion or faith in something you cannot control, then probably you are not Atheist, I know I'm not.
But you haven't answered the last question and I'm interested to know many answers, maybe it can light PUR (Neil! why did he change his name).
-
Delfos-Deists believe that G-d exists, he created the world, and then stepped back to enjoy the show. Basically A Deist believes that once G-d was finished created the universe He let it take it's own course and hasn't interfered in any way since. It was big in the US after independence, as well as in Britain. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are the two most recognizable names when it comes to Deism.
Ok, onto what I believe. I'm a Jew, and as such I believe in the basic principals of Judaism. I have my own set of personal beliefs regarding the Torah (the Old Testament to most) that may differ with the views of other Jews, so I'll try to separate my personal beliefs with the beliefs that I share with most other Jews.
G-d is omnipotent. He created the universe, and He created Earth for man to hold dominion over. He gave us Earth as a theatre to live our lives on. He doesn't want us to spend all day praising him, or wasting every moment of our lives in His service. He basically just wants us to be good people, to treat our fellow man with dignity and respect. Heck, He doesn't even care if most of us believe in Him (I'll get to that latter).
There's a story in the Talmud (the Torah+other religious text written afterwards) about a man who wasted his whole life serving G-d. He stayed celibate his whole life, and spent most of his day in Temple praying. He never indulged in pleasures of the Earth, never drank, never celebrated, always spent his time working in the name of G-d. When he died he went to heaven, and G-d confronted him. He told the man He was disappointed in him.
"But I dedicated my life to your service my Lord" the man protested.
"I have denied you so much in the form of My commandments, why would deny yourself any more pleasure?" G-d asked.
And that sums up the basic Jewish view in G-d, a belief I was born into and have accepted. G-d created Earth for man to rule, and He occasionally lends a helping hand when needed.
Ok, onto the heaven thing. Who gets in? Judaism is unique among the Western faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) in that we don't believe you have to be one of us to get in. Let me explain.
We believe that G-d created all races of men, but chose the Jews as his "Chosen People." Now this sounds more glamorous then it really is, and anyone even remotely familiar with the history of the Jewish people can tell you that. Being G-d's "Chosen People" means that G-d chose us to to be the people to maintain His faith. We're the ones G-d chose to keep his faith, come hell or high water, even it means persecution. Essentially, no matter what happens to us, we have to keep the faith. That's why Jews have been so reluctant to convert. It's a matter of upholding a responsibility given to us by the All Mighty.
Back to heaven, who gets in? If you're born a Jew G-d expects you to keep the faith, so only people born Jewish are required to practise the religion in order to get into heaven. If you aren't born a Jew all G-d asks is that you follow the Seven Laws of Noah. These consist of the Ten Commandments with the three religious ones removed. So basically Jews believe that if you're not born Jewish, but still lead a good life, you get in, no questions asked. Seeing as a non-Jew doesn't have to convert to get in, someone who does convert to Judaism is to be considered just as Jewish as someone born into the faith. This is because the person has converted for the love of G-d faith, not to "better their chances" at getting into heaven, since the person would have gotten in simply by leading an honest life.
All of this ties into the concept of the Chosen People. G-d chose us to preserve His faith, hence it's up to us to keep that faith. Abandoning the faith He gave our ancestors is paramount to abandoning the responsibility he gave us. That is why if a born Jew abandons the faith he doesn't get into heaven.
All the other races of man, however, are just as much creations of G-d as we Jews are. Since He hasn't chosen any of them to carry on His faith He doesn't expect them to follow it. All He asks of non Jews is that they lead a good, honest life.
It's impossible to explain G-d's nature. As human beings our minds simply aren't able to comprehend His nature. We assign him titles like "King" "Judge" or "Lord." We even simplify him, as Myro stated, as the "invisible man in the sky."
All of these titles and descriptions, however, are only meant to simply G-d's nature into something we as humans can understand. We simply can't understand G-d's true nature, so we simply Him to the role of a king or judge so we can comprehend who He is.
So that's the general belief structure of the Jewish religion, a belief structure I've embraced.
I do, however, have my own beliefs and ideas within that belief structure, that to be honest pisses a lot of Jews off. Most of these beliefs fall under what I call the "Two types" theory.
Here's an example of it in action.
People say homosexuality is wrong, because it says so in the Bible, the part of the Bible that Christians and Jews share. True, the Torah (Old Testament, Bible, whatever you want to call it) says homosexuality is evil. The Bible, however, says a lot of other things. According to the Torah every Saturday I'm suppose to go to Jerusalem to BBQ a goat. It also says I have to kill any Jew I see working on Saturday, and my dad is allowed to trade my sister for a camel.
My point is that the Bible is full of stories. Some of them are filled with good moral lessons that help people lead honest lives. Other stories, however, preach about outdated laws and customs that may have had a purpose 5,000 years ago, but have since lost meaning. It's with the stories about BBQing a goat and killing people working on the weekend that I place the passage condemning homosexuality. Yes, it's in there, but I feel it's one of the passages that has lost any sense of relativity.
So I don't believe the Torah word for word. I believe that some stories serve as great tools to help you live your life, while others are outdated remnants of a past long gone. We need to recognize the difference between the two. Condemning homosexuals simply because it says so in the Bible makes as much sense as me booking a flight to Jerusalem this Saturday to BBQ a goat.
-
Very nice, i heard about Deism in this forum already but you actually resumed it. I think we call it in a totally different way.
I have some regards specially towards on what i see a Jewish society can become. I once saw a documentary about Israel's society and the 'prayers' and all the religion around it. And got a bit revolted, how can they imply judgment on the Palestinians and Iranians when their society is even more ruled by religion than the others? Maybe you could explain me about Israelite society and the influence of Judaism? Like why men may not work at all and pray whole life while women get to work their ass off, things like that. Maybe i was missinformed?
-
I have some regards specially towards on what i see a Jewish society can become. I once saw a documentary about Israel's society and the 'prayers' and all the religion around it. And got a bit revolted, how can they imply judgment on the Palestinians and Iranians when their society is even more ruled by religion than the others? Maybe you could explain me about Israelite society and the influence of Judaism? Like why men may not work at all and pray whole life while women get to work their ass off, things like that. Maybe i was missinformed?
Well concerning Israel, in theory, the state was established as a Jewish homeland, and to be frank, if we want to set up a society where we practise our own faith, so be it. Israel doesn't condemn the Palestinians and Iran because they're Islamic societies, if a state is founded by Muslims, and they want society within the state to revolve around Islam, then so be it. The issue isn't religious, especially considering Islam and Judaism are actually very close belief-wise. The issue is survival. To Jews, and Israelis especially, the Palestinians and Iran want to wipe Israel, their nation, off the map. Wouldn't you be pissed at an other country if the destruction of Portugal was an official government position? The condemnation of the Palestinians and Iran, from the Jewish perspective at least, is born out of self-defence. Sort of like a "They want to wipe us out? Well we'll fight back" kind of mentality.
It's just incidental that the two states in question are Islamic in nature. Judaism isn't anti-Muslim, in fact Mohammad was one of the few non-Jews throughout history to treat the Jews as equals. If a state wants to be Islamic in nature, we couldn't care less. We only condemn the Palestinians and Iran because they threaten our survival as a people, at least from our perspective. Even then, we don't want to wipe them off the map, we just believe that if/when they attack we should be ready, and our ultimate wish is that they would just let us be.
If the Jews, and again, Israelis in particular, didn't view the Palestinians and Iran as a threat to our survival, we wouldn't have any problem with them. Likewise if the United States, for example, made it part of their foreign policy to wipe out Israel (almost happened too), then Israel would condemn the US. It's not because Judaism is anti-American, it's because in that scenario the US was threatening Israel's survival.
Again, I pose the question, wouldn't you condemn a country if they made the destruction of Portugal and the Portuguese people an official government policy? You wouldn't hate them because of their religion or how their society works, you simply hate them because they have openly advocated for the destruction of your people.
So I hope I answered your questions in regards to why Israel, the Palestinians, and Iran.
Now onto what I assume was the more important part of your question, Jewish society. Again, I'll say what I said at the start, in theory Israel was founded as a Jewish state, therefore shouldn't Jews be allowed to practise their culture there?
I do, however, agree with you 100% about your assessment of what you saw of Jewish society. What you saw were the Orthodox. Generally speaking there are three levels of Judaism, Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform.
Orthodox Jews follow the Torah to the letter, if it says something in the Torah they do it. They're the ones you see with the long hair, wearing a prayer shawl outside of Temple, in all black, with the long beards.
Next you have the Conservative Jews. They're pretty normal, you probably couldn't pick one out of a crowd. They're Jews who don't believe in following the Torah to the letter, they interpret the Holy Text, and see how it applies to the modern world. Still, they go to Temple every Saturday morning, and the services are mostly in Hebrew.
Then you have the Reform. They follow the Torah even less then the Conservatives. They don't keep Kosher (Jewish dietary laws), they believe that a Jew should only follow the parts of the Torah that he or she feels at ease with. Services are usually held in the primary language (where I am that would be English, I would assume a Reform service in Portugal would be held mainly in Portuguese). Only a few passages, the really important ones, are read in Hebrew.
The portion of Jewish society you saw was the Orthodox fraction (both a small part of the worldwide and Israeli Jewish populations, actually). Like I said above, they follow the Torah to the letter, only utilizing modern innovations when necessary. This means that they live in a manner very much like ancient Jews. They pray all the time, and the women work most of the day. In actuality the Orthodox lifestyle contradicts what the Torah says, they're simply keeping alive a way of life that has existed for so long. They blindly read the Torah, never questioning it, which ironically goes against the Torah. The Torah teaches us to question our teachings to expand our mind, so by reading and following it blindly like the Orthodox do, they're defying the Torah.
My personal view of the Orthodox, and the society they live in, is similar to my view of anyone who takes their faith word by word. I believe they're short sited and maybe emotionally weak, using religion as a crutch.
I'm a Jew, yes, but I use my faith as simply something to guide me through life, not as something that controls me.
The documentary that you saw only focused on a small segment of the Jewish population. Most Jews don't prescribe to their outdated way of thinking, and their constant meddling in the Israeli government had halted peace talks more times then I care to count.
As to you being misinformed, it would depend, I guess. If they presented the Orthodox community as how Jews act all over the world, then yes, you were mislead. That actually provides an interesting opening for me to ask this question.
I've heard that Portugal is actually one of the more anti-Semitic places in the world? Is that true? I've never been there, and I'm not accusing you, I'm just telling you what I've been told. Is anti-Semitism prevalent in Portugal?
-
You have split the matter in two, but they declare jihad, and since we're talking of religion based states then i would mix both. Seems you don't have religious basis to actually say who's right and who's wrong. And What i meant is that the structure isn't much difference, as you told that Islamic and Judaic society/culture isn't much different in base of religion, so i assume this is a 'western' influence to think Israelite think they have better society than the Islamic ones.
I actually saw the difference of those groups, they boarded other living groups in Israel, specially the catholic and other Christians. But my problem was actually the extreme influence the religion had in the society, where the 'prayers' were actually payed with pensions by the state and all that. That's why i initially referenced other Islamic cultures around Israel, where i actually do not consider they have less developed society than Israelite.
About that if you deserve or not a place to have Judaic people, sure you do...but it could have been some other place...why Jerusalem? Saladin wouldn't be happy if he could see this from his grave...but that's another issue that i do not want to discuss because i do not believe Jerusalem should be held by a single religion/state, otherwise it should be the rightful ones that actually conquered Jerusalem (by force).
About anti-semitism. I don't know where you heard that. Well it's in our history and most of the European history that to please the Catholic Church we all had to expel the Jews out of our countries. But there's allot of stories about Jews in Portugal, the 1st is that we sent them all to Holland (Netherlands) because it was neutral to the Catholic Church. That's one of the reasons why Netherlands became the best merchant nation a bit after in history. And the court of Portugal kept allot of Jews working for the King, he actually fancied them, not like the Spanish b1tch who would rather decapitate them. To actually tell you a funny story, allot of theories point that Colombo (Columbus) was a Portuguese Jew, one of the protected by the King of Portugal. Anyway moving on in history, we had a dictatorship, deep catholic one, so it would probably be very anti-Semitic, parallel to Hitler's. But after the revolution that is impossible, we have some neo-nazi but they are almost outlawed by the modern constitution, and we are certainly in numbers less racist/xenophobic/anti-semitic than the Spanish, German, English and such. Giving yout he example of Nuetros Hermanos (Spanish), they have regions willing to become independent (Glad we are!) and they have allot of cases of racism over that. If a Catalan go to a Basque pub he gets a twice as expensive beer as a Basque would. That's why i say USA should have some kind of revolution over the right so they could wake up about their nationalism :p
so no, if you heard we have high numbers of anti-semitism, it's either outdated from the time of our dictatorship or false.
