Friday, August 29th20.8°C
22817

A saw and a man

Non-denominational discussion. Everybody welcome.

Moderators: oneh2obabe, Triple 6, Jo, ferri

Re: A saw and a man

Postby steven lloyd » Feb 9th, 2013, 1:05 pm

WhatThe wrote: I will stand against anyone who tells me they are right and I am wrong when it comes to spiritual matters.

As you should :124:
"the only way to finally end the suffering of ordinary people
is to eliminate those whose fanaticism takes precedence over everything else"
-Merry
User avatar
steven lloyd
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 17172
Likes: 497 posts
Liked in: 1192 posts
Joined: Dec 1st, 2004, 8:38 pm

Re: A saw and a man

Postby WhatThe » Feb 9th, 2013, 1:11 pm

Glacier, I agree with him. I know the type he is referring and I hold them in high regard, they are Christ like. So in answer to your question, i stand against those that use force whether that be physical, legislative, emotional or spiritual.
Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation, and war, and cruelty. People are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem.
User avatar
WhatThe
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4020
Likes: 72 posts
Liked in: 106 posts
Joined: Feb 25th, 2009, 1:13 pm

Re: A saw and a man

Postby Sneaksuit » Feb 9th, 2013, 7:16 pm

Glacier wrote:Are you talking about the only religion converts by force (I use religion lightly since it's actually only 10% religion and 90% political), or are you talking about all the other religions out there that proselytize, but want you to believe what they believe by your own free will?


Are you suggesting that there's only one religion whose believers use force to proselytize?

Secondly, how are you distinguishing what's religious and what's political in your 10:90 ratio?
User avatar
Sneaksuit
Board Meister
 
Posts: 456
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 7 posts
Joined: Mar 16th, 2007, 12:34 pm

Re: A saw and a man

Postby cliffy1 » Feb 9th, 2013, 8:14 pm

Sneaksuit wrote:Are you suggesting that there's only one religion whose believers use force to proselytize?

Secondly, how are you distinguishing what's religious and what's political in your 10:90 ratio?

The insinuation was quite obvious, but totally biased. The Christian religious right are just as nuts and willing to force their beliefs on everybody else as any other fanatical religious group.
Trying to get spiritual nourishment from a two thousand year old book is like trying to suck milk from the breast of a woman who has been dead that long.
User avatar
cliffy1
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 860
Likes: 35 posts
Liked in: 48 posts
Joined: Mar 5th, 2011, 1:41 pm
Location: Nakusp

Re: A saw and a man

Postby Glacier » Feb 10th, 2013, 12:24 am

cliffy1 wrote:The insinuation was quite obvious, but totally biased. The Christian religious right are just as nuts and willing to force their beliefs on everybody else as any other fanatical religious group.

Not biased, just logical. Ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a victim of female genital mutilation who needs body guards everywhere she goes) if they are the same. Actually, she as an atheist, calls for Christians to convert Muslims into Christianity.

Theo Van Gogh made fun of Christianity, but no Christian tried to kill him for it. He made fun of Judaism, but no Jew tried to kill him. He was murdered for making fun of the religion of peace though. South Park can still play their episode making fun of Mormons, but can no longer play their episode making fun of the religion of peace.

Kurt Westergaard has to live in a bulletproof house because to drew a picture of The Prophet. Geert Wilders has to live in a secret safe house after criticizing the religion of peace. The list goes on.

Absolutely every religion, race, creed, and what-have-you has their nuts, but a religion that explicitly tells its followers to "kill infidels wherever you find them" is different from all other religions. It also means it's not just the fanatical nuts within that religion that are willing to commit to violence, but the pious followers as well.

Sneaksuit wrote:Are you suggesting that there's only one religion whose believers use force to proselytize?

Secondly, how are you distinguishing what's religious and what's political in your 10:90 ratio?

I am suggesting that there is only one religion that teaches forced conversion.

The 10:90 ratio comes from Vermenulen, former president of the European Union of Arabists and Islamists, said that Islam is 10 percent religion, while 90 percent deals with how people have to behave in accordance with the Islamic law based on divine revelations Muhammad received when he was a political leader in Medina. While there is no problem with setting rules about how people should pray and how they should fast, Vermeulen says, Islam becomes problematic when it tries to impose -as Allah says it must - Islamic holy law on the whole of society, including on non-Muslims. He explains, "In Islam you can't eat à la carte, you have to take the whole menu."

"Islam classically demands a political realization, and specifically one in which Islam rules over all other religions, ideologies and competing political visions," writes Australian theologian Mark Durie. He adds, "Islam is not unique in having a political vision or speaking to politics, but it is unique in demanding that it alone must rule the political sphere."

The influential twentieth-century Islamic spiritual leader Abul Ala Maududi freely acknowledged that "Islam is an ideology" because it demands that the state be regulated according to Islamic law. "The five pillars of Islam," Maududi said, "cry out for a State to exist in order for their full establishment to be achieved. This is the nature of Islam as it is an ideology."

