Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Making a Stand 
Author Message
Level 0
Level 0
User avatar

Cash on hand:
0.00
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 4:01 pm
Location: forkheads
Group: Registered users
Post Re: Making a Stand
yeah, i know, and its not all post, its on all of view new post

_________________
I HAVE UNLEASHED THE MONSTERS FROM MY HEAD

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1EXkmLlk-o[/video]

my own rotating sig
Image


Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:05 am
Profile YIM WWW
ANTI-POPE
ANTI-POPE
User avatar

Cash on hand:
1,165,940.80
Posts: 29891
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 3:43 pm
Location: BEL AIR
Group: hanzo ord3r
Post Re: Making a Stand
lomno wrote:
dang it! its hard to reply in generL serios, but everything gets lost in translation

When posting here, contribute something. And since you just admited to doing it purley for purposes of getting yourself on that stupud list, this is your verbal warning.

_________________
Ringed with the azure world he stands
Emperor of the sky
Lord of the ocean
The very image of a king
Image


Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:44 am
Profile E-mail
Mother Fucker
Mother Fucker
User avatar

Cash on hand:
793.00
Posts: 1531
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:18 pm
Group: Registered users
Post Re: Making a Stand
rosie wrote:
Actually, I did not know about what was happening in Europe. I'm trying to find more information about that, but so far this is all I've found: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ourts.html ...From what that article says (and I'm trying to find a better one), what they are trying to do is impose the laws of whatever country the people involved are from. It's not necessarily forcing the sharia law on everyone.

I've also found this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... doors.html ...which does not really seem to be something forced upon all either.

There is probably more to this than I can find, so if you could provide articles and whatnot, that would be great.

The reason why I brought up translation is because while I was trying to find the full text of the Qu'ran, I found many variations in terms of translations, all of which were similar, but not always the quite the same meaning.


Yes, Fortuantly the whole Shiria Law thing is not happening anyway.Religious feelings cannot demand special treatment in a secular society. You never hear any catholics threatning Muslims because of a young muslim man (true story) draws a picture of the virgin Mary flashing her breasts. It sickens me that England was the only country (in the E.U) not to reprint the pictures to show people in their own nation what they were. Why? out of respect for Muslims? of course not it was fear. Fear of what would happen

_________________
Image


Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:10 am
Profile E-mail
Level 19
Level 19
User avatar

Cash on hand:
57,018.00
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 1:28 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Making a Stand
@Haz: Whether I believe its hate speech or not is irrelevant, but if I did it would by no means exclude my "belief" in Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech does not exclude the possibility of Hate Speech. In fact, in many ways its geared towards acknowledging it. The question is whether you allow hate speech to be protected by freedom of speech. A matter which has long and often been debated. For instance, do we let the KKK and Neo-Nazi's have large rallies in our capitals and publicize everywhere how much the non-whites, or non-WASPs are evil? Or post racial slurs and such? Well, some say yes, some say no, but they acknowledge this is hate speech. Now, if we allow such speech, then why not allow the reactions to such speech? you can't advocate freedom of speech is such a line as you propose while asking to restrict the freedom of the ones offended to retaliate and to use their own forms of speech against things. Even when they go beyond speech, you are now in the realm of "if you try to offend people, you should expect, even accept, the possibility of severe reactions". Does this mean we don't crack down on the illegal reactions? No, but understand they will happen, and can be expected to happen, almost no matter who is involved, and someone under the guise of "freedom of speech" instigated it all. And never forget, the purpose of Freedom of Speech is not so you can just say whatever you want whenever you feel like it, but so you can take on the responsibility to say what needs to be said (for instance, criticize an unjust government or something). Other things ARE protected, of course, but remember the basis when you get so uptight about its infringement.

@Lime: "That is the correct translation"? Did you listen to what I said? For one, a "correct" translation still doesn't mean it encompasses precisely the previous meaning. Thats the problem with translations, you very rarely get it right, hence many different translations, even if only in slight degrees. For another, the point I made was that there are large portions of the Islamic community that simply don't consider a translation, no matter how good, to be Qu'ran. Why? Partially because they believe the exact words themselves, and even what the words look like written, is important. Translated isn't a bad thing, its just no longer really Qu'ran to them.
In any case, I don't think you have much right (and I have little more) to say what Islam is and is not, let alone to interpret its teachings. Truth is, no one ever really understands what any religion is about from the outside. Its the difference between Theology (my area) and Religious Studies (which is often kinda a joke). One is a matter of seeking understanding from within a Faith and as a believer, the other is an outsider trying to understand what the OTHERS believe and why they do things.

@ Carsito: The great thing about the story of Abraham and Isaac which so many overlook because they never take the time to go through a REAL study of it is this: It was written likely over 1000 years later, during a time when Israel was expanding. During this time of expansion, they came into new areas with new people whose practice DEMANDED a CHILD be sacrificed to specific gods to get rid of the Locusts that came every 18 or so years. Well, the new Israelites of course would object to sacrifices to other gods, so the new people would ask them to sacrifice a child to their own God to get rid of the locusts. Obviously, this was a troubling issue which people were not sure what to do about, and what was the right thing. So, the story of Abraham and Isaac helped settle the matter by explaining very specifically that GOD DOES NOT WANT CHILD SACRIFICES. Of course, thats not all there is to the story, and it teaches much more with the other factors as well (like how God made it possible for Isaac to be conceived in the first place, and how Isaac specifically the way that God's promise to Abraham to make his descendants numerous was to be fulfilled, and thus to give him up would mean giving up the reason Abraham left his homeland in the first place or would require a great deal of trust and so on).
Along with that, of course, people so often like to hark on a particular interpretation of the old testament which is reliant itself on ignoring large areas and ignoring the context of things and what things mean with everything else which is written: the idea that God in the old testament is not a loving, but a vengeful and wrathful God. The problem is, the Old Testament very much proclaims an extremely Loving, Merciful, and Forgiving God. In fact, more often in real exegesis it is considered a very large love story about the relationship between God and His People. In Christianity this is, of course, made more clear, or really just taken to a further progression and fulfillment. Much of the messages of Love and forgiveness which people talk about from Jesus actually come directly from the Old Testament, or are simply further steps that flow from what is written in the Old. And many of the people in His time understood this well enough, and thought some of what He said showed simply how incredibly versed He was in Scripture and how Wisely he could interpret it in answering various questions. Of course, He did bring many new things as well, but as I said, often they flowed reasonably from the previous in some way. For instance, when Jesus says "if someone strikes you on the one cheek, offer your other cheek as well", it is simply an improvement on "an eye of an eye", when you understand that the latter was always meant to be a limitation rather than a demand, thus "ONLY an eye for an eye" rather than what most people would likely do and say, cripple the person and blind them completely or kill them. The new law takes that restriction and goes the only direction possible without contradicting it: makes a greater restriction, that what you should do rather than taking out just retaliation is accept more abuse.

And really? Radical Islam may be a few degrees worse than radical Christianity, but you realize the latter group still goes around killing people and blowing shit up and in fairly recent history did this somewhat publicly. The KKK, after all, is a form of radical Christianity, and I think we can understand how just as foreign the KKK is to REAL Christianity, likewise the Radical Muslims may be from REAL Islam.
edit:
Also: Yes, creating warriors was the main point of the various Viking and Norse religions. Thus a violent religion. For what makes a warrior (particularly to them) a real warrior and great? Killing lots of people, even doing so in rather brutal fashions.

_________________
Back again. I do stuff. Do you?


Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:07 pm
Profile E-mail YIM
Level 11
Level 11
User avatar

Cash on hand:
2,504.00
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: USA!
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Making a Stand
Starting with the Old Testament. God still destroyed cities and killed people for their wrong doings. It's not like that's what WASN'T written in the fuckin' book. Sure, there may be some hidden agenda in this book, but that doesn't change what did happen.

Eye for an eye means revenge. It's basically the same as the Satanic Golden Rule "Do unto others as they have done unto you". Turn the other cheek is the exact opposite, meaning that no matter what they did to you, ignore them. Eye for an eye means if they pluck out your eye, you pluck out their eye.

I am referring to the now. Radical Islam is a far bigger threat to everyone in the entire world than the KKK, Crusaders, or Catholic Church ever has been. It may be because we live in modern times where killing someone in any part of the planet is much easier, but that doesn't change the fact that they do.