-
Myrorian Catholics believe in Saints. It's very complicated. And I'm not changing its name. Deal with it. Since you want me to explain it so bad, Delfos...
Myrorian Catholicism believes, indisputably, that God created the universe and chose Taijitu's people as His chosen people. Well, all people who accept a God (All Christians, Jews, Muslims). They're going to Heaven, assuming they live a good life. I'll get to the un-chosen people soon. Earth is visited by prophets, saints, etc., but other planets with otherworldly life is not refused. Nor is homosexuality or evolution, in these aspects, we're Deist.
People who follow a philosophic religion, such as Buddhist, Confuscianism, or Taoism, are going to hell for 3 earth years, before they will be allowed into Heaven. This is another thing. Like Islam, we don't believe Hell is eternal. Unless you commit horrible, horrible crimes (genocide, etc.), you're going there no longer than the number of years you lived, plus the age of your victim if you murdered someone at a young age.
And IS, I need to ask this to a real life Jew: If the Jew's are "God's chosen people", and it says so in the Christian Bible (Which most take word-for-word), what's with the Jew-hating? Isn't it kind of counterintuitive to getting on his good side by killing his people?
Commenting about the Israel situation (I was careful not to use "Israel question"...):
Yes, Israel took Palestine's land. That sucks. But the few Muslims that are all attacking Jews and stuff over it need to get over themselves. America lost Northern Maine to Canada, Britain lost the American Colonies, do you think America is suicide bombing Halifax or that Britain is launching SCUDs into Boston?
-
it's quite different, and to resume it, Americans came from no where, the native Americans are Indians, that were legally or theoretically owned by the British Crown, too bad they lost it, but it was by force, and don't forget the French had one of the most important goals, without even using A-Bombs. That would be greatly legitimate if there wasn't discrimination in Israel. Building a wall around it? Come on, only Bush is as Stupid for proposing a wall near Mexico. Any European would say "only over my dead body" about construction of walls, we had the Wall of Berlin lesson, seems only Europeans have learned with it. Plus Israel takes a fight back with arms on Palestinians and other Islamic. "Oh it's for defense!" What bombing Lebanon is Defensive? Killing Palestinians is Defensive? That's why this will never stop while Israel maintains isolationist program, Israelites kill Palestinians, Palestinians throw rockets at Israelite bases. But frankly, at least they have hit military targets...
This matter is very sensitive, it's worthless to compare to any other in the world, this is unique. An Unique proof of human stupidity, they kill one of ours, we kill a thousand of theirs and it's scored...right?
-
You have split the matter in two, but they declare jihad, and since we're talking of religion based states then i would mix both. Seems you don't have religious basis to actually say who's right and who's wrong.
Of course we don't have a religious basis. No one does. And I never pretended that we do. The conflict in the middle east has nothing to do with religion. Judaism and Islam have no ideological qualms with each other. In fact Islam is an offshoot of Judaism. Muhammad said it himself. He admired the Jewish and Christian religions (Christianity being an other offshoot of Judaism), and wanted his race (Arabs) to adopt a similar faith. Rather then convert them to one of the two existing religions, he took their basic principals and molded them to fit the Arab psyche. Hence Islam was born.
So the faiths are incredibly similar. The current conflict in the middle east is over territory and perceived wrongs by the other side, not religion. Israel is against the Arab world, not because of anti-Islamic sentiment, but because they view the Arab world as a threat to their security. Wouldn't you be anti-Spanish if Spain made the destruction of Portugal official government policy?
And What i meant is that the structure isn't much difference, as you told that Islamic and Judaic society/culture isn't much different in base of religion, so i assume this is a 'western' influence to think Israelite think they have better society than the Islamic ones.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's fair to say Israelis think they have a better culture then Iranians. Like-wise I think it's fair to say Iranians think their society is superior to Israel's. And neither is right. No one society is better then any other. Each society is based on the practises of the people. A Muslim no doubt would prefer Iran to Israel, and a Jew would choose Israel over Iran. As a Canadian I would choose Canada or the the UK over the US, and an American would choose the US over Canada or the UK. See what I'm getting at? Everyone thinks the society they live in is the best. No one's right, no society is the best. It all depends on who you are and what you feel at ease with.
I actually saw the difference of those groups, they boarded other living groups in Israel, specially the catholic and other Christians. But my problem was actually the extreme influence the religion had in the society, where the 'prayers' were actually payed with pensions by the state and all that. That's why i initially referenced other Islamic cultures around Israel, where i actually do not consider they have less developed society than Israelite.
I never said Islamic societies were less developed then the Judaic society in Israel, it's just different, tailored to Islamic specifications.
What you need to understand though, is that Judaic society isn't underdeveloped either. Of course, in a Jewish state Judaic institutions are going to be funded by the state. Just like Islamic institutions are funded in Islamic states. Islamic states are tailored around the Islamic faith, just as Israel is tailored around the Jewish faith. Neither is "better" then the other, it just depends on who you are.
About that if you deserve or not a place to have Judaic people, sure you do...but it could have been some other place...why Jerusalem? Saladin wouldn't be happy if he could see this from his grave...but that's another issue that i do not want to discuss because i do not believe Jerusalem should be held by a single religion/state, otherwise it should be the rightful ones that actually conquered Jerusalem (by force).
You need to understand something. We didn't pick Israel and Jerusalem at random. It was picked because that's the historic homeland of the Jewish people. We have already been there in 1948 if the Romans hadn't expelled us in the Diaspora. The land that is now the State of Israel was picked because that has always been the homeland of the Jews.
Also, I would disagree about Saladin. Saladin was very kind to the Jews, he considered the Jews brothers to the Muslims, much more so then Christians. If anything Saladin would be sad to see the two peoples he loved and considered brothers, at war with each other.
Also, you should know that the original borders of the State of Israel didn't include the city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was still a city in Jordon, but was taken by Israel during the Six Day War in 1967. So Jerusalem was conquered by force by Israel.
As for why the Jews should control Jerusalem, that city has been the centre of Jewish myth and civilization since King David. In fact the prayers of Passover end with the saying "Next year in Jerusalem" hoping that in a year the holiday will be held in the Holy City.
Yes, the city has importance to both Muslims and Christians, but it was a Jewish city centuries before Christianity and Islam came into existence.
About anti-semitism. I don't know where you heard that. Well it's in our history and most of the European history that to please the Catholic Church we all had to expel the Jews out of our countries. But there's allot of stories about Jews in Portugal, the 1st is that we sent them all to Holland (Netherlands) because it was neutral to the Catholic Church. That's one of the reasons why Netherlands became the best merchant nation a bit after in history. And the court of Portugal kept allot of Jews working for the King, he actually fancied them, not like the Spanish b1tch who would rather decapitate them. To actually tell you a funny story, allot of theories point that Colombo (Columbus) was a Portuguese Jew, one of the protected by the King of Portugal. Anyway moving on in history, we had a dictatorship, deep catholic one, so it would probably be very anti-Semitic, parallel to Hitler's. But after the revolution that is impossible, we have some neo-nazi but they are almost outlawed by the modern constitution, and we are certainly in numbers less racist/xenophobic/anti-semitic than the Spanish, German, English and such. Giving yout he example of Nuetros Hermanos (Spanish), they have regions willing to become independent (Glad we are!) and they have allot of cases of racism over that. If a Catalan go to a Basque pub he gets a twice as expensive beer as a Basque would. That's why i say USA should have some kind of revolution over the right so they could wake up about their nationalism :p
so no, if you heard we have high numbers of anti-semitism, it's either outdated from the time of our dictatorship or false.
I'm not sure where I heard it, it's just something that most Jews assume, I guess. Kind of like "oh so you're going to Portugal? It's a lovely country, but don't tell anyone you're Jewish, they don't like us over there." Stuff like that.
I'm glad to know it's outdated though, 'cause I've actually wanted to go (I hear you have great whine).
Yep, I know all about Holland. My ancestors, after leaving Israel after the Roman Diaspora, settled in England, but left for Holland after Edward I expelled all the Jews. They then returned to Britain after Oliver Cromwell readmitted the Jews some five hundred years latter. About a hundred years latter (1770's) my half of the family moved to Canada, the other half stayed behind.
As far as my family goes, we're not typically religious. We assimilated into Dutch, then British, then Canadian culture. So there's a long history of my family thinking of themselves as Britons or Canadians who happen to be Jewish rather then Jews living in Britain or Canada. Still, we go to services, I had a Bar Mitzvah, and we don't eat things that aren't Kosher in the house (anything outside the house is fair game, hello Red Lobster ;D ).
-
And IS, I need to ask this to a real life Jew: If the Jew's are "God's chosen people", and it says so in the Christian Bible (Which most take word-for-word), what's with the Jew-hating? Isn't it kind of counterintuitive to getting on his good side by killing his people?
Honestly Myro, I have no idea. I guess it's like when one kid beats up his brother because he thinks his brother is his parents' "favourite."
It may be simple misunderstanding. Like "oh they think they're so special, being G-d's chosen people," when in reality being G-d's chosen people is more of a responsibility then a privilege.
I guess it boils down to them being pissed we haven't accepted Jesus as the Messiah.
It's interesting, I know Christians who celebrate the Jews as G-d's chosen people, and who don't hate us at all. On the other hand there are Christians who hate us. I wish I could answer your question Myro, as it's puzzled me for a while.
....Britain is launching SCUDs into Boston?
*Shifts eyes suspiciously.
Fox to Hound's Nest, operation Bean Smash has been compromised.
-
Plus Israel takes a fight back with arms on Palestinians and other Islamic. "Oh it's for defense!" What bombing Lebanon is Defensive? Killing Palestinians is Defensive? That's why this will never stop while Israel maintains isolationist program, Israelites kill Palestinians, Palestinians throw rockets at Israelite bases. But frankly, at least they have hit military targets...
This is the kind of crap that pisses me off to no end, and it's this kind of crap that convinces me there's some kind of underlying anti-Semitism in world opinion.
Yes, bombing Lebanon was defencive. Want to know why? Because Hezbuellah agents operating on Lebanese territory were launching SCUDS into Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers, while the Lebanese government was unable or unwilling to stop it. What else was Israel suppose to do? Let Hebuellah continue to attack them? If you honestly think that Israel bombed Lebanon without being provoked then you're an idiot. I don't like calling people who disagree with me an idiot, but in this case I feel it's warranted. Hezbuellah was using Lebanon as a springboard to terrorize Israel, Lebanon for whatever reason didn't stop it, Israel had no choice but to go in.
Killing Palestinians? How one-sided is the news over there in Portugal? What about the waves of Palestinian suicide bombers blowing themselves up in civilian centres like restaurants and malls, or buses? These Palestinian terrorists launch these bombers from Palestinian communities. Israel, having been attacked, goes into these communities to kill the groups responsible for the suicide bombings. Unfortunately civilians on both sides are killed in the cross-fire. It's unfortunate, but that's how war works.
-
Plus Israel takes a fight back with arms on Palestinians and other Islamic. "Oh it's for defense!" What bombing Lebanon is Defensive? Killing Palestinians is Defensive? That's why this will never stop while Israel maintains isolationist program, Israelites kill Palestinians, Palestinians throw rockets at Israelite bases. But frankly, at least they have hit military targets...
This is the kind of crap that pisses me off to no end, and it's this kind of crap that convinces me there's some kind of underlying anti-Semitism in world opinion.
Yes, bombing Lebanon was defencive. Want to know why? Because Hezbuellah agents operating on Lebanese territory were launching SCUDS into Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers, while the Lebanese government was unable or unwilling to stop it. What else was Israel suppose to do? Let Hebuellah continue to attack them? If you honestly think that Israel bombed Lebanon without being provoked then you're an idiot. I don't like calling people who disagree with me an idiot, but in this case I feel it's warranted. Hezbuellah was using Lebanon as a springboard to terrorize Israel, Lebanon for whatever reason didn't stop it, Israel had no choice but to go in.
Killing Palestinians? How one-sided is the news over there in Portugal? What about the waves of Palestinian suicide bombers blowing themselves up in civilian centres like restaurants and malls, or buses? These Palestinian terrorists launch these bombers from Palestinian communities. Israel, having been attacked, goes into these communities to kill the groups responsible for the suicide bombings. Unfortunately civilians on both sides are killed in the cross-fire. It's unfortunate, but that's how war works.
I am a American of Polish/English/German decent,and have not a drop of Anti-semitism in me I was raised catholic but do not go to church anymore,call me stupid and stubborn if you want but when it comes to the cross vs the crescent I'am taking up my cross.My best friend that is in the U.S.Navy is Jewish ,I do believe that Isreal is defending themselves,the terrorists live right next door and can throw their horrid ideology and weapons down on Isreal at leisure,and do!I do think the final crusade was waged when Isreal was proclaimed a nation,and they have the right to exist and defend themselves in a matter they see fit.I think they have handled themselves in exemplary fashion and have nothing to be ashamed of!
-
I as a American of Polish/English/German decent,and have not a drop of Anti-semitism in me I was raised catholic but do not go to church anymore,call me stupid and stubborn if you want but when it comes to the cross vs the crescent I'am taking up my cross.My best friend that is in the U.S.Navy is Jewish ,I do believe that Isreal is defending themselves,the terrorists live right next door and can throw their horrid ideology and weapons down on Isreal at leisure,and do!I do think the final crusade was waged when Isreal was proclaimed a nation,and they have the right to exist and defend themselves in a matter they see fit.I think they have handled themselves in exemplary fashion and have nothing to be ashamed of!
Well said.
-
no actually we have no sides in the news, or mostly, we have the 'western' side tainted by USA. But i tend to watch elite news that focus on facts, and my point is the same, both Islamic and Israel are wrong and both are killing innocents, no right to judge the other side is wrong where the same side is killing too. Basically peace in Middle East is only possible if BOTH stop shooting each other. But what is most impossible is why Israel is disliked by every nation around them.
And i had no idea Israel had taken Jerusalem by force, but even then my point is the same, there's no reason to get Jerusalem or that specific land. Arabia Saudita, Iran and Palestina have enough land to trade Jerusalem with.
-
It's an extremely complex issue, and one I won't get into very far. Essentially, the extremist wings on both sides, Israeli and Palestinian, prevent any progress, if there's in fact any progress to be made. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are guilty of propagating violence. Maybe after four or five generations pass...
edit: An Israeli operation against Hezbollah would have been a proper response, in terms of international law. The actual bombing campaign that took place was a gross overreaction, and it ended up failing Israel anyway. There was no reason to cripple Lebanon's infrastructure by knocking out bridges (in an extremely mountainous country, no less.)
-
Delfos, apparently all the news over in Portugal is communist, anti-Israel, anti-USA, pro-EU crap. At least by what you say is it in.
Not to say the news in America isn't the exact opposite. I only trust the BBC for my news.
-
Religious Debates are just as stupid as Delfos Debates in my opinion ^_^
-
hahaha this is where you both fail
No, i express my opinion, you have extreme difficulty to understand what's a fact and what's an opinion And you actually pull things out of your ass, if you say I'm anti-Israel then i must be anti-Iran, anti-Islamic, anti-Semitic and all that crap, "stop pulling things out of your ass". And you should try to understand what is Communism and what is Left-wing before even trying to criticize it. and it's not the news in Portugal, it's Euronews, check yourself. I get insulted by expressing my opinion and actually defend any of my ideals, personal offenses should be moderated.
Agreed with Eientei, but seems they rather bomb a civilian area killing 1000x more civilians than Hezbollah guys. Point maintains, both sides are killing, both are wrong. No i cannot understand how killing innocent will ever solve this problem. Saw the speech of some Israelite defense guy or something saying they stopped their presence in Gaza, they pulled back, everything was OK. While what we know is that what happened was a response to Israelite incursions in Gaza. Both can formulate as excuses as they can have to attack each other but both are doing the same awful job. And that's what i asked as religious or other base for 'excuse' to fight.
Oz you smell, and you don't know what a crescent is, no wonder why you think this is stupid. <3
-
And you should try to understand what is Communism and what is Left-wing before even trying to criticize it.
I know what communism is. Communism is the deaths of 12 million. Communism is walling off cities. Communism is forcing people to give up their right to ownership. Before you tell me what Communism is Delfos, perhaps you should learn what it is.
-
this is a religious debate anyway, i bet some will totally disagree with you, you have a quite pessimist view of Communism, ignorance helps, but let's not make a case of it.
Why am i anti-Israelite? because i compare them the same as the Palestinian or Iranian?
-
this is a religious debate anyway, i bet some will totally disagree with you, you have a quite pessimist view of Communism, ignorance helps, but let's not make a case of it.
But he's right. Eveything Myro described about communism has happened in every single communist nation established. Every single one.
Now I know you'll say "well that's not true communism."
You're right, the PRoChina, the USSR, Cuba, Red Cambodia, etc... they aren't "true" communist regimes. The revolutionary leaders of all of those states, however, all tried their hardest to make true communism work, and each and every time it devolved into totalitarianism.
Communism, when attempted at the level of the nation-state always devolves into a one-party totalitarian society. Therefore Communism as a contemporary political and economic system does not work. In the end Communism winds up equalling exactly why Myro described:
I know what communism is. Communism is the deaths of 12 million. Communism is walling off cities. Communism is forcing people to give up their right to ownership. Before you tell me what Communism is Delfos, perhaps you should learn what it is.
I mean Stalin killed more people then Hitler. Hitler devoted his regime to the extermination of entire races, and he Stalin still outdid him.
edit: An Israeli operation against Hezbollah would have been a proper response, in terms of international law. The actual bombing campaign that took place was a gross overreaction, and it ended up failing Israel anyway. There was no reason to cripple Lebanon's infrastructure by knocking out bridges (in an extremely mountainous country, no less.)
If simply attacking Hezbollah and leaving the Lebanese infrastructure alone was possible it would have been done. The IDF is one of, if the, most efficient military machines in the world. The Lebanese infrastructure had to be attacked because Hezbollah had woven itself into it. If the Lebanese people want to blame someone for their nation's infrastructure being torn apart, they can blame Hezbollah for infecting it, and forcing Israel to respond in the way they did.
-
What the fuck does Hezbollah and Israeli politics have to do with the Jewish *religion*? And palestinians? Cry me a fucking river, Israel's been *too* accommodating, fuck 'em. Secondly, I am so fucking tired of hearing this "USSR and China and Cuba aren't true communists. And yet commies go round waving fucking soviet flags. This is so fucking full of hypocrisy that only the Left could be capable of it. I agree 1000000% with Myro and Oz and Inglo Scotia.
Delfos, you're an idiot.
fucking communist bullshit.... for fucks sake.....
-
that's no excuse, what you say is, if i wanted to kill Myroria, i could launch several nuclear ICBM over USA, that would end with him for sure.
Happens that, even after Israelite bombings, Hezbollah got stronger, and it definitely drove a point to the Palestinian cause. People don't have to feel sorry or pity for the Jews in Israel because of the Holocaust, specially when they murder innocent people the same way Hitler did. Yes, not that i have to feel sorry for the Palestinian that kill Israelites, but you can't just say you can and they can't because you are defending Israel.
SD is being a jerk :fb:
-
SD has hurt my feelings ;)
Now, this whole tendency that certain debates have to get into cappy v. commie flamefests really must stop. I haven't the inclination to go back and read the thread to see who started it, but really, if someone tries to derail the thread into this sort of thing, IGNORE THEM. Now, just for the heck of it, I'll answer the charges since Delfos hasn't been doing a very good job. (sorry, but you really haven't.)
I know what communism is. Communism is the deaths of 12 million. Communism is walling off cities. Communism is forcing people to give up their right to ownership.
Myro, your critiques on this subject have always been juvenile and uninformed, and I'm really getting tired of having to refute the same false arguments over and over. So here's the short, annoyed version of a rebuttal.
1) not all deaths in communist countries can be blamed on the communist system, just as not all deaths in capitalist countries can be blamed on the capitalist system. The example I like to use to illustrate this point goes like this. Chad is a capitalist country, and produces almost no food for its people. But this lack of food production is not the fault of capitalism: it is the result of Chad being located almost entirely in the Sahara desert. Similarly, the Ukranian famine, whence came most of those twelve million deaths, was caused not by the collective system, but by environmental factors that blighted the wheat crop.
2) The Berlin Wall was one case, and this sort of action is not confined to the bureaucratic collectivist states of the Soviet bloc. Israel and the United States both want to put up walls defining their borders with their neighbors, and I don't see you critiquing them.
3) Any "right" is always arbitrarily defined, and is always dependant on the power of the ruling class to defend it. The whole concept of "natural rights" (as opposed to legal/political/civil rights) is an entirely idealistic notion, with no basis in reality. Your right to property depends on the ability to defend that property, or to have a State do it for you.
The revolutionary leaders of all of those states, however, all tried their hardest to make true communism work, and each and every time it devolved into totalitarianism.
Untrue. There is a very simple way to implement communism: implement workplace democracy, and at the same time place capital into the hands of the workers who use it. By capital, I mean physical capital, such as tools, buildings, land, machinery, etc. What the "revolutionary leaders" of the USSR, PRC, and RoC did was to nationalize capital, and at the same time make the management of that capital dependant not on the decisions of workers, but on the decisions of bureaucrats.
RoC is moving ever so slowly towards implementing communism, since workplace democracy does exist in that country, and the recommendations of the workers are ususally taken into account by State planners. But until there is both workplace democracy and worker (as opposed to State) ownership, there can be no communism, and these "revolutionary leaders" know it.
Also, I would appreciate it if you'd read the debate "is Russia a Socialist Community" that took place between Earl Browder (affirmative) and Max Schactman (negative) in the 1950s. It was pretty clear even then that the USSR and its clones weren't even moving towards socialism, much less communism. It can be found on marxists.org, and probably elsewhere.
What the fuck does Hezbollah and Israeli politics have to do with the Jewish *religion*? And palestinians? Cry me a fucking river, Israel's been *too* accommodating, fuck 'em. Secondly, I am so fucking tired of hearing this "USSR and China and Cuba aren't true communists. And yet commies go round waving fucking soviet flags. This is so fucking full of hypocrisy that only the Left could be capable of it. I agree 1000000% with Myro and Oz and Inglo Scotia.
You're tired. Get some rest, eat a good breakfast, and come back in the morning. You'll feel a lot better, I promise.
-
People don't have to feel sorry or pity for the Jews in Israel because of the Holocaust, specially when they murder innocent people the same way Hitler did. Yes, not that i have to feel sorry for the Palestinian that kill Israelites, but you can't just say you can and they can't because you are defending Israel.
Um, no, Israel is not murdering the Palestinian people AT ALL.
I'll leave you be now, let you get back to your rally.
-
SD has hurt my feelings ;)
Now, this whole tendency that certain debates have to get into cappy v. commie flamefests really must stop. I haven't the inclination to go back and read the thread to see who started it, but really, if someone tries to derail the thread into this sort of thing, IGNORE THEM. Now, just for the heck of it, I'll answer the charges since Delfos hasn't been doing a very good job. (sorry, but you really haven't.)
I know what communism is. Communism is the deaths of 12 million. Communism is walling off cities. Communism is forcing people to give up their right to ownership.
Myro, your critiques on this subject have always been juvenile and uninformed, and I'm really getting tired of having to refute the same false arguments over and over. So here's the short, annoyed version of a rebuttal.
1) not all deaths in communist countries can be blamed on the communist system, just as not all deaths in capitalist countries can be blamed on the capitalist system. The example I like to use to illustrate this point goes like this. Chad is a capitalist country, and produces almost no food for its people. But this lack of food production is not the fault of capitalism: it is the result of Chad being located almost entirely in the Sahara desert. Similarly, the Ukranian famine, whence came most of those twelve million deaths, was caused not by the collective system, but by environmental factors that blighted the wheat crop.
2) The Berlin Wall was one case, and this sort of action is not confined to the bureaucratic collectivist states of the Soviet bloc. Israel and the United States both want to put up walls defining their borders with their neighbors, and I don't see you critiquing them.