Using Islamic prayer as an example, Maududi complained that "today, no ruler in the world treats the prayer as an obligation protected by the state's law and enforced by the judiciary and police. Rather the principles of 'free-choice' and 'freedom of worship' are preferred over Allah's command. This only proves that for the prayer to be fully implemented requires the apparatus of the state which creates the atmosphere where prayer is understood to be an obligation and optional." Indeed, Islam's most important goal, it's ultimate ambition, is the establishment of a worldly state, a global political empire: the Caliphate, to whose authority all of mankind -Muslims and non-Muslims alike - are subjected.

Read the book Marked for Death by Geert Wilders for a more thorough explaination.
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."
User avatar
Glacier
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 16257
Likes: 317 posts
Liked in: 1199 posts
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: A saw and a man

Postby Sneaksuit » Feb 10th, 2013, 6:14 pm

Glacier wrote:I am suggesting that there is only one religion that teaches forced conversion.


Glacier, if it were not for the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the church would doubtlessly be forcing the Christian lifestyle. Examples of this are clear with current issues such as euthanasia, abortion, stem cell research, same sex marriage, and so on. Don't forget that from the Roman Emperor Constantine until the Enlightenment (~1500 years) the church was the dominant political power in the West, using all types of coercion including, prison, torture, and death. The church did not lose its power by choice.

All religions, including Christianity, are political ideologies to one degree or another.

The notion that Christianity is a religion of peace is not one of history. Without question, it has the bloodiest and most violent history in comparison to all other religions, including Islam. You won't be hard-pressed to even find Christian historians that agree. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, the massacres of indigenous tribes who refused to convert, and a spectrum of other victims are witnesses to this fact, not to mention Christianity's "forced conversion" through European colonialism.

Glacier wrote:Not biased, just logical. Ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a victim of female genital mutilation who needs body guards everywhere she goes) if they are the same.


You're equating actions of particular people to scriptural teachings. Both the Quran and the Hebrew bible demand genital mutilation for males, not females. One positive result of the Catholic church forcing people to believe that Paul's letter to the Galatians was written by God, is that Paul thought people don't need to be Jewish like Jesus - to obey Jewish scripture and cut a chunk of flesh off your son's penis. Unfortunately, the west still suffers from this culturally sanctioned genital mutilation because religious momentum of the Bible, strictly speaking, still promotes this tradition.

Glacier wrote:Absolutely every religion, race, creed, and what-have-you has their nuts, but a religion that explicitly tells its followers to "kill infidels wherever you find them" is different from all other religions.


It's in your bible. Joshua was commanded by God to rape and carry out genocide of all non-Israelites including babies and animals in tens of cities. You would probably argue that Joshua's orders do not apply today because they are removed from their original context - true. Similarly, your cherry picked statement found in the Quran was written in a particular context where Mohammed commanded followers to "kill infidels wherever you find them"; and that context should be conveyed (during a particular war). To believe that a creator would actually command this stuff is bizarre and underlines it's senselessness today. But as you were implying, people use verses like these as justification of their agendas, therefore educated interpretation of scripture is vital. Equally important is the distinguishment between scripture and the beliefs/actions of the religious populous.


Glacier wrote:The 10:90 ratio comes from Vermenulen, former president of the European Union of Arabists and Islamists, said that Islam is 10 percent religion, while 90 percent deals with how people have to behave in accordance with the Islamic law based on divine revelations Muhammad received when he was a political leader in Medina. While there is no problem with setting rules about how people should pray and how they should fast, Vermeulen says, Islam becomes problematic when it tries to impose -as Allah says it must - Islamic holy law on the whole of society, including on non-Muslims. He explains, "In Islam you can't eat à la carte, you have to take the whole menu."

"Islam classically demands a political realization, and specifically one in which Islam rules over all other religions, ideologies and competing political visions," writes Australian theologian Mark Durie. He adds, "Islam is not unique in having a political vision or speaking to politics, but it is unique in demanding that it alone must rule the political sphere."

The influential twentieth-century Islamic spiritual leader Abul Ala Maududi freely acknowledged that "Islam is an ideology" because it demands that the state be regulated according to Islamic law. "The five pillars of Islam," Maududi said, "cry out for a State to exist in order for their full establishment to be achieved. This is the nature of Islam as it is an ideology."

Using Islamic prayer as an example, Maududi complained that "today, no ruler in the world treats the prayer as an obligation protected by the state's law and enforced by the judiciary and police. Rather the principles of 'free-choice' and 'freedom of worship' are preferred over Allah's command. This only proves that for the prayer to be fully implemented requires the apparatus of the state which creates the atmosphere where prayer is understood to be an obligation and optional." Indeed, Islam's most important goal, it's ultimate ambition, is the establishment of a worldly state, a global political empire: the Caliphate, to whose authority all of mankind -Muslims and non-Muslims alike - are subjected.

Read the book Marked for Death by Geert Wilders for a more thorough explaination.


That sounds like a good book and goes to show that we shouldn't adopt the mythologies of yesterday, today. I also agree with you that much of the ongoing war is politically motivated. "Christian" nations occupying "Islamic" nations, and Muslim terrorism is a political relationship to say the least. Governments use religious differences between people as a means to perpetrate their agenda, highlighting that to pick sides in this game is to be taken advantage of.