And actually, the Samurais believe that a great warrior lives by a code of peace. They fight when absolutely necessary, but their main goal is to maintain peace around them. Same with Monks. The vikings believed that the survival of their families and people depended on their ability to fight. A great Warrior protects his loved ones.

_________________
Image


Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:59 pm
Profile E-mail WWW
Level 19
Level 19
User avatar

Cash on hand:
57,018.00
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 1:28 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Making a Stand
The point is you have to take it in context and understand what is going on. You can't just arbitrarily pick and choose everything from anything. Hell, I can pick and choose things from what you say and proclaim you to be a Radical Muslim yourself. Meaning can change dramatically with context and proper understanding.

You didn't listen to what I said, obviously. Eye for an eye was not a command TO do that, it was a LIMITATION saying you can ONLY do that and NO MORE. When you have just moved the direction from "If someone plucks out your eye, do what you want with them, kill them if you like" to "If someone plucks out your eye, you may ONLY pluck out ONE eye for every ONE eye", then its still just further down the path in that same direction to say "If someone plucks out your eye, offer them your other eye to pluck out as well". A lot further? Maybe, but still the same direction.
By the way, turn the other cheek doesn't actually mean ignore the person. It means to very much acknowledge what they did and do something about it. This can be interpreted in many ways, particularly given the cultural context concerning hands for the place, in which it forces the other person to give you some form of respect, but it can also be seen as showing the other person both that they have no real power over you and that you can endure far more willingly.

And are you sure? The crusaders went and slaughtered thousands of innocent, non-combatant people in their FIRST RUN. They later killed many more. They also pillaged, destroyed and killed throughout Europe on their way down to the Holy Land. They got mass numbers of children to go in to fight on one crusade, who also were kidnapped and enslaved along the way by others. Not only that, but in many ways alot of our problems now still stem from the Crusades, since many in the Islamic community have not forgotten and still find it to be a sore spot, even reason for continuing to fight all others.

Not sure why you lump the Catholic Church in with radicals though, its very much the largest, most traditional (save possibly for the Orthodox), and I would say least radical in the sense of being closest to the core, but whatever.

Oh, the samurias believe that do they? I thought we were talking about the vikings/norse. But ok, still, they are as you might say "prone to violent tendencies" by their beliefs and ways as well. They may believe they are preserving greater peace by killing at times, but thats still violence.
And the vikings are a bit different from what you seem to think. Yes, they do favor protecting their own, but thats far from their only motivation. And hell, if that was such a big focus, their great and praised Heroes and Heroins would not brutally murder their own children so often for not being strong enough or because they don't like their husbands. Nor would they favor so greatly making war and raids on pretty much anyone without reason other than its good to fight and gain wealth or whatever.

_________________
Back again. I do stuff. Do you?


Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:30 am
Profile E-mail YIM
Mother Fucker
Mother Fucker
User avatar

Cash on hand:
793.00
Posts: 1531
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:18 pm
Group: Registered users
Post Re: Making a Stand
n0th1n wrote:
@Haz: Whether I believe its hate speech or not is irrelevant, but if I did it would by no means exclude my "belief" in Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech does not exclude the possibility of Hate Speech. In fact, in many ways its geared towards acknowledging it. The question is whether you allow hate speech to be protected by freedom of speech. A matter which has long and often been debated. For instance, do we let the KKK and Neo-Nazi's have large rallies in our capitals and publicize everywhere how much the non-whites, or non-WASPs are evil? Or post racial slurs and such? Well, some say yes, some say no, but they acknowledge this is hate speech. Now, if we allow such speech, then why not allow the reactions to such speech? you can't advocate freedom of speech is such a line as you propose while asking to restrict the freedom of the ones offended to retaliate and to use their own forms of speech against things. Even when they go beyond speech, you are now in the realm of "if you try to offend people, you should expect, even accept, the possibility of severe reactions". Does this mean we don't crack down on the illegal reactions? No, but understand they will happen, and can be expected to happen, almost no matter who is involved, and someone under the guise of "freedom of speech" instigated it all. And never forget, the purpose of Freedom of Speech is not so you can just say whatever you want whenever you feel like it, but so you can take on the responsibility to say what needs to be said (for instance, criticize an unjust government or something). Other things ARE protected, of course, but remember the basis when you get so uptight about its infringement.


Pffft What am saying isn't hate speech. Anyway We should allow reactions just not VIOLENT ONES if you live in a secular and democratic society. Your missing the point. Which one is more of a social taboo Muslims or (lets just pick some religion) Catholics. The answer is obviously Catholics and it happens a lot there are many (humorous) pedophile jokes that go around with the Catholic church. Now Imagine if I joke about the Muslims. If I joke about that one I am suddenly seen to be a bigot and intollerant yet if I make a Catholic Joke it's a little chuckle. I just want everything to be equal why should Islam have a bigger social taboo whilst others don't I'm a bigot for joking about one; an amazingly funny man for joking about an other. The thing I don't like is the fact that we have double standards about these religions

_________________
Image


Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:08 am
Profile E-mail
Level 11
Level 11
User avatar

Cash on hand:
2,504.00
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: USA!
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Making a Stand
It doesn't matter, though, what was going on. What we do know is that God killed thousands of people and demands the deaths of many kinds of sinners (see Leviticus) in the Old Testament. Sure, there may have been a deeper purpose, but it doesn't change the fact that he still performed those actions.

This one doesn't matter much. Eye for an eye can be interpreted differently, apparently.

Yes, I'm sure. Crusaders also don't bring fear to EVERYONE around the world. No one is safe. We also have to consider present threat compared to pass threat. That gives extra points, so Radical Muslims are currently worse than crusaders (that was my point the whole time) and we should be able to make fun of them; anyone really, but why draw the line at Muslims. Fuck them.

The Catholic Church deployed the Crusaders. So, if the Crusades are as bad as you wish to portray them, then it is partly their fault (which would group them with radicals). If there were some rogue crusaders who just got caught up in the war and killed innocent people, than the crusades were as bad as all wars and shouldn't be considered a religious thing, which would relieve the Catholic Church. Your call.

I brought up samurais as an example of how warriors are the violent people that you stereotype them to be.

_________________
Image


Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:55 am
Profile E-mail WWW
Level 19
Level 19
User avatar

Cash on hand:
57,018.00
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 1:28 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Making a Stand
Haz wrote:
n0th1n wrote:
@Haz: Whether I believe its hate speech or not is irrelevant, but if I did it would by no means exclude my "belief" in Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech does not exclude the possibility of Hate Speech. In fact, in many ways its geared towards acknowledging it. The question is whether you allow hate speech to be protected by freedom of speech. A matter which has long and often been debated. For instance, do we let the KKK and Neo-Nazi's have large rallies in our capitals and publicize everywhere how much the non-whites, or non-WASPs are evil? Or post racial slurs and such? Well, some say yes, some say no, but they acknowledge this is hate speech. Now, if we allow such speech, then why not allow the reactions to such speech? you can't advocate freedom of speech is such a line as you propose while asking to restrict the freedom of the ones offended to retaliate and to use their own forms of speech against things. Even when they go beyond speech, you are now in the realm of "if you try to offend people, you should expect, even accept, the possibility of severe reactions". Does this mean we don't crack down on the illegal reactions? No, but understand they will happen, and can be expected to happen, almost no matter who is involved, and someone under the guise of "freedom of speech" instigated it all. And never forget, the purpose of Freedom of Speech is not so you can just say whatever you want whenever you feel like it, but so you can take on the responsibility to say what needs to be said (for instance, criticize an unjust government or something). Other things ARE protected, of course, but remember the basis when you get so uptight about its infringement.


Pffft What am saying isn't hate speech. Anyway We should allow reactions just not VIOLENT ONES if you live in a secular and democratic society. Your missing the point. Which one is more of a social taboo Muslims or (lets just pick some religion) Catholics. The answer is obviously Catholics and it happens a lot there are many (humorous) pedophile jokes that go around with the Catholic church. Now Imagine if I joke about the Muslims. If I joke about that one I am suddenly seen to be a bigot and intollerant yet if I make a Catholic Joke it's a little chuckle. I just want everything to be equal why should Islam have a bigger social taboo whilst others don't I'm a bigot for joking about one; an amazingly funny man for joking about an other. The thing I don't like is the fact that we have double standards about these religions


That may be the case in your country where you live which has long been notorious for extreme anti-Catholicism, but it isn't the case here. Only certain people care that much about making Islamic jokes, and those people tend to be like me actually, who will likewise be very offended and react to the Catholic jokes. Honestly, I hear far, far, far more Muslim jokes that get slung around all the time, or hatred speech about them, than I do usually about Catholics, which is strange since a frequent the places and people most likely to have the specifically anti-Catholic sentiments.
In any case, it seems you are bringing out simply another problem: maybe we telling jokes against Catholics SHOULD be a greater problem. Some places its not such a problem simply because more people hold the same bigotry where such jokes are made. We react against it, often, though no one likes to listen to us do it, unless they are watching the Colbert Report on one of the rare occasions he brought out some counter-reactions to anti-Catholicism in the media, being a Catholic himself. Ours are generally less violent than what you pointed out, sure, but hey, just because I never said Islam was on OUR level of a generally peaceful religion.
Nor did I excuse or condone the violent and illegal reactions. I just said if you provoke people, expect the reaction, and its understandable.

CarsitoPyg wrote:
It doesn't matter, though, what was going on. What we do know is that God killed thousands of people and demands the deaths of many kinds of sinners (see Leviticus) in the Old Testament. Sure, there may have been a deeper purpose, but it doesn't change the fact that he still performed those actions.

This one doesn't matter much. Eye for an eye can be interpreted differently, apparently.

Yes, I'm sure. Crusaders also don't bring fear to EVERYONE around the world. No one is safe. We also have to consider present threat compared to pass threat. That gives extra points, so Radical Muslims are currently worse than crusaders (that was my point the whole time) and we should be able to make fun of them; anyone really, but why draw the line at Muslims. Fuck them.

The Catholic Church deployed the Crusaders. So, if the Crusades are as bad as you wish to portray them, then it is partly their fault (which would group them with radicals). If there were some rogue crusaders who just got caught up in the war and killed innocent people, than the crusades were as bad as all wars and shouldn't be considered a religious thing, which would relieve the Catholic Church. Your call.

I brought up samurais as an example of how warriors are the violent people that you stereotype them to be.


So you finally admit then that this God does exist? For you have done so in the wording of your claim and must do so for it to be accepted as accurate.
The Leviticus commands have been TRANSLATED (not even just interpreted) in various ways due to some ambiguity of the words and differences in manuscripts, some of which don't actually command that you kill anyone, just say that things are rather ambiguously "an abomination" and that you should not do these things.
Places like the city of Jericho was actually destroyed a long time before the Hebrews got near it (archaeologists have found and studied the city), though likely in a similar fashion of complete annihilation and destruction as is described as that was apparently a somewhat common practice at the time in that area. The story itself is valuable for other reasons though. Even so, taking peoples lives wouldn't make God necessarily wrathful or vengeful per se. He takes lives all the time, and gives life, in various ways, and as the master of Life and granter of Life is the one with the complete right to do it at any time for any reason. Often this was seen moreso as a matter of "withdrawing protection", but thats another matter. Still, letting people die, or killing people, wouldn't not change Him at all from being a loving God. Why should it? Reality is not so simple as "kill means hate, let live means love".

There is a difference between being a radical group and doing bad things. Hell, being non-violent made people radicals as recently as the Vietnam War. The mainstream does terrible things very often, so does the traditional at times when it becomes confused. Sometimes it realizes the error later on. In any case, some of the Popes and such called for the first crusades, though not for the slaughter of the innocent as eventually happened since by the time the crusaders made it to the Holy Land the extremist group that was keeping everyone out of the Holy Land had lost power and been replaced by another group that was allowing everyone in again, but they decided to not let those months on the road go to waste and many of the lords had other motives anyway. Several of the crusades afterwards simply took the lead of the previous and various groups sprung up to do it on their own, though I think there was one other Crusade called for or encouraged by a Pope. I will not excuse the Catholic Church's role in all this, though I will place it more precisely, and we have long since acknowledged it was a terrible, terrible thing which has yielded consequences still felt today.

Thank you for agreeing with me about the samurai and warriors in general.

_________________
Back again. I do stuff. Do you?


Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:01 am
Profile E-mail YIM
Level 11
Level 11
User avatar

Cash on hand:
2,504.00
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: USA!
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Making a Stand
damn... i meant to put "not the violent..." w/e.

I say that if God does exist, he is a genocidal God. This is like discussing a character in a book, for me. I know Frodo doesn't exist, but I can still talk about how he was probably gay.

_________________
Image


Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:40 pm
Profile E-mail WWW
Level 16
Level 16
User avatar

Cash on hand:
5.00
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:19 am
Location: Rolla, Missouri, USA
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Making a Stand
the islamic faith does have a very violent history (from the middle east, to north africa, to spain) but was formed really to bring the people of the middle east together. but like all major religions, it split, and was attacked by other people. all i really know is what i learned in school, that islam, at its roots, is a peaceful faith, but that people added on the whole 'kill the infidels' stuff later on...and of course things are lost in translation, but things are lost in translation with pretty much every major holy book, english wasn't spoken when they were written...

everybody talks about conquest and war like its bad, but many places wouldn't have nearly as rich a culture if it wasn't for all that.

i guess what im trying to say is that the crazy fuckers that are decapitating people don't speak for all muslims. you have to remember, islam is practiced in many places around the world...


Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:53 pm
Profile E-mail WWW
Level 19
Level 19
User avatar

Cash on hand:
57,018.00
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 1:28 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Making a Stand
Lime wrote:
Theology at a biased catholic school.


I'm not even sure what you're referring to right now with this, as you didn't make much clear. However, along with that said, you are lacking in quality for the Serious board, you realize.

In any case, if you knew much about what Theology IS (or listened a bit more carefully when I told you), you'd see the fallacy of that statement.

Frodo is not at all gay. His relationship with Sam and the others is a perfect literary illustration of what C.S. Lewis describes in his book The Four Loves under the chapter of "Friendship". He even addresses specifically the rather misguided idea some modern thinkers have in seeing homosexual relationships where they do not exist in relation to this love (while not saying that homosexual desires have never been mixed up in such matters).
In any case, there is also a difference between how you speak about an idea and about a reality. You were using the terms of a reality.

As for being a genocidal God: you base this on what? Selective bits of stories you don't give credit to anyway? Given the nature of the situation anyway, even under your propositions and selective view, calling God genocidal would be like calling Enterprise Car Rentals a bunch of car thieves for demanding you return the cars you rented.

_________________
Back again. I do stuff. Do you?


Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:24 am
Profile E-mail YIM
Mother Fucker
Mother Fucker
User avatar

Cash on hand:
793.00
Posts: 1531
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:18 pm
Group: Registered users
Post Re: Making a Stand
n0th1n wrote:
Lime wrote:
Theology at a biased catholic school.


I'm not even sure what you're referring to right now with this, as you didn't make much clear. However, along with that said, you are lacking in quality for the Serious board, you realize.

In any case, if you knew much about what Theology IS (or listened a bit more carefully when I told you), you'd see the fallacy of that statement.

Frodo is not at all gay. His relationship with Sam and the others is a perfect literary illustration of what C.S. Lewis describes in his book The Four Loves under the chapter of "Friendship". He even addresses specifically the rather misguided idea some modern thinkers have in seeing homosexual relationships where they do not exist in relation to this love (while not saying that homosexual desires have never been mixed up in such matters).
In any case, there is also a difference between how you speak about an idea and about a reality. You were using the terms of a reality.

As for being a genocidal God: you base this on what? Selective bits of stories you don't give credit to anyway? Given the nature of the situation anyway, even under your propositions and selective view, calling God genocidal would be like calling Enterprise Car Rentals a bunch of car thieves for demanding you return the cars you rented.


and you base the Loving caring God on selective bits of stories.

but anyway we are getting off topic the matter of fact is in a secular society You think I do this just a way of angering people your missing the point why should a children picture book author be threatened by hundreds of people in his own town because he drew a picture of Muhammed in his story. If I said "I find it offensive for anyone to wear wolly hats because my father died whilst wearing one" I wouldn't have everyone taking off wolly hats when I asked them to but because people are scared of violence the picture isn't shown

_________________
Image


Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:58 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 1
Level 1
User avatar

Cash on hand:
5,555.50
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Matrioshka Brain on Mercury
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Making a Stand
n0th1n wrote:

And, unfortunately, you actually do find plenty of extremist Christian and many other religious groups doing somewhat similar violent acts at times. Including making hit lists and actually caring them out, blowing stuff up, and many other things. Hell, you'll find some Atheists doing likewise in the name of atheism. Most of these groups of people are not really following their own faiths precepts in many ways, because they ignore certain aspects in their zeal for other aspects.