3) Any "right" is always arbitrarily defined, and is always dependant on the power of the ruling class to defend it. The whole concept of "natural rights" (as opposed to legal/political/civil rights) is an entirely idealistic notion, with no basis in reality. Your right to property depends on the ability to defend that property, or to have a State do it for you.
The revolutionary leaders of all of those states, however, all tried their hardest to make true communism work, and each and every time it devolved into totalitarianism.
Untrue. There is a very simple way to implement communism: implement workplace democracy, and at the same time place capital into the hands of the workers who use it. By capital, I mean physical capital, such as tools, buildings, land, machinery, etc. What the "revolutionary leaders" of the USSR, PRC, and RoC did was to nationalize capital, and at the same time make the management of that capital dependant not on the decisions of workers, but on the decisions of bureaucrats.
RoC is moving ever so slowly towards implementing communism, since workplace democracy does exist in that country, and the recommendations of the workers are ususally taken into account by State planners. But until there is both workplace democracy and worker (as opposed to State) ownership, there can be no communism, and these "revolutionary leaders" know it.
Also, I would appreciate it if you'd read the debate "is Russia a Socialist Community" that took place between Earl Browder (affirmative) and Max Schactman (negative) in the 1950s. It was pretty clear even then that the USSR and its clones weren't even moving towards socialism, much less communism. It can be found on marxists.org, and probably elsewhere.
The above was well written, and while I disagree with its premise I can at least respect G-China for defending his beliefs in an intelligent manner.
What the fuck does Hezbollah and Israeli politics have to do with the Jewish *religion*? And palestinians? Cry me a fucking river, Israel's been *too* accommodating, fuck 'em. Secondly, I am so fucking tired of hearing this "USSR and China and Cuba aren't true communists. And yet commies go round waving fucking soviet flags. This is so fucking full of hypocrisy that only the Left could be capable of it. I agree 1000000% with Myro and Oz and Inglo Scotia.
You're tired. Get some rest, eat a good breakfast, and come back in the morning. You'll feel a lot better, I promise.
Ok, I know how you feel about the whole middle east thing, and I know you're a Jew, at least by birth. However I feel I need to say this. And take this from someone who isn't a model Jew, I don't go to temple every Saturday, I don't keep Kosher, and I hate gefilte fish.
Just because you were born Jewish doesn't mean you get a "free pass" to post anti-Jewish things. Ever heard of the self-hating Jew?
-
Now, just for the heck of it, I'll answer the charges since Delfos hasn't been doing a very good job. (sorry, but you really haven't.)
True, as i said, just because i have mao's and che's T-Shirt doesn't mean I'm a communist, i only stand with commies as opposition to the Right.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dYE8h_r6TqE
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9obwCqQ_2Lw
sorry but you are misinformed, and these aren't the only ones.
Now back to the religious debate, can't mythological religions and cults work in modern times?
-
Does Israel have the right to defend itself? As a sovereign state, naturally, it does. Note that "right to self-defense" doesn't equal "license to use any measure of force as it sees fit." No one's going to take Israeli politicians or generals to court over what they do. Still, it's in Israel's interest in the long term to genuinely work towards a peaceful solution. The Palestinians also have to get their act together. I don't think this is an unreasonable view.
And I don't see how G-C was being a self-hating Jew in his post. If I-S or anyone else can clarify this, I'd appreciate it.
-
Does Israel have the right to defend itself? As a sovereign state, naturally, it does. Note that "right to self-defense" doesn't equal "license to use any measure of force as it sees fit." No one's going to take Israeli politicians or generals to court over what they do. Still, it's in Israel's interest in the long term to genuinely work towards a peaceful solution. The Palestinians also have to get their act together. I don't think this is an unreasonable view.
True, both sides have their share of problems, essentially both sides are under the influence of extremists who for one reason or an other prefer war and destruction to peace. I'm more then willing to concede that Israel's policies are far from perfect, and that they have made their share of mistakes in the past.
What I won't stand for is Delfos claiming that only Israel is at fault, or his claims that the IDF apparently go on Palestinian killing sprees. The IDF is simply trying to defend Israel. It's sad that civilians get caught in the crossfire, but as sad as it is, it's unintentional.
And I don't see how G-C was being a self-hating Jew in his post. If I-S or anyone else can clarify this, I'd appreciate it.
Perhaps I was being a tad to harsh, but I don't believe that simply because someone is Jewish they get a free pass to say whatever they want about Jews. Judaism is first and foremost a religion. If you don't practise/believe in it then the case can be made you aren't Jewish, even if you were born to Jewish parents.
It's like when someone says something racist but then says "I'm not racist, I have a friend who's black" and then proceeds to continue making racist comments.
Just because you were born to Jewish parents (I have no idea if G-C practises or not) doesn't mean you have a free pass to say whatever you want about Jews.
It seems like in this day and age bashing Israel is the socially accepted form of being anti-Semitic. That was more or less what I was getting at. Being a Jew doesn't mean you can get away with blaming all the middle east's problems on Jews. It sounds just as anti-Semitic coming from his mouth as it would anyone else's.
-
Yes they have the right to Defend, even the right to Attack if there's a good justifiable cause, by principle i think no one should have the right to Attack anyway. My only problem are innocents, Israel-Islamic states isn't a war, it's a civilian massacre from all sides. And the side loosing the most civilians by my information is Palestinian, even then, I'm not favoring the Palestinian forces that target Israelite civilians, but that doesn't happen much, What i see is Israeli government/military blaming Palestinians for suicidal bombings and Hezbollah. Is that fair?
You misunderstood, i never said Israel had the only fault, i was just saying that they are doing as wrong as any other involved in the massacre.
I didn't want this to turn into a political or whatever debate, i posted some questions about how should religion be faced, so you either answer to continue the religious debate or just ignore and continue off-topic.
-
Mythological religion that is an interesting prospect,but the phrase "non progredi est regredi"(not to move forward is to move backwards)immediately comes to mind.I actually think that we should discuss this topic more,rather than bashing eachothers beliefs"fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt" it has turned into a argument about Ideology and not religion.
-
Perhaps I was being a tad to harsh, but I don't believe that simply because someone is Jewish they get a free pass to say whatever they want about Jews.
"I believe he converted to Judaism simply for the jokes!"
"And this offends you as a Jewish person?"
"No, this offends me as a comedian!"
I won't answer GC, because we're never going to agree and we might as well stop trying. :P
-
Without wanting or meaning to offend anyone, or attack their beliefs I'm going to try and get across my view of religion, as a staunch atheist.
Religion is an infantile wish to have a father to protect you from the dangers of life. How can a life be complete when one is hiding behind the protection of an almighty paternal figure? Religion is a thus a sickness resulting from infantile need, a healthy minded adult should not need it. Religion is a universal obsessional neurosis and a security blanket. in the words of Marx, religion is the opium of the people in that it suppresses bad feelings and creates a blissful, carefree feeling. Religion is used to oppress, not liberate.
-
Without wanting or meaning to offend anyone, or attack their beliefs I'm going to try and get across my view of religion, as a staunch atheist.
Religion is an infantile wish to have a father to protect you from the dangers of life. How can a life be complete when one is hiding behind the protection of an almighty paternal figure? Religion is a thus a sickness resulting from infantile need, a healthy minded adult should not need it. Religion is a universal obsessional neurosis and a security blanket. in the words of Marx, religion is the opium of the people in that it suppresses bad feelings and creates a blissful, carefree feeling. Religion is used to oppress, not liberate.
It's the hardest thing in the world to not offend people when you're talking about religion, but it's nice that we're trying anyway.
I'm not offended, but let me retort. Religious belief, in my view, can be just as much of a burden as it can be a comfort. I think I'd be happier believing that I wouldn't have to face any kind of judgment for my actions after I die, that this life is all there is. Despite that, I do hold certain beliefs about God and the afterlife. I can't speak for other people with religious/spiritual ideas, but my belief comes from my faith in objective truth and the guarantee of justice far more than from any desire for an all-powerful father figure to protect me from the evil of the world.
-
Without wanting or meaning to offend anyone, or attack their beliefs I'm going to try and get across my view of religion, as a staunch atheist.
Religion is an infantile wish to have a father to protect you from the dangers of life. How can a life be complete when one is hiding behind the protection of an almighty paternal figure? Religion is a thus a sickness resulting from infantile need, a healthy minded adult should not need it. Religion is a universal obsessional neurosis and a security blanket. in the words of Marx, religion is the opium of the people in that it suppresses bad feelings and creates a blissful, carefree feeling. Religion is used to oppress, not liberate.
That's Totemnism (How do you spell this?) and it's not bound to every religion. Freud puts it quite well, i suggest you to read about his theory of 'Totemnism'. How can you explain then religions that aren't bound to gods, or religions, like the mythological, that are pantheist, they like allot of fathers and mothers?
I heard that there are allot of cults around the world that still worship ancient religions including mythological pantheist. What, they loose credit because they are older than Catholic? And by what you say, religions should be modernized, what's your most-advanced religion then?
I believe that the oldest and most simple religions are the ones that work better, specially those related to 'The Truth', that make speeches about bullet proof theories of Truth and will work through time.
-
Alright I'll admit my two-cents there was relevant only to religions based around Gods...
History has what caused the greatest stirring for me. The theory of many religions themselves are to glorify humans and subdue their insecurities of being an insignificant part of an unimaginably large universe. It appeals to our egos, hidden under a front of spirituality and 'good will'. Perhaps it was designed as a good idea in the beginning, such as the mythological pantheist ideas - but over the years religions have been manipulated, our ideas have been changed by people with both political and financial agendas. Causing such damage to the extent that I think the world would have been better off without these ideas in the first place.
What's wrong with a religion that simply promotes the sanctity of life because it's the only one you've got rather than depicting humans as having some great importance and centrifugal to the working of the universe. A religion that instead of blindly claiming it's the only true one, and causing wars just tries to improve the life of all people - because it's the only chance anyone has of a pleasurable existence. I can't think of a religion which promotes us to be generous, virtuous or whatever without offering something in return (eternal paradise, enlightenment etc..)
I'll admit I'm not the most educated person on this subject, most of my knowledge only really extends to the mainstream religions.
-
Indeed but you made very good points. Religion is made by and for humans, it's normal that has characteristics you describe, although some are very superficial, they are basic and can work with many people even if it's not the main concern of a religion. Glorifying, more like justifying? Why do we need kings? Because Gods want them to exist and rule the people...
I can't think of a religion which promotes us to be generous, virtuous or whatever without offering something in return (eternal paradise, enlightenment etc..)
Very well, but that's the illusion of it. It's the comfort, the safe net. If you die trying to achieve the religious goals you will be awarded with something extraordinary. That's why Islamic martyrs are as important for them as Princess Diana or Madre Teresa of Calcutta for us. As you can see i picked up very important figures of our world, both died and got glorified by the living for what they did in life. (difference with martyrs)
And then i ask, why not? What do you have to loose to work as Madre Teresa? Loose time because you do not believe this is important and she did nothing to humanity? Was or is it about Religion as a regime of good and kindness? (well, depends on the religion)
-
Oz you smell, and you don't know what a crescent is, no wonder why you think this is stupid. <3
Or I can't understand your wonderful English...
-
And then i ask, why not? What do you have to loose to work as Madre Teresa? Loose time because you do not believe this is important and she did nothing to humanity? Was or is it about Religion as a regime of good and kindness? (well, depends on the religion)
Weigh the work of people like Mother Teresa against the bloodshed caused by religions over the centuries, the corruption and global divides religion has caused and that it still influences today. Is it really worth it? Not everyone views or uses religion in the same way she did, in fact the majority did not and I'll bet still do not.
-
nice, i guess the most powerful religions already killed and maybe killing: Catholicism and Islamism.
I think nothing can outrank the millions killed by the Catholic Church :p
-
Islam hasn't even killed 50,000 people. The religion really means to be peaceful, but you only hear about the extremists.
And I concur with Colla here. Religion is, overall, does the human race more harm than good.
-
That's what I mean. I don't necessarily think the teachings themselves are to blame in religions that promote peace etc.. But they are manipulated to people's agendas and allow extremism to develop. Hence I think we're better off without it.
-
So religion can't be target for extremism? Like, under who's authority is it being misunderstood? We had a program in TV about an ex-terrorist affiliated man in Indonesia. He said the scriptures were misunderstood and the men misled to terrorism.
-
I thought that was what I pretty much said?
-
Science is not a religion, because with science you need proof for it to be accepted. With religion, you just need to spout out some crap and people believe it because some spirit supposedly said it.
This is actually not true.
In science you can find enough "theories" that are yet not definitely proved but accepted by many "scientists" - because they seem to be a logical explanation for something.
I believe in God because I believe in love: as the Gospel says: "God is love. He who abides in love, abides in God and God abides in him." <-- very simple sentence and kinda makes up the core of my faith. I believe in absolute truth which no man can ever know as a whole since our brain - IMO - is not capable of knowing everything anyways - we have our limits.
Now, you can scientifically explain lust or attraction through hormonal changes in the body, but love? Love as I understand it is much more than lust and pure. You can have lust without love. Love is different and not provable by our current methods- perhaps someday it will be possible, but no one of us knows that.
Then again you can choose to not believe in love because you cannot "prove" it...but hey, I for my part, am happy with the fact I know I believe in love.
-
Without wanting or meaning to offend anyone, or attack their beliefs I'm going to try and get across my view of religion, as a staunch atheist.
Religion is an infantile wish to have a father to protect you from the dangers of life. How can a life be complete when one is hiding behind the protection of an almighty paternal figure? Religion is a thus a sickness resulting from infantile need, a healthy minded adult should not need it. Religion is a universal obsessional neurosis and a security blanket. in the words of Marx, religion is the opium of the people in that it suppresses bad feelings and creates a blissful, carefree feeling. Religion is used to oppress, not liberate.
Hiding behind a paternal figure...
In Christianity we have this belief that we are accountable for our deeds and ought to do what we ca to improve our own lives: we cannot just rely on someone else to do it for us.
As the Filipino phrase goes: Nasa diyos ang awa, nasa tao ang gawa: It is up to God to have mercy and up to man to do something
-
Islam hasn't even killed 50,000 people. The religion really means to be peaceful, but you only hear about the extremists.
And I concur with Colla here. Religion is, overall, does the human race more harm than good.
50 000? Are you nuts? LOL
North-Africa used to be Xtian: they all disappeared somehow...
The Mid-East was partly Xtian/pagan.
Islam has killed so many, no onejust knows exact numbers.
As for Catholicism: yes many have been killed by Catholics under national agendas...so did protestants (it is not known to many people that they killed many of "witches" as well, etc.)
But did catholicism/xtianity start and continue to be a murderous religion? No
Islam's Mohammed - as far as history is concerned - was the very first islamic warrior. <-- he was a pedophile, liar (see haddiths), killer, and thief. That was the man who invented Islam.
If someone can prove to me Jesus was evil, then I will leave Xtianity. But I doubt that would happen....lol
-
Islam hasn't even killed 50,000 people. The religion really means to be peaceful, but you only hear about the extremists.
And I concur with Colla here. Religion is, overall, does the human race more harm than good.
Now let's take the absence of religion:
USSR
communist North-Korea
communist China
Vietnam
Cambodia under Pol Pot
better? I think (seeing the massive populations of these countries) they have killed more during their times compared to what any religion has done.
Religion as an impurified and organized form of faith can be held accountable for evil things because it can be manipulated - and has been far too often - by the powerful to control the others.
But that kinda is what politics is: controlling others' minds and making lies seem true.
-
Islam hasn't even killed 50,000 people. The religion really means to be peaceful, but you only hear about the extremists.
And I concur with Colla here. Religion is, overall, does the human race more harm than good.
50 000? Are you nuts? LOL
North-Africa used to be Xtian: they all disappeared somehow...
The Mid-East was partly Xtian/pagan.
Islam has killed so many, no onejust knows exact numbers.
As for Catholicism: yes many have been killed by Catholics under national agendas...so did protestants (it is not known to many people that they killed many of "witches" as well, etc.)
But did catholicism/xtianity start and continue to be a murderous religion? No
Islam's Mohammed - as far as history is concerned - was the very first islamic warrior. <-- he was a pedophile, liar (see haddiths), killer, and thief. That was the man who invented Islam.
If someone can prove to me Jesus was evil, then I will leave Xtianity. But I doubt that would happen....lol
The Church didn't actually run by national agendas, and the Inquisition latest long enough to add millions to the counting. Let's not forget what the Spanish did with the 'devil worshipers' in America, it was the Catholics who said that and the Spanish were under a Catholic b1tch.
-
Islam hasn't even killed 50,000 people. The religion really means to be peaceful, but you only hear about the extremists.
And I concur with Colla here. Religion is, overall, does the human race more harm than good.
50 000? Are you nuts? LOL
North-Africa used to be Xtian: they all disappeared somehow...
The Mid-East was partly Xtian/pagan.
Islam has killed so many, no onejust knows exact numbers.
As for Catholicism: yes many have been killed by Catholics under national agendas...so did protestants (it is not known to many people that they killed many of "witches" as well, etc.)
But did catholicism/xtianity start and continue to be a murderous religion? No
Islam's Mohammed - as far as history is concerned - was the very first islamic warrior. <-- he was a pedophile, liar (see haddiths), killer, and thief. That was the man who invented Islam.
If someone can prove to me Jesus was evil, then I will leave Xtianity. But I doubt that would happen....lol
The Church didn't actually run by national agendas, and the Inquisition latest long enough to add millions to the counting. Let's not forget what the Spanish did with the 'devil worshipers' in America, it was the Catholics who said that and the Spanish were under a Catholic b1tch.
The Spanish Inquisition, Conquista, German Inquisition were all run by lords - not Rome.
Have you ever heard of the Roman inquisitioners who visited Germany and were shocked when they saw they actually burned so many people? It was also evident that such practice was used to liquidate political opponents - not really in the name of the Church. Have you also heard of the "satanic children" saved by Bishops from the Vatican? The Romans were at that time more advanced than the rest of the continent...
I'd accept your claim against Catholicism if the Pope had ordered and enforced such actions.
The Church -as you call it - did not have really great influence on the emperors and lords.
-
Well you can put it that way, but not with Inquisition, it was universal, not German or Spanish, every nation that wanted to please the pope had Inquisition, and it was done for 'the church'. Isn't it the same as it's being done now with Islamic Extremism? And the reason we don't kill for 'the church' anymore is because of the secular revolutions. Bush says he does things because God wants him to do...it's not exactly the church, but...Islamic Middle East is late for secular revolutions, if there will ever be. But look what we are discussing :p deaths!!!
Insert other religious topics of discussion...
Or maybe 'Neil!' could spare some words saying if he's enlighten already lol, he was the one who made this topic.
-
Actually the Roman Inquisition was one designed to excommunicate heretics not execute them.
The "Hexenhammer" itself was not written by a Pope but by a monk who loved the idea of hunting witches: the inquisition in the "holy" Roman Empire of the German nation ought to be similar to that of Rome but became something of its own without any direct orders from Rome itself: each city had its own council lead by the lords...if you had issues with them, you surely would be burned as a "witch".
-
Well....what about the Holy Crusades? At least one of those was endorsed, if not actively started by the pope. And it led to the slaughter of every person in Jerusalem at the time, when the Catholics took it.
July 15, 1099, entered the city of Jerusalem. Maddened after three years of suffering and frustration, the Crusaders massacred every Muslim and Jew within the city.
And yes at least one of them was called for by the Pope.
Pope Urban II, in one of history's most powerful speeches, launched 200 years of the Crusades at the Council of Clermont, France on November 27, 1095 with this impassioned plea. In a rare public session in an open field, 2 he urged the knights and noblemen to win back the Holy Land, to face their sins, and called upon those present to save their souls and become "Soldiers of Christ."
got the quotes from http://jesuschristsavior.net/Crusades.html (http://jesuschristsavior.net/Crusades.html)
Also depending on when in time you are talking about, the Church held great power over the lords and kings. The fear of excommunication and the wrath of those that the pope could call to take up arms made many of them pay tariffs and grant lands to the Church. As well as the fear of eternal damnation and whatnot.
-
Well that's not restricted to Catholics, there was all kinds of Christians in the Crusades, including Templairs that weren't Catholic. It's an error to put all orders in the same bag. But sure we can see Christians versus Islamics. The crusades were like Vietnam or Iraq, only did worse than fixing. Not exactly sure, but i think Saladin was OK with the Kingdom of Jerusalem until the Crusaders arrived.
Even then Inquisition and 'Christian' Expansion (practically sequels) have the top killings :p
-
Well, technically the Knights Templar were formed after the First Crusade. ;D
And weren't the vast majority of the people that joined the Crusades Catholics in faith...which was the reason they went on the Crusades? I admit there may have been mercenaries, I don't really know, but I would think the majority of crusaders came from Europe, which was (I thought) predominately Roman Catholic.
-
I see this mistake always being done: "What about the Holy crusades?!"
Yeah, what about them?
Is it not allowed to defend your land after siege by a foreign power?
These are the facts:
Der erste Kreuzzug im Jahre 1095 begann
-460 Jahre nachdem die erste christliche Stadt von den Moslems überrannt wurde.
-457 Jahre nachdem Jerusalem von moslemischen Armeen erobert wurde
-427 Jahre nachdem das christliche Konstantinopel zum ersten mal von Moslems belagert wurde
-380 Jahre nachdem die Mauren in Spanien eingefallen sind
-363 Jahre nach den ersten moslemischen Überfällen auf Frankreich
-249 Jahre nachdem Rom selbst von moslemischen Horden geplündert wurde
The 1st crusade took place:
460 years after the 1st Christian city was conquered by muslims
457 years after islamic armies conquered Jerusalem
427 years after Constantinople (capital of the Eastern Roam Empire to which the Holy land belonged to) itself was attacked
380 years after they conquered Spain.
363 years after the first attacks by muslims launched against FRANCE (Islam says only defense is okay- they defended themselves from Medina all the way to France: WTF?!)
249 years after Rome itself had been plundered by muslims
I am not saying the crusaders were all good. Indeed there was a significant number of them who did atrocious acts. But the crusades themselves were a DEFENSIVE act in an effort to liberate former Christian lands from islamic aggression.
No one can tell me that is not a legitimate reason to go to war. It is self evident that Islam has always wanted to conquer Europe and destroy Christian - if possible. Christians though were not even interested in Islam when it started: no one cared about muslims...that changed after they started "actively defending" themselves through military aggression.
That was not the first and last time muslims tried to crush Europe: the Ottoman Empire launched a number of attacks known as the "Turkish wars": once they had even reached Vienna with their Sultan vowing they would replace the cross on St. Peter's Cathedral with a crescent and force the Pope wear a turban in the near future. Luckily they were stopped by a Christian coalition force.
Note: Without Christianity: there would be no free world nowadays. You and your ancestors would be muslims. And Islam does not allow any other way of thinking: you got the sharia for that. In Catholicism heresy is punished with excommunication (Congregation of faith).
Atrocities? Muslims plundered monasteries, killed monks, raped nuns, kidnapped children to be used as elite soldiers, burned churches, killed civilians: long before the first crusade even took place as a REACTION.
As a small example: The island of Cyprus was also Christian: The Christians there feared muslim rule and defended themselves against the aggressors..though the muslim force was much stronger: it ended with massacres and the Christian commander of the island was even taken his skin off alive.
If you were an average European during that time, how do you think you would feel?
-
The crusaders were all Roman Catholics: protestantism was not yet even born.
Though not only Catholics fought against the muslims:
Byzantine Christians were the first targets of Islamic aggression = Eastern Roman Empire.
-
Well that's not restricted to Catholics, there was all kinds of Christians in the Crusades, including Templairs that weren't Catholic. It's an error to put all orders in the same bag. But sure we can see Christians versus Islamics. The crusades were like Vietnam or Iraq, only did worse than fixing. Not exactly sure, but i think Saladin was OK with the Kingdom of Jerusalem until the Crusaders arrived.
Even then Inquisition and 'Christian' Expansion (practically sequels) have the top killings :p
Actually all orders were Catholic.
And Saladin..well
Have you ever noted that muslims were weak until the time Saladin was able to unite them all? Though Christians actually did not continue on attacking them: Mecca was not even a target for any attack: they concentrated on the liberation of the Holy Land.
There is a story told by a muslim wherein a muslim emissary talks to Saladin:
"Saladin, the Christians want peace. According to the Quran if the enemy seeks peace, we have to accept it."
Saladin: "You are an Arab, I am a Kurd. You ought to know the Quran better than me. Does it not also say: why accept peace offers if you are in a better position than your enemy? We only accept peace if we cannot win. Now we can."
-
380 years after they conquered Spain.
The Muslims that gone to Hispania (not exactly Spain) weren't the same that were in Middle East, this ones were from North Africa and related to the nowadays Tuareg. And they stayed there for quite a while, the formed pre-Spanish kingdoms weren't able to drive them off and that's when Portugal had the change to erupt, ran the Muslims down the Peninsula and bang...here we are.
Sure they are able to defend, that's exactly what Muslims extremists are doing right now (what they claim to be doing), specially in Palestine. Are we like Muslim extremists? or is this just a concept we created to make them look suspicious? lol
-
380 years after they conquered Spain.
The Muslims that gone to Hispania (not exactly Spain) weren't the same that were in Middle East, this ones were from North Africa and related to the nowadays Tuareg. And they stayed there for quite a while, the formed pre-Spanish kingdoms weren't able to drive them off and that's when Portugal had the change to erupt, ran the Muslims down the Peninsula and bang...here we are.
Sure they are able to defend, that's exactly what Muslims extremists are doing right now (what they claim to be doing), specially in Palestine. Are we like Muslim extremists? or is this just a concept we created to make them look suspicious? lol
The Moors - muslims from North-Africa -, where did they come from? Before Islam was invented by Mohammed North-Africa was Christian and some others were pagan: the rise of Islam made all others disappear.
Please do not compare the Christians who defended themselves with wannabe Mujahideens.
The islamic defense is subjective whereas it is historical fact muslim aggression came first: no one can tell/prove otherwise.
Palestinian muslims defending themselves against what? Judaism has been in the Holy Land long before Islam was invented and muslims invaded the later Christian province of Palestine.
Is it not odd the Palestinians are revolting now along with other muslim "brothers" against the Jewish "occupants"?
BUT they kinda shut up when under Arab rule, under Ottoman rule etc.
Other muslims never cared about Palestinians, nor have they given them liberty. Palestine was first Judea, then a Roman province, then muslim province, then now Israel - so technically back to Judea.
Why do muslims support Palestinians nowadays?
Simple because it gives them a "reason" to preach hate against Jews and the state of Israel.
-
true, and the few focus of christian north Africans came with the Roman Empire, and i dare to compare them to Mujaheddin, there's no "he hit me first i can hit him back", that's the beginning of madness...yes what a mad world we live in...
-
It is legitimate to fight against the source of aggression with logical reason.
Comparing crusaders to certain mujahideen is simply mad: if you take the mujahideen of Afghanistan against the Soviets, then yes that was a legitimate act of defense: if you take the wannabe mujahideen that operate in various countries to establish islamic states, then it's madness
-
To those who claim the Inquisition killed a lot more than Muslims:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/)
The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition
By Thomas F. Madden
http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/madden.htm (http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/madden.htm)
-
I am not saying the crusaders were all good. Indeed there was a significant number of them who did atrocious acts. But the crusades themselves were a DEFENSIVE act in an effort to liberate former Christian lands from islamic aggression.
No one can tell me that is not a legitimate reason to go to war. It is self evident that Islam has always wanted to conquer Europe and destroy Christian - if possible.
That's true. There were quiet a few atrocities done by both sides. But how did those lands become Christian? The Roman Empire moved in and took it by force. And than Christianity followed when the priests came and converted the masses. So technically the people that took back Jerusalem could have been descendants of those indigenous people that lived there before the Roman Empire took it. So it could still be considered an act of defense. Admittedly its a long stretch, but it's possible.
Also about you saying that Islamic religious people are so willing to go out and kill in "defense."
The aim of Christianity is not to fill the earth, but to fill heaven. Why should one worry if the number of Christians is lessened in the world by deaths endured for God? By this kind of death people make their way to heaven who perhaps would never reach it by another road. ~Humbert of Romans
Another point of complaint is the willingness to engage in violence, even against the innocent, in the pursuit of religious goals. But how can Christians claim moral superiority on this point? Christian history is filled with wars and violence conducted by Christians on behalf of what they believed to be Christian goals. The above quote from Humbert of Romans is simply a very stark expression of what was a relatively common attitude: dying on behalf of one’s religion is a great virtue that will be rewarded in the afterlife.
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/229151.htm (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/229151.htm)
-
That's true. There were quiet a few atrocities done by both sides. But how did those lands become Christian? The Roman Empire moved in and took it by force. And than Christianity followed when the priests came and converted the masses. So technically the people that took back Jerusalem could have been descendants of those indigenous people that lived there before the Roman Empire took it. So it could still be considered an act of defense. Admittedly its a long stretch, but it's possible.
I have to disagree: Christian evangelization originated from the province of Judea - which has been part of the pagan Roman Empire for a long time already - even before Xtianity was born.
The 1st Christians were those native to the Holy Land - such as the Jews.
Islam however was officially established in Medina and the islamic warriors came from the Arabian peninsula and the Seldjuks came from central Asia: so no that was no defense at all: it was pure aggression/invasion.
Even if some muslims came from Christian lands: how would they liberate those lands from its original habitants that just chose Judaism or Christianity?
-
I have to disagree: Christian evangelization originated from the province of Judea - which has been part of the pagan Roman Empire for a long time already - even before Xtianity was born.
The 1st Christians were those native to the Holy Land - such as the Jews.
Islam however was officially established in Medina and the islamic warriors came from the Arabian peninsula and the Seldjuks came from central Asia: so no that was no defense at all: it was pure aggression/invasion.
Even if some muslims came from Christian lands: how would they liberate those lands from its original habitants that just chose Judaism or Christianity?
Well they are calling it a jihad, which could mean anything from "defense of Islam" to "holy war." So its not neccesarilly that they are calling it a defense. They are calling it a jihad which has many meanings.
As for how did they "liberate" those lands? Well the most obvious would be that the other people converted. The other less pleasant idea is that they were killed or forced out or just slowly lost people to conversions. But the same could be asked for what happened to all of the native religions of Europe. There were quite a few religions based on things other than Christianity. What happened to them? Hopefully they only converted, but we know some at least were killed.
-
So Islam really is the religion of violence? Wow. Where's my helmet, spear and horse? I can't be a proper barbarian murderer without them!
Well, seriously. I'm pretty certain Muslims have killed about as many people in the name of God as Christians have. It has nothing to do with the actual faiths as laid out in their revealed texts, though. Every religion that's adopted by the powerful is used by the powerful to maintain and expand their power and influence. That's when religion causes violence. The other instance is fanaticism, and again, most religious faiths have their fanatics who are prepared to kill, regardless of whether it's justified by their faith (it usually isn't.)
-
@ cyadkuso:
Xtianity started with peaceful evangelization leading to the death of many missionaries who turned to be martyrs in Christendom. Forceful evangelization took place when Christianity was declared the official religion of the state and missionaries were still being killed by e.g. Germanic tribes (e.g.: the Saxons).
By that time: Christianity had the military support of the state, on the other hand Xtianity was made a useful tool for the state.
Now calling Jihad a state of "defense" against Christians can be negated by history itself: as I have stated: Christians originally did not even have any interest for Islam. Nor were they bothered about the new religion outside the boundaries of the 2 Roman Empires: it was until Islam started "defending" itself by actually attacking people outside their territories that Xtians used the sword against them: quite late if you ask me.
@ Eientei:
Now you use the "fanatic"/misuse by the state to protect Islam.
In order to understand what a religion is about one has to study its origin, its beginning.
Xtianity originated from Jesus: his life was peaceful and good.
Islam originated from Mohammed who founded it and used it directly as a political tool - used to wage wars against the "Kuffar".
Now if you still think that is the religion of "peace", well you are entitled to your opinion, but it's quite far away from what history tells us.
-
The Crusades were not "defense". They were entirely "Can you believe they don't eat pigs and own the holy city? Attack them!" wars.
-
@Saletsia
Well they are calling it a jihad, which could mean anything from "defense of Islam" to "holy war." So its not neccesarilly that they are calling it a defense. They are calling it a jihad which has many meanings.
I said they are calling it a jihad. Which could mean defense or a holy war or I'm sure some other meanings I do not know of. So obviously it changes depending on the situation.
@ cyadkuso:
Xtianity started with peaceful evangelization leading to the death of many missionaries who turned to be martyrs in Christendom. Forceful evangelization took place when Christianity was declared the official religion of the state and missionaries were still being killed by e.g. Germanic tribes (e.g.: the Saxons).
By that time: Christianity had the military support of the state, on the other hand Xtianity was made a useful tool for the state.
Also, it does not matter when Christians started to attack other people. The fact of the matter is that one of the Christian faith attacked another human being. Same as how some people of Islamic faith are attacking people. They are both trying to get people that did/do not want to be a part of their faith to follow it anyways. It's kind of like having a murderer that committed his murder 30 years before saying that someone that is killing people now is a horrible person. They really do not have room to criticize someone for doing something that they themselves are guilty of, no matter the intention.
-
@ Myroria: Spare us from stupid comments without any truth.
@ Cyadkuso:
Well you have to differentiate between an attacker and the defender: you are now arguing like a muslim using the sharia who would rather punish the rape victim than the rapist.
No religion, no lack-of religion is free of blood. The question is: what reason has blood been shed for?
If someone were to kill in self.defense, would you put him in the same position as a notorious murderer?
-
@ Cyadkuso:
Well you have to differentiate between an attacker and the defender: you are now arguing like a muslim using the sharia who would rather punish the rape victim than the rapist.
No religion, no lack-of religion is free of blood. The question is: what reason has blood been shed for?
If someone were to kill in self.defense, would you put him in the same position as a notorious murderer?
No I would not condemn the victim to the same fate as the person that committed the crime. But the fact that someone killed the people that were sent to try to convert them would seem to send the message that they do not want the religion being preached. So the Christians lost some missionaries, and than killed the people that killed the missionaries(which is....alright). Unfortunately it also seems like the Christians continued on to either kill the rest of the people of that religion or in one way or another forced them to convert.
No religion, no lack-of religion is free of blood. The question is: what reason has blood been shed for?
I have never said that there is a religion totally free of bloodshed. I simply said that it is wrong for a religion to group the whole religion based on the actions of a few that have taken a more radical approach. I am sure that not all of the Christians supported the radical way that some were taking to carry out the Inquisition or the taking back of Jerusalem and the Holy Lands. Just like not all of those following the Islamic faith support the radicals that are killing others.
And before you try to say that Muslims have done many horrible things to other people again, ::)
But in the 1200s, shortly after the beginning of the crusades against the Muslims, wholly European crusades against Christian dissidents were enacted.
The first victims were the Albigenses, sometimes called the Cathari, who were centered primarily in southern France. These poor freethinkers doubted the biblical story of Creation, thought that Jesus was an angel instead of God, rejected transubstantiation, and demanded strict celibacy...
In 1208, Pope Innocent III raised an army of over 20,000 knights and peasants eager to kill and pillage their way through France. When the city of Beziers fell to the besieging armies of Christendom, soldiers asked papal legate Arnald Amalric how to tell the faithful apart from the infidels. He uttered his famous words: "Kill them all. God will know His own." Such depths of contempt and hatred are truly frightening, but they are only possible in the context of a religious doctrine of eternal punishment for unbelievers and eternal reward for believers.
So it would seem that both religions have and are going through a time when they kill many people. Its just that the Christians got it done before those of Islamic faith, and the fact that the world is now more concerned with such things.
-
wow hold on, more people taking sides of religion? Saletsia i dare to say you have been tainted by an anti-islamic propaganda, can't blame you, "they don't have the fault, they are innocent", "BUT THEY THROWN AIRPLANES TO THE TWIN TOWERS!!! BASTARDS!" oh well...
To give you perspective noticed in Euronews:
http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=mediterraneans&article=440191&lng=1 (oops wrong video)
they probably erased, but anyway, it was an interview with an Islamic woman and man that condemned the threats of Al Qaeda about bombings during the Ramadan. So you can surely say those are radicals...
-
To: Cyadkuso and Delfos:
Anti-Islamic "propaganda"racism/nazism is often the pathetic excuse used by muslims and Dhimmis in order to discredit those who see a threat in the spreading of this "peaceful religion".
Now, I never claimed any religion to be free of black sheep. BUT I dare claim that a religion in its essence can be born of a good or bad idea - be created for faith in God or be created to intentionally manipulate those who think they believe in God.
As I have said before, in order to see what a religion is about: study its beginning and its creation. Look at its founder.
No one can tell me Mohammed was a good man and I dare claim the right to base my opinion on Islam on the life of its founder <--- that is pure logic.
Delfos,
I am anti-islamic myself. Though is it me or you who is blinded by misinformation? I have my views from history, studying the Quran and dialogue with muslims.
You base your views on what the EU tells you?
I guess you don't even know of the Barcelona Declaration wherein islamic OPEC countries assure us Europeans oil in exchange for islamic immigration which I dare view as infiltration since it is what THEY THEMSELVES have revealed.
I am speaking about the speech of the Algerian president before the UN council in 1979 and quotes by Erdogan (Turkey's current leader).
Now do consider your position. I know I have checked both sides since I very often talk to my islamic counterparts. What have you done aside from listening to what our oil-greedy states tell you?
On a side not: a muslim is allowed to lie to Kuffar (infidels) for the sake of Islam: Taqiyya
so I do not trust them so much.
-
That's all true and agreeable as your point of view, i just think you're too extreme, as you say, anti-Islamic. I like to think both sides have their base of truth or both are wrong, i try to moderate, but maybe as you say they are really guilty. Yes my view is tainted by EU, but let me tell you that your perspective of EU view is wrong, Iran wants to deal with EU for oil and other products, they use Euro as exterior reference and the most Iran imports from from EU, and we sure want their oil passing directly to EU, which doesn't happen, the oil goes around by American shipping. That's the main product of 'Syriana' (excellent movie, i suggest you). Yes oil greedy Europeans that want direct trade with Iran instead of buying from American shipping. But now the France Prime-Minister goes to TV saying lunatic stuff, but that's another story. But still, our view is directly imported by Tony Blair from USA of terrorist bastards in Middle East, they are all evil and will blow you if they can. That's a very popular view.
What i can say, don't fall on extremism, anti-Islamic is as extreme as Islamic-terrorism.
-
Did I speak of Iran in particular? Nej
Now I do have to vehemently disagree with your comparison of Anti-Islamic people to Islamic terrorists.
First of all being anti-Islam only means one is against it as an ideology and rather sees its claimed state of being a religion of "peace" as a disguise.
Have you ever seen any Christian start blowing Muslims up simply because he does not believe in what muslims say?
As a Christian, I am bound to my faith and have to oppose Islam since it is designed to be against Judaism and Xtianity (read the Quran). So if I were to be "moderate", I would actually kinda denounce my own faith in a "moderate" way - does that make any sense? Nej
If you see the opposing of a basic idea so extreme, then why do you not consider Islam already totally extreme without exception? The Quran literally offends and insults Judaism and Xtianity. So why not be against that then?
This "moderation" crap has also been used in the German Republic of 1930: SA-troopers were brutal. People also said: they do not represent the entire NSDAP - they seem to rather be peaceful. Let us tolerate them and not be extreme.
We all know where that ended, no?
Some people simply never learn from history.
-
So, Saletsia, what's the solution? How do you think you should oppose Islam? I'm honestly curious, because I can't tell from your post. The relationship between Christian and Islamic cultures are very complex, and they've been that way for a long time.
Oh, yeah - Happy Ramadan. :D
-
Because Islam isn't as extreme as you are trying to paint it. There are what some call moderate Islamic, trying to put Islamic extremists int he same bag as any other Islamic groups is inside in my opinion. It's like saying all Americans are stupid or such. btw, was GWBush flirting on Socrates?
-
@ Eintei:
educating people.
hoping islamic immigration stops.
protesting against the building of more mosques, protesting against things like: public pools being closed down on SUndays for Muslims-day, acting on political level against such stupidities.
@ Delfos:
Not so long ago a Mullah from Egypt issued a fatwa saying there is no such thing as a "moderate muslime": you either follow the QUran and the "Prophet" or you're not a muslim at all.
I rather be cautious than wake up in a similar situation as to when the Nazis seized power...
As Hitler once said: "They laughed before for they did not take things seriously. Now they are not laughing anymore!"
-
btw, was GWBush flirting on Socrates?
George W Bush does a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense. Just accept that, and things like this won't seem surprising to you.
-
@ Delfos:
Not so long ago a Mullah from Egypt issued a fatwa saying there is no such thing as a "moderate muslime": you either follow the QUran and the "Prophet" or you're not a muslim at all.
I rather be cautious than wake up in a similar situation as to when the Nazis seized power...
As Hitler once said: "They laughed before for they did not take things seriously. Now they are not laughing anymore!"
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
That quote is attributed to our very own Pat Robertson. What if I told you that because Robertson (an American dyed-in-the-wool ultraconservative Christian if you're not familiar) said the United States should strip all non-believers of citizenship, all American Christians believe the same? You'd laugh at me, and rightly so, because that argument wouldn't make any sense. He's an extremist, he represents a fringe of his faith's adherents.
Similarly, just because one Muslim scholar in Egypt said "there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim" doesn't make him right. In fact, he sounds like just the kind of far right-wing religious fanatic prick that plagues the world these days. In any case, if there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim, I'm either not moderate or I'm not a Muslim. See, now I'm having an identity crisis. Thanks a lot!
@ Eintei:
educating people.
hoping islamic immigration stops.
protesting against the building of more mosques, protesting against things like: public pools being closed down on SUndays for Muslims-day, acting on political level against such stupidities.
Where do you live, exactly?
-
Have you ever seen any Christian start blowing Muslims up simply because he does not believe in what muslims say?
lol, The Crusades. I brought it up before, but it stands here. Maybe not blowing them up, but taking back cities belonging to Muslims. Massacring the Muslims that were in no way related to the ones that invaded Europe except for the fact that they shared the same relgion. Killing the women and children of the Muslims in the city...so theres the killing innocents for what they believe in. And yes those Christians were radicals, just like the ones blowing themselves up are radicals.
Did I speak of Iran in particular? Nej
As a Christian, I am bound to my faith and have to oppose Islam since it is designed to be against Judaism and Xtianity (read the Quran).
The Quran literally offends and insults Judaism and Xtianity. So why not be against that then?
One of the first things taught in a Christian (at least in my Catholic school) was that you should be tolerant of all people and religions. "Do unto others as you wish done unto you." So by your declaration of being a Christian you are bound by your faith to be tolerant towards Islam. Not oppose it.
And where in the Qur'an does it state its against Judaism and Christianity? (I actually dint know if its in there that's why I'm asking)
And on last quote from the generally respected Gandhi
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
-
Did I speak of Iran in particular? Nej
As a Christian, I am bound to my faith and have to oppose Islam since it is designed to be against Judaism and Xtianity (read the Quran).
The Quran literally offends and insults Judaism and Xtianity. So why not be against that then?
One of the first things taught in a Christian (at least in my Catholic school) was that you should be tolerant of all people and religions. "Do unto others as you wish done unto you." So by your declaration of being a Christian you are bound by your faith to be tolerant towards Islam. Not oppose it.
And where in the Qur'an does it state its against Judaism and Christianity? (I actually dint know if its in there that's why I'm asking)
At-Tauba (The Repentance)
9:30 AND THE Jews say, "Ezra is God's son," while the Christians say, "The Christ is God's son." Such are the sayings which they utter with their mouths, following in spirit assertions made in earlier times by people who denied the truth! [They deserve the imprecation:] "May God destroy them!" How perverted are their minds!
The Qur'an denies the divinity of Jesus and criticizes the Christians several times in this fashion for that belief. Same with the Jews, although I'm not sure where the allegation about Jews believing in Ezra as God's son comes from. The source of this disagreement is the Islamic precept that God is one and has no equal, nor any kind of divine family.
On the other hand, the Qur'an also brings up the fate of Jews and Christians who follow the precepts of their faiths:
Al-Baqara (The Cow)
2:62 VERILY, those who have attained to faith [in this divine writ], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds-shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve.
So a proper Muslim believes that good Jews and Christians are saved, along with good Muslims, on the Judgment Day.
A lot of controversy comes from certain passages in the Qur'an that were presumably meant as commands to Muhammad about what to do to solve his most immediate problems. These are the passages that people like Osama bin Laden tear out of context to justify their hatred and bloodlust.
-
Have you ever seen any Christian start blowing Muslims up simply because he does not believe in what muslims say?
lol, The Crusades. I brought it up before, but it stands here. Maybe not blowing them up, but taking back cities belonging to Muslims. Massacring the Muslims that were in no way related to the ones that invaded Europe except for the fact that they shared the same relgion. Killing the women and children of the Muslims in the city...so theres the killing innocents for what they believe in. And yes those Christians were radicals, just like the ones blowing themselves up are radicals.
Did I speak of Iran in particular? Nej
As a Christian, I am bound to my faith and have to oppose Islam since it is designed to be against Judaism and Xtianity (read the Quran).
The Quran literally offends and insults Judaism and Xtianity. So why not be against that then?
One of the first things taught in a Christian (at least in my Catholic school) was that you should be tolerant of all people and religions. "Do unto others as you wish done unto you." So by your declaration of being a Christian you are bound by your faith to be tolerant towards Islam. Not oppose it.
And where in the Qur'an does it state its against Judaism and Christianity? (I actually dint know if its in there that's why I'm asking)
And on last quote from the generally respected Gandhi
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
1) Again: it's getting stupid when you compare a defensive act with aggressive acts without any legitimation nor justification.
2) Tolerance? Tolerance is NOT Acceptance which so many people do NOT understand: I can tolerate a Satanist, a muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu etc. BUT I need not accept what they say or believe in.
3) Indeed, take Christ...then take Mohammed.
As for Muslims towards Xtianity and Judaism:
"Wahrlich, jene, die ungläubig sind unter dem Volk der Schrift (Juden und Christen) und die Götzendiener werden im Feuer der Dschahannam sein; ewig werden sie darin bleiben; diese sind die schlechtesten der Geschöpfe. (Sure 98:6)"
That means: Xtians and Jews are the worst of all creatures.
As I have said already: taqiyya allows a muslim to lie for the very sake of Islam to confuse the Kuffar (infidels).
Quoting some seemingly "nice" passages from the Quran without seeing how Islam really views the other religions is - as I have said earlier - a rather good tactic for confusion: The Trojan horse had to be presented asa gift of friendship in order to get into the city, no?
Comparable to Hitler again: "Wir wollen den Frieden!" = we want peace
So he's good now because he seems to have said something good?
Compare the life of the person who had the Quran written to its rather "positive" contents....
-
yes and Bush said invading Iraq was to maintain peace...right, no WMD or connections to Al Qaeda...It depends on your point of view, you can't just decide what's for the peace what's not. Don't forget the frustration of Middle Easterners for loosing land to Israel (the banned men from the holy land), and being manipulated by 'the west'. And still are, it's like, we let African do their revolutions, but we keep messing with Middle-East? Why do we need to mess there? oh right, oil...OK...
-
Any particular reason you're quoting a German translation of the Qur'an? Again, I'm just curious.
-
he's German a bought a German edition? I got Portuguese Ed.
-
I tried to not to read this post because discussions about religion always turn heated, but I read something that hits me at the core of my being and upbringing.
As a Christian, I am bound to my faith and have to oppose Islam since it is designed to be against Judaism and Xtianity (read the Quran).
As a Christian you are bound to be more than tolerant of others. Its the same reason when Christ said to forgive someone 70x7 times. What that means is someone must wrong wrong you personally 490 times before you can say I can't forgive you any longer. If you're still around someone that has done you wrong that many times, there are other issues at work. Bound by your faith? Where does it say in the Bible go out and kill, slaughter, oppress, beat into submission, etc. those who do not follow the teachings of Christ? What the real problem is, you get some people that are easily swayed by someone else and saying God or Allah or whoever "wants you to do it". Its the same thing when an abortion clinic gets blown up or a doctor killed and the killer says he was doing God's work.
-
he's German a bought a German edition? I got Portuguese Ed.
Oh, I didn't know Saletsia was German. I was wondering because we're debating (sort of) in English. Apologies.