"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" (Matt 7:3).
User avatar
Sneaksuit
Board Meister
 
Posts: 456
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 7 posts
Joined: Mar 16th, 2007, 12:34 pm

Re: A saw and a man

Postby kibbs » Feb 10th, 2013, 6:30 pm

Religion has been used by political powers for a long time now not the other way around .A purer meaning is always perverted to gain support for a political agenda .Russia once suppressed religion ,now use it to imprison *bleep* riot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALS92big4TY
A Bicycle is better than a lover because they are always ready.......to go out for a good time!
User avatar
kibbs
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2943
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Oct 30th, 2012, 9:04 am

Re: A saw and a man

Postby Glacier » Feb 10th, 2013, 11:19 pm

Sneaksuit wrote:Joshua was commanded by God to rape

Rape? You're kidding right?

I used to think all religions were equal when it comes to committing atrocities until I read "A God Who Hates" by Wafa Sultan. While Islam committed innumerable massacres against Hindus as it swept through India, the Crusades committed their own excesses in Palestine. The difference is that Christians did not sanction their atrocities in Christian scripture; neither the Bible nor the example of Christ's life commanded Christians to kill unbelievers. The Quaran and the example of Muhammad's life, however, do.
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."
User avatar
Glacier
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 16257
Likes: 317 posts
Liked in: 1199 posts
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: A saw and a man

Postby Sneaksuit » Feb 11th, 2013, 12:23 am

Glacier wrote:Rape? You're kidding right?


"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Just look at this list of bible "goodness".

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

In the defense of "God", rape was a commonly practiced war spoil in the surrounding cultures, and so was adopted into Hebrew scripture.
User avatar
Sneaksuit
Board Meister
 
Posts: 456
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 7 posts
Joined: Mar 16th, 2007, 12:34 pm

Re: A saw and a man

Postby Sneaksuit » Feb 11th, 2013, 12:31 am

Glacier wrote: neither the Bible nor the example of Christ's life commanded Christians to kill unbelievers.


I agree, and I don't at all mean that Christian history is an example of Jesus' teachings. Peace.
User avatar
Sneaksuit
Board Meister
 
Posts: 456
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 7 posts
Joined: Mar 16th, 2007, 12:34 pm

Re: A saw and a man

Postby Glacier » Feb 11th, 2013, 10:27 pm

Sneaksuit wrote: "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

I just looked this passage up on the Blue Letter Bible, and I see it comes from Deuteronomy 20:11-14. Equating this passage to condoning rape is extremely poor and requires a great leap of faith in my opinion. I have never heard anyone who actually believes the bible ever say that God ordered or condoned rape. The only people who seem to be saying that it condones rape are those with a negative bias.

One of your other points I also do not agree with:
Both the Quran and the Hebrew bible demand genital mutilation for males, not females.


There is a monumental difference between female genital mutilation and circumcision. Circumcision is not genital mutilation, and it is not designed to reduce sexual pleasure.

The reason I say that Islam is political more than religious is because it is not concerned with what you truly believe, only that you belong to The Party as it were. To me a religion is concerned with what you believe (what's in the heart of man) whereas a totalitarian political movements such as National Socialism (aka Nazism), Communism, and Fascism don't really care what you believe, only that you fall in line with The Party outwardly.
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."
User avatar
Glacier
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 16257
Likes: 317 posts
Liked in: 1199 posts
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: A saw and a man

Postby Graham Adder » Feb 12th, 2013, 12:38 am

Glacier wrote:Circumcision is not genital mutilation


You're joking, right?

You've GOT to be joking.

Anything less just depletes the value of your post.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutilate
Mutilate:

1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genital
Genital:

1: generative
2: of, relating to, or being a sexual organ
3: of, relating to, or characterized by the stage of psychosexual development in psychoanalytic theory during which oral and anal impulses are subordinated to adaptive interpersonal mechanisms
User avatar
Graham Adder
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4315
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 11 posts
Joined: Apr 14th, 2009, 9:51 am

Re: A saw and a man

Postby Glacier » Feb 12th, 2013, 12:53 am

Graham Adder wrote:You're joking, right?

You've GOT to be joking.

Anything less just depletes the value of your post.

Ha ha. you know what I meant though.
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."
User avatar
Glacier
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 16257
Likes: 317 posts
Liked in: 1199 posts
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: A saw and a man

Postby Graham Adder » Feb 12th, 2013, 2:32 am

Glacier wrote:Ha ha. you know what I meant though.


No, I don't think I do.
What am I missing?
User avatar
Graham Adder
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4315
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 11 posts
Joined: Apr 14th, 2009, 9:51 am

Re: A saw and a man

Postby zzontar » Feb 12th, 2013, 8:31 am

Graham Adder wrote:No, I don't think I do.
What am I missing?


There are probably no women that prefer to be genitally mutilated would be my guess.
They say you can't believe everything they say.
User avatar
zzontar
Guru
 
Posts: 6842
Likes: 7 posts
Liked in: 250 posts
Joined: Oct 12th, 2006, 9:38 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion & Spirituality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest