How is 'we'? You're misplacing blame here.
Church will burn Quran
- Thread starter baftan
- Start date
How is 'we'? You're misplacing blame here.
superstring01
Moderator
I'm not "blaming" anybody. I'm labeling a belief according to overwhelming actions of its practitioners.
~String
I find this whole thing to be debatable.
Really? Maybe we should build a website forum, open a thread on the subject and allow people to debate the issue. Oh, wait... Duh...
Wasn't talking to you and this is silly. Get off my nutz.
In other words you do not have an argument to refute the Words of Jesus i have given to you. Jesus Words are very good from dividing the Sheep from the Wolves and you are with dubya and the crusaders and the jihadists and all the others who fight wars in the name of religion.
catholics and protestants also bring up their theories justifying their engagement in wars, to try to justify their rebellion against the Word of Jesus. Traditions of men and folk tails are a part of the modifying of teachings to serve the desires of the people in charge and i see it is no different for islam.
Yes your "textual" twisting of the words of muhammed are exactly what the false Christians have done down through history. The thing that is different is your twists are designed to moderate the doctrines of warfare and terror that muhammed put down, while false Christians twist the pacifist teachings of Jesus so that they can engage in warfare.
Loveless words from one who does not know the Love of Jesus.
I know the Words of Jesus, I trust in Him for my Salvation. You are no follower of the God of Abraham. You have embraced a lie and rejected the Words of Jesus. And in doing so you justify your own eternal condemnation.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
If you actually believe that then you’re in the nice mushroom state of mind the elites of the world want you in.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
superstring01
Moderator
You're a consummate excuse maker and religious ideologue. It's to be expected.
~String
Making things more complicated, because they need to be
String, you might be making at least a slight error here. Certainly our neighbor isn't helping himself by declaring his role as an "e-jihadi terrorist", but—
—what, exactly, do you mean by "overwhelming actions of its practitioners"? The first thing to mind is that you're suggesting a majority (e.g., "overwhelming") representation of Islam and Muslims according to certain behavior:
Okay, without hitting a search engine: Do you know who Muhammad Yunus is? How about Abdul Sattar Edhi?
My point being that sometimes our assessment of the actions of a body politic's adherents is colored by the kind of information we receive about it.
At the moment, I am sitting at my brother's house. Perhaps a mile away stands the Idriss Mosque. Should I be frightened? Concerned? Does the fact that I have zero negative interactions with the Muslims in this neighborhood count for or against them? I mean, if there's nothing to report, does that mean anything?
I mean, it sounds scary: overwhelming actions. Does that mean there is over a billion Muslims working to destroy America, or cause violence, or make people miserable? I ought to be frightened, then. And the fact that the Muslims in this particular neighborhood aren't troublesome in the least—does that mean they don't count, or are they simply hiding their true intentions, and will blow up Seattle one day because, well, that's what Muslims do?
And how do we apply your labeling principle? Should I presume that a Christian in America is automatically an unreasonable bigot? After all, that is the overwhelming action I see, until I start counting the number of Christian faces I pass on the streets who cause me no harm, do my community no ill, and even go out of their way to try to be helpful.
I would suggest, in the long run, that we would find benefit in accounting for the core religious principles and trying to understand the context and path of deviations from that faith. In the end, we will find that while religions are, generally, easily exploited, it is not the faith itself that causes the problem. Rather, it is exploitation of that faith. And the negative aspects of Islam are far more complex than the half-witted fatwas and deceptive justifications offered by many of the most infamous mullahs and imams. That we have similar unfortunate followers among American Christians at all should remind that the problems facing Islam are socioeconomic, psychological, and, above all, human.
You might know a man is coming up behind you because you hear his footsteps, or see his shadow stretching past you. But neither the footsteps nor the shadow are the man; indeed, their nature is greatly affected by the surface upon which he walks, the shoes he wears, and the position of the sun in the sky. None of this tells us anything definitive about him.
Superstring01 said:
String, you might be making at least a slight error here. Certainly our neighbor isn't helping himself by declaring his role as an "e-jihadi terrorist", but—
"I'm not "blaming" anybody. I'm labeling a belief according to overwhelming actions of its practitioners."
—what, exactly, do you mean by "overwhelming actions of its practitioners"? The first thing to mind is that you're suggesting a majority (e.g., "overwhelming") representation of Islam and Muslims according to certain behavior:
"At some point in time we have to call it like we see it and declare that a faith is what its practitioners do."
Okay, without hitting a search engine: Do you know who Muhammad Yunus is? How about Abdul Sattar Edhi?
My point being that sometimes our assessment of the actions of a body politic's adherents is colored by the kind of information we receive about it.
At the moment, I am sitting at my brother's house. Perhaps a mile away stands the Idriss Mosque. Should I be frightened? Concerned? Does the fact that I have zero negative interactions with the Muslims in this neighborhood count for or against them? I mean, if there's nothing to report, does that mean anything?
I mean, it sounds scary: overwhelming actions. Does that mean there is over a billion Muslims working to destroy America, or cause violence, or make people miserable? I ought to be frightened, then. And the fact that the Muslims in this particular neighborhood aren't troublesome in the least—does that mean they don't count, or are they simply hiding their true intentions, and will blow up Seattle one day because, well, that's what Muslims do?
And how do we apply your labeling principle? Should I presume that a Christian in America is automatically an unreasonable bigot? After all, that is the overwhelming action I see, until I start counting the number of Christian faces I pass on the streets who cause me no harm, do my community no ill, and even go out of their way to try to be helpful.
I would suggest, in the long run, that we would find benefit in accounting for the core religious principles and trying to understand the context and path of deviations from that faith. In the end, we will find that while religions are, generally, easily exploited, it is not the faith itself that causes the problem. Rather, it is exploitation of that faith. And the negative aspects of Islam are far more complex than the half-witted fatwas and deceptive justifications offered by many of the most infamous mullahs and imams. That we have similar unfortunate followers among American Christians at all should remind that the problems facing Islam are socioeconomic, psychological, and, above all, human.
You might know a man is coming up behind you because you hear his footsteps, or see his shadow stretching past you. But neither the footsteps nor the shadow are the man; indeed, their nature is greatly affected by the surface upon which he walks, the shoes he wears, and the position of the sun in the sky. None of this tells us anything definitive about him.
Funny stuff, T. The faith itself does not condemn me to an eternity of hellfire because I did not accept the faith. The faith does not tell us how to live our lives, to obey and be subservient to invisible super beings. Nothing at all to do with the faith, it is the "exploitation" of the faith. Of course, believers themselves will admit they are not the ones judging us, but instead it is their invisible super beings that will judge us. Exploitation, indeed. LOL!
The nature of belief
This is one of those subjects into which it is useful to delve a bit deeper. If the superficial aspects of a religion are all you acknowledge, then those will be the only ones by which you will judge it.
For instance, a lack of faith in God's authority and judgment is not peculiar to Islam specifically, but seems a common aspect of redemptive monotheism. There are Christians in America who don't trust in God's judgment, just as there are Muslims in any nation who likewise presume the need to usurp God's authority.
The mere act of believing in God is not the problem. How one believes in God, the aspects of faith that seem most apparent to any individual of faith, is a phenomenon specific to each believer. We see in Christianity, for instance, diverse understandings of God's judgment. A Quaker does not believe the same as a Catholic as a Southern Baptist. There are environmental factors to consider, and how those factors came to be arranged as they are. Likewise among Muslims. Simply bitching about religion itself doesn't do us much good.
(Q) said:
This is one of those subjects into which it is useful to delve a bit deeper. If the superficial aspects of a religion are all you acknowledge, then those will be the only ones by which you will judge it.
For instance, a lack of faith in God's authority and judgment is not peculiar to Islam specifically, but seems a common aspect of redemptive monotheism. There are Christians in America who don't trust in God's judgment, just as there are Muslims in any nation who likewise presume the need to usurp God's authority.
The mere act of believing in God is not the problem. How one believes in God, the aspects of faith that seem most apparent to any individual of faith, is a phenomenon specific to each believer. We see in Christianity, for instance, diverse understandings of God's judgment. A Quaker does not believe the same as a Catholic as a Southern Baptist. There are environmental factors to consider, and how those factors came to be arranged as they are. Likewise among Muslims. Simply bitching about religion itself doesn't do us much good.
What about the mere act of believing the White Race is superior and all others are inferior? Is THAT a problem? Or is it really a problem of HOW one believing in racial supremacy?
See, because where I'm standing it seems that there's a problem with the ideology itself.
I had a Muslim refuse to shake my hand because I'm non-Muslim. I'm not shitting you. She was happy enough to cook a lunch for everyone, because she wants to help her son's career. Fair enough, every mother would want to help her son out. But, touch a dirty infidel - THAT was going one step to far. Everyone in the room was a little offended. IMO it somewhat ruined the lunch. We never had another. We're very well trained to be accepting of "different" cultures - so much so that no one wants to point out the White elephant in the room.
But, there is a point. AT some point people will say enough is enough. At that time, I'd hope people look towards proper education as IMM that's the only viable solution.
Tiassa, if you found yourself stuck in a room with a KKK wearing a klanhood with an eye slit - just how comfortable you'd feel if they refused to shack the hand of a Black person, or an Arab or even better, a Jew - because that goes against their "belief". Suppose they were perfectly "peaceful" - they simply didn't "believe" in mixing Whites with the lesser races.
Would you accept it? I mean, that is the HOW of things. So long as they're peaceful then it's fine and dandy? What about when occasionally one of these Klan members murders a non-White for crimes against the White Nation? DO we just chalk it up to: Well you can't blame a whole people for the crimes of the individual...:bugeye:
The problem IS the ideology.
Monotheism had its time and place. I'm sure it was useful and helpful at various stages of human development. But, in this day and age it's simply more a problem than anything else. There's better ways of teaching the same morals and providing people with various life-after-death scenarios to pacify their fears. These book burning Xians are infected with an idea and the only cure is education.
I suppose these are interesting times anyway ... we'll see how it all turns out
Last edited:
(Insert Title Here)
Believing in God, in and of itself, is without consequence; the form of belief is determined by environment. Believing in the superiority of the white race? Well, any consistent belief as such would determine certain aspects of the environment. I'm not sure the analogy works.
If one wishes to be rude, that is its own issue. Their rudeness will have its effects. If they simply wish to live without mixing with other ethnicities and races, that's their own business until they make it someone else's.
Michael said:
Believing in God, in and of itself, is without consequence; the form of belief is determined by environment. Believing in the superiority of the white race? Well, any consistent belief as such would determine certain aspects of the environment. I'm not sure the analogy works.
If one wishes to be rude, that is its own issue. Their rudeness will have its effects. If they simply wish to live without mixing with other ethnicities and races, that's their own business until they make it someone else's.
I'd say it's about as likely to BE a monotheist that respects other people's Gods, as it is to BE a White Supremest that respects other races.
It's pretty difficult to live in a "society" without mixing with other people. I mean, unless your Amish, you're mixing. I'd say the intolerance of Muslim's and Christians "rude" religion is starting to have its effects. In this case it's a burned Qur'an and some hurt feelings. It'll probably get worse before it gets better.
IMO it's just too bad as we don't need these belief systems. That's the discussion society should be having. But, when you live in a society where 80% of people are white bigots, these things take time. Lets hope it doesn't come to a Civil War this time
Lets suppose you were raised in Shinto Japan, we'll say in the year 1100. You had never heard of Islam and were never taught to believe in a one God but instead raised a Buddhist and taught the Shinto Gods as well.
If that had been your life, do you think you'd wholeheartedly believe those Gods and Goddesses to be real?
I'm not sure I agree with this.
The belief in only One True God doesn't simply end there. It's put in context.
If you teach a child there's only one superior race - you've taught the child to things. One that she is superior. Two, that "race" is real. I notice people will on occasion question the first one, and usually answer it with whatever they were taught to think, but the funny thing is - most never notice the second. They never question the illusion of race itself :shrug:
It's so powerful what you tell people. If you tell someone that so-and-so is a bitch, or a crook, or an infidel, etc... it doesn't end there. People take that information and put it into context and act on it, intentionally or otherwise. So? WHY in the world would we teach people to BE bigoted??? Why teach people to BE monotheists??? Well, we only do because we're convinced there is such a thing as "race" and there's a superior one - better than all the others; there is such a thing as "god" and there's only One, and our Books and Prophets and beliefs are better than all the others.
And then we have the gull to look shocked when someone burns a black person for being black, a Ahmadiyya for being an infidel or a Qur'an for being Satanic? Pluleeeeaaassseee! Are we so political correct we can't think clearly anymore? It's as if we "can't" see the problem which is so obvious.
The problem IS the ideology.
Last edited:
Stop and think about why people came up with "race" and "racial superiority" to begin with. I mean, if everyone were "White" then there'd be no White Supremacy. You know, in the 1940s Polish, French, Germans, English, Italians, Greeks ... all of these people belonged to different "races".
If there were no other Gods, there'd be no need for the idea of One God. Why did someone come up with this idea?
If there were no other Gods, there'd be no need for the idea of One God. Why did someone come up with this idea?
Contextual niceties
I wouldn't disagree. But, to consider the comparison functionally, the Amish don't work so fervently to make other people Amish; in other words, they don't try to make it other people's problem. That's where the white supremacists, and redemptive monotheism in general, run into trouble. The white supremacist wants the minorities out of his neighborhood; the monotheists want the infidels converted, or gone.
Again, I don't disagree. But I would point out that rudeness in Islam and Christianity aren't requisite. Sure, the Bible is filled with all sorts of bigoted horseshit, and the Qu'ran, as well. But as American Christians have shown, adherence to those points is not necessary to declare one of the faith. There are many Muslims, as well, who shirk parts of the Qu'ran. What God thinks about this—be there a God at all—is an issue for those folks to deal with in due time.
And that context is determined by the faithful, which leads us back to the various factors influencing the form of belief.
The problem with the terminology is that people often—and of that, often unintentionally—treat the various contexts as identical. What does one mean by "Christianity"? The Bible? Christ? Baptists? Or Islam: The Qu'ran? Some backwater mullah? A half-wit with a bomb under his jacket?
In the end, yes, some logical hierarchy can be established regarding the seemingly conflicting aspects of God's Word. But the priorities and values assigned the various abstractions comes back, again, to the factors influencing the form of belief.
A fine question.
Equally fine, and with some answers that are, if not better, at least not as mean-spirited.
Look, "tradition" isn't just something people do because they always have, or have for a long time. Those of us not partaking in certain traditions have a harder time understanding their significance in people's lives.
There are plenty of people who teach monotheism because it is at the heart of how they understand the world. You and I might disagree with how most people regard the idea of God, but when you delve into the obscure philosophies driving faith, certain themes emerge. Among these is the simple idea that everything must start somewhere. God becomes that first cause. It is easier to avoid this conundrum these days, as we have the Big Bang and evolution to consider, but even among atheists who rely on that science, few are willing to shrug at the Big Bang and say, "Well, you know, we don't know where that ball of energy, or whatever, came from." And they're certainly unwilling to posit an article of faith and say, "It always was, and always will be." That is, a great big ball of shiny, radiant energy is hardly the Alpha and Omega to atheists. This is, in the history of human thought, a relatively recent development. People aren't finished working it through. Not every obvious implication has been identified in its proper context. As time passes, and barring any catastrophic regressions, we will figure it out, eventually.
But this outlook precludes certain outcomes, including those that have already occurred. Take Al Hallaj, for instance, or the Christian gnostics. These both defy the boundaries of your suggestion.
The problem is more easily identified through principles of psychology than armchair pseudo-theology.
And the ideology is the product of the human psyche, no matter how you measure it, and even if there is a God.
The fundamental flaw of this approach is simple enough. Various ethnic differences are visible. God is not.
The idea of a monotheistic source of all is a necessary outcome of the failure to understand that not all things are alive as we are. The roots of this process predate language, and, perhaps, humanity itself. Simply wiping the slates of our philosophical consciences clean isn't so easy as some would pretend.
Michael said:
I wouldn't disagree. But, to consider the comparison functionally, the Amish don't work so fervently to make other people Amish; in other words, they don't try to make it other people's problem. That's where the white supremacists, and redemptive monotheism in general, run into trouble. The white supremacist wants the minorities out of his neighborhood; the monotheists want the infidels converted, or gone.
Again, I don't disagree. But I would point out that rudeness in Islam and Christianity aren't requisite. Sure, the Bible is filled with all sorts of bigoted horseshit, and the Qu'ran, as well. But as American Christians have shown, adherence to those points is not necessary to declare one of the faith. There are many Muslims, as well, who shirk parts of the Qu'ran. What God thinks about this—be there a God at all—is an issue for those folks to deal with in due time.
And that context is determined by the faithful, which leads us back to the various factors influencing the form of belief.
The problem with the terminology is that people often—and of that, often unintentionally—treat the various contexts as identical. What does one mean by "Christianity"? The Bible? Christ? Baptists? Or Islam: The Qu'ran? Some backwater mullah? A half-wit with a bomb under his jacket?
In the end, yes, some logical hierarchy can be established regarding the seemingly conflicting aspects of God's Word. But the priorities and values assigned the various abstractions comes back, again, to the factors influencing the form of belief.
A fine question.
Equally fine, and with some answers that are, if not better, at least not as mean-spirited.
Look, "tradition" isn't just something people do because they always have, or have for a long time. Those of us not partaking in certain traditions have a harder time understanding their significance in people's lives.
There are plenty of people who teach monotheism because it is at the heart of how they understand the world. You and I might disagree with how most people regard the idea of God, but when you delve into the obscure philosophies driving faith, certain themes emerge. Among these is the simple idea that everything must start somewhere. God becomes that first cause. It is easier to avoid this conundrum these days, as we have the Big Bang and evolution to consider, but even among atheists who rely on that science, few are willing to shrug at the Big Bang and say, "Well, you know, we don't know where that ball of energy, or whatever, came from." And they're certainly unwilling to posit an article of faith and say, "It always was, and always will be." That is, a great big ball of shiny, radiant energy is hardly the Alpha and Omega to atheists. This is, in the history of human thought, a relatively recent development. People aren't finished working it through. Not every obvious implication has been identified in its proper context. As time passes, and barring any catastrophic regressions, we will figure it out, eventually.
But this outlook precludes certain outcomes, including those that have already occurred. Take Al Hallaj, for instance, or the Christian gnostics. These both defy the boundaries of your suggestion.
The problem is more easily identified through principles of psychology than armchair pseudo-theology.
And the ideology is the product of the human psyche, no matter how you measure it, and even if there is a God.
The fundamental flaw of this approach is simple enough. Various ethnic differences are visible. God is not.
The idea of a monotheistic source of all is a necessary outcome of the failure to understand that not all things are alive as we are. The roots of this process predate language, and, perhaps, humanity itself. Simply wiping the slates of our philosophical consciences clean isn't so easy as some would pretend.
It's worth a try
I think one thing we should begin to take seriously is addressing some of these issues through the K-12 educational system. Cultural sensitivity classes, evolution, archeology, comparative religion/history etc...