-
well he should try to translate instead of quoting German if he's trying to explain in English, but i have nothing against German quoting, would certainly help this forum to reach a multi-cultural achievement...oh right, everything must be in English, even Gordon Brown wants the foreign workers to know English...weird attempts to control immigration...but you don't have immigration problems in the Forum, do you?
-
Well, it's no problem. It's a little strange to break out into languages other than the one primarily being used, but for quoting, it doesn't make much difference.
On the other hand, the debate's gotten pretty bad when we have to resort to Hitler comparisons. How many times have you heard someone compare someone else to Hitler, or some idea to Nazism, in a debate? A whole lot of times. All you really achieve with a Hitler comparison is showing that you don't have much idea of historical perspective. At least, that's how it is in American debate. Maybe Sal can clarify his argument a little better.
-
Eientei please you have to be mindful and respectful that these forums are made up of people from other countries as well as our own. I'm not trying to flame you, but I'm begging you not to turn into the stereo typical "ugly American". We're hated over the globe because of our arrogance.
-
Eientei please you have to be mindful and respectful that these forums are made up of people from other countries as well as our own. I'm not trying to flame you, but I'm begging you not to turn into the stereo typical "ugly American". We're hated over the globe because of our arrogance.
Bender, I'm not trying to be the ugly American. I'm just talking about how debate goes where I'm from and how it might compare with debate elsewhere. Isn't that the definition of healthy debate? If I end up offending anyone because of it, it's not because I'm trying to be a chauvinist.
In this case I feel I have to bring up the subject anyway, because some of the Saletsia's problems with Islam seem much more European than American. The US obviously has a complicated relationship with Muslim immigrants and nations, but we don't have the sheer number of Muslim immigrants that many European states do, nor do we have the same problems regarding identity here that people living in Britain, Germany, France etc. face today.
-
yes Hitler is an inhuman beast! ::) and can't be compared to other humans! ::)
where were we? ah yes, true 'your' arrogance is world wide known. Anyway before this turns into American-leaves-the-shell or swear-at-America topic, i would like to suggest to keep on topic, this well lighted debate started in a Blame-Christians, then Blame-Jews, then Blame-Muslims and i don't think Blame-Americans fit on the sequence, neither Blame-Hitler. Sure blame whoever you want, i liked Saletsia statements about Muslims and Al Qumran, thought it was too extreme, anyway defending it's too extreme or anyone defending Muslims exclusively? thanks in advance.
-
Delfos, you are right let us get back on track. I think what we all detest is the extremism that happens on all religions. Right now we blame all muslims for terrorism instead of the extremists. Same thing with the crusades and eventually it'll be some other religion.
-
yes Hitler is an inhuman beast! ::) and can't be compared to other humans! ::)
where were we? ah yes, true 'your' arrogance is world wide known. Anyway before this turns into American-leaves-the-shell or swear-at-America topic, i would like to suggest to keep on topic, this well lighted debate started in a Blame-Christians, then Blame-Jews, then Blame-Muslims and i don't think Blame-Americans fit on the sequence, neither Blame-Hitler. Sure blame whoever you want, i liked Saletsia statements about Muslims and Al Qumran, thought it was too extreme, anyway defending it's too extreme or anyone defending Muslims exclusively? thanks in advance.
No, I mean SO many people compare X and Y and Z to Hitler that about 99 percent of the Hitler comparisons don't make a bit of sense. He's the first guy who comes to many people's minds when they think "EVIL", so it's only natural.
I think we're all badly misunderstanding each other. Never mind.
-
i would like to suggest to keep on topic, this well lighted debate started in a Blame-Christians, then Blame-Jews, then Blame-Muslims and i don't think Blame-Americans fit on the sequence, neither Blame-Hitler. Sure blame whoever you want.
Blame religion. :clap:
-
"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - Karl Marx
-
alright, if we ain't moving up from here I'm done with this topic. And Eientei, irony is one of the strongest weapons of allegory.
-
1) Again: it's getting stupid when you compare a defensive act with aggressive acts without any legitimation nor justification.
Well if I was indeed comparing a defensive act to an aggressive act I would provide a basis on which they could be compared. But the Crusades and the bombings are both aggressive acts. In no way is the Crusades into Jerusalem a defensive act. Your justification for it being defensive is that the Muslims(or the branch that invaded Europe) attacked Europe and took most of Spain and Portugal. Alright, so why did they continue from the peninsula and move to Jerusalem to further kill more Muslims(ones that for the most part had no part of the attack on Europe[some of the Muslims killed were women and children too]) and take back something which had fallen out of European hands hundreds of years before? You can not say, "Well it was ours 400 years ago and we decided to finally 'defend' it and take it back." That would be like the UK deciding that it wanted to take back the USA, India, a nice chunk of Africa. And Spain taking back almost all of South and Central America, and a nice chunk out of the land West of the Mississippi. If they tried to do that people would be in an uproar that those countries could be so warmongering. Why? Because it is considered in the past, ancient history if you will.
3) Indeed, take Christ...then take Mohammed.
First of, Christ was not the founder of the Christian faith. He was the role model it would be based off of, and almost all of his preachings as well. But so many people forget some interesting facts. A) Christ was not his last name. Its a title. It is Greek and it means Anointed one.(just a little info) B) The actual founder of Christianity were the Apostles; who were as human as Muhammad. C)Most people forget that Jesus of Nazareth followed the faith of Judaism. D) Even Jesus had his slip ups.
"On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts." (Mark 11:15-16)
Admittedly his intentions were good, but quite out of character for the Man of patience and caring.
35 He went a little farther. Then he fell to the ground. He prayed that, if possible, the hour might pass by him. 36 "Abba," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup of suffering away from me. But let what you want be done, not what I want." (Mark 14:35)
So even Jesus was reluctant to fulfill the grand plan of God. He still followed through with his wishes, but even Jesus had his human moments.
As for Muslims towards Xtianity and Judaism:
"Wahrlich, jene, die ungläubig sind unter dem Volk der Schrift (Juden und Christen) und die Götzendiener werden im Feuer der Dschahannam sein; ewig werden sie darin bleiben; diese sind die schlechtesten der Geschöpfe. (Sure 98:6)"
That means: Xtians and Jews are the worst of all creatures.
As I have said already: taqiyya allows a muslim to lie for the very sake of Islam to confuse the Kuffar (infidels).
Quoting some seemingly "nice" passages from the Quran without seeing how Islam really views the other religions is - as I have said earlier - a rather good tactic for confusion: The Trojan horse had to be presented asa gift of friendship in order to get into the city, no?
Its not exactly like the Trojan Horse if they let us know their view on other Religions. The trojan horse worked because they had no idea what was inside. If they had known they would never have taken it. Also it says it allows them to lie. Not that they must. Even Peter lied, when he denied knowing or being a part of the following of Jesus three times. Not to mention that even though it is the 9th Commandment, many if not all of Christians in today's world at one time or another lie.
There that should bring us somewhat back on track...or at least the track we have been on for about a week now.
-
You believe Christ was a super-natural being? Where do you base Christ's super-abilities? Miracles?
-
You believe Christ was a super-natural being? Where do you base Christ's super-abilities? Miracles?
I never said he was a supernatural being. Super abilities? Where did that come from? My statements were based off of the Christian(I'm assuming that it is a general belief) belief that Jesus is the Son of God.
-
the questions weren't aimed to you specifically, but you compare him to 'normal men' or 'human' are you saying he's not human? what i got the feeling from your text was that you were saying he was human. I don't really see the point where you are getting at if not challenging someone that believes he was super-human or had special abilities, I'm the son of my father too, but that doesn't make me Christ. Thank God.
-
lol, well I was taught in my Catholic School that Jesus was the Son of God, and because of that he was divine. And I was mainly arguing with Sal when he says to compare Jesus to Muhammad. Because it seemed to me that he was saying, "Look at Jesus who is forever perfect...and than look at Muhammad who is a horrible human being."
-
i had that feeling too, but seems we won't be able to call him to reason in that matter :h: hey cool hypo smileys, look at the ears...anyway, I'm waiting for Saletsia to answer, he's just divine beacuse he's son of God or is there some mysterious super powers to be able to do Miracles?
-
I'm not quite sure. What I picked up was that the only way to do a miracle was to have the backing of God, and that he was working through that person by manifesting his will into a miracle. Now if you get into the Holy Trinity and is Jesus just divine or is he actually a part of God, than I'm not sure if it is Jesus doing the miracles or God working through him.
and of course, my favorite is the hippos holding the cookie sign :hc:
-
would rather a cookie monster...awwww, i missed those...
-
Okay okay another question for you all.
Assuming you believe in God. Do you believe God is eternal or everlasting?
An eternal god always has, always will and currently does exist. Eternal god is transcendant, above and outside of time, and incapable with interaction with the world. How then, how can God be omnipotent? One of the defining characteristics of the judaeo-christian concept of God. An eternal god can see future, past and present. But then, we have no free will, for if god knows the future our future is clearly already determined. This is one of the biggest contradictions around, and is used to try and disprove the existence of God(s).
An everlasting god however, is inside of time, and has a beginning and an end, although these may be infinite. Everlasting god can interact with the world, with miracles, etc, as everlasting god can see past and present, but not the future. BUT then, how can God be omniscient, one of the defining characteristics of the judaeo-christian concepts of god? A god that cannot see the future cannot be all knowing, and thus another contradiction is raised.
-
Assuming you believe in God. Do you believe God is eternal or everlasting?
I don't really, I just like to debate. (or argue, take your pick :-P )
An eternal god always has, always will and currently does exist. Eternal god is transcendant, above and outside of time, and incapable with interaction with the world. How then, how can God be omnipotent? One of the defining characteristics of the judaeo-christian concept of God. An eternal god can see future, past and present. But then, we have no free will, for if god knows the future our future is clearly already determined. This is one of the biggest contradictions around, and is used to try and disprove the existence of God(s).
Why must an eternal God not be able to interact with the world? If he is, as considered in the Judaic-Christian faith, omnipotent could he not simply be powerful enough to interact with the world. Why if God knows the future do we not have free will? Could he not see the future and try to influence us to change it but still not directly change it? Could not the future be one of many paths, like a rope. There are hundreds of smaller strings that make up one of the strings that make up a rope. They could be be hundreds of different possibilities and God simply tries to guide us to those that he believes best for us.
-
i don't believe in 'a' God, like Judaic/Christian God, but i would say everlasting, if the universe reboots, so will God, so God =< Universe...
-
"9:30 AND THE Jews say, "Ezra is God's son,"..."
The Qur'an denies the divinity of Jesus and criticizes the Christians several times in this fashion for that belief. Same with the Jews, although I'm not sure where the allegation about Jews believing in Ezra as God's son comes from. The source of this disagreement is the Islamic precept that God is one and has no equal, nor any kind of divine family.
Just thought I'd mention this, Jews don't believe that Ezra was G-d's son. Muslims adopted the Jewish belief that no one is G-d's equal. I'm not bashing Isalm of the Qur'an, I just thought I should point that out. The closest thing to a "son of G-d" in the Jewish faith is the Messiah, who we believe has yet to show up.
As for the whole "Muslims are evil" thing, I don't believe that at all. Islam, like every religion, has its fringe lunatics.
I don't judge all Christians on the likes of the Pat Robertson, and I would hate to be judged as a Jew based on the actions of my faith's nut jobs. Same goes for Islam. I'm not going to condemn every Muslim just because Osama and co. are perverting the faith to justify mass murder.
The way I see it is that Islam is going through the phase Christianity went through during the Crusades. All major religions have that phase. During the time of ancient Israel Jews forcibly converted non-Jewish semitics in what is now southern Israel (one of the last Kings of Israel, Herod the Great, was descended from one of these tribes).
Between 1095–1291 Christians went on the Crusades.
Now Islam is going through the same phase.
It makes sense that Islam, the youngest of the three Western faiths, is going through their "extremist" phase now.
About a thousand years in, both Judaism and Christianity experienced these bouts with extremism, before "calming down."
The Islamic calender states that we're in the 1420's, so the timing's about right for Islam to experience its bout with extremism. In time extremist Islam will be sidelined.
-
Excuse me if this has been posted, but does anyone have a problem with religion stemming from astrology?
Check out: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
There are 3 parts, but the first part relates to this discussion.
I am not a believer in god or astrology, btw. They were both a way for people to explain a world they knew not.