Thats not to say their are not, or have not been, religions that are really violent. The various Viking religions I would say were/are very violent, with such glorified/rewarded deaths as dying with a sword (generally meaning fighting) in your hand, and an extreme stress on this being the particular way for everyone to die, and with their various legendary books and myths emphasizing fighting and killing all the time in rather brutal ways, even treacherous ways which are glorified rather than punished.

But, I don't think Islam is necessarily one of them. There may be that trend in some groups, but violent people can make anything violent. I remember several years ago there were people turning from protest to violent riot in protest of violent war. Did that make sense? No, not really.


My problem with all this War on Terror bullshit is that the US has homegrown terrorists like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and extreme right-wing Christian groups that are extremely anti-abortion and anti-gay. You never hear about any of those people doing horrible things and even if they do happen, you only hear about it if it's major. No wonder people can argue that the GWOT is a war on Islam.

_________________
Y0u've a11 g0ne ins@ane @nd 1'm just laughing at y0u


Image


Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:53 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 19
Level 19
User avatar

Cash on hand:
57,018.00
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 1:28 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Making a Stand
Haz wrote:
n0th1n wrote:
Lime wrote:
Theology at a biased catholic school.


I'm not even sure what you're referring to right now with this, as you didn't make much clear. However, along with that said, you are lacking in quality for the Serious board, you realize.

In any case, if you knew much about what Theology IS (or listened a bit more carefully when I told you), you'd see the fallacy of that statement.

Frodo is not at all gay. His relationship with Sam and the others is a perfect literary illustration of what C.S. Lewis describes in his book The Four Loves under the chapter of "Friendship". He even addresses specifically the rather misguided idea some modern thinkers have in seeing homosexual relationships where they do not exist in relation to this love (while not saying that homosexual desires have never been mixed up in such matters).
In any case, there is also a difference between how you speak about an idea and about a reality. You were using the terms of a reality.

As for being a genocidal God: you base this on what? Selective bits of stories you don't give credit to anyway? Given the nature of the situation anyway, even under your propositions and selective view, calling God genocidal would be like calling Enterprise Car Rentals a bunch of car thieves for demanding you return the cars you rented.


and you base the Loving caring God on selective bits of stories.

but anyway we are getting off topic the matter of fact is in a secular society You think I do this just a way of angering people your missing the point why should a children picture book author be threatened by hundreds of people in his own town because he drew a picture of Muhammed in his story. If I said "I find it offensive for anyone to wear wolly hats because my father died whilst wearing one" I wouldn't have everyone taking off wolly hats when I asked them to but because people are scared of violence the picture isn't shown


Actually, I base it on the an understanding of the entire story, and the story in context of the historical and cultural situations, and its context along with the stories and writings surrounding it. Then further on the tradition that has developed alongside it and the community that has grown out of the two, etc. etc.

Honestly though if it was all a violent religion sanctioning greater violence for certain ends it wouldn't necessarily bother me in that context. I'd probably be out gun in hand blowing out a few brains. Such is not the case, however.

you mention the childrens' books stuff. Do you not recall the uproar when a topless picture made it into a waldo book? Imagine the uproar if someone put a bunch of extremely violent hentai rape into a childrens' book. Or, for instance in the current climate, if someone wrote a childrens' book where Obama was assassinated by the hero because he is evil or a child molester or something. I think you'd see a good bit of uproar from many different groups. Violent? I'd wager there would indeed be some violence. As much? Hard to say, probably not.
Again though, I do not condone the violent reactions, nor do I dismiss them, I'm just saying it can be understood and is not as extreme a reaction as you are making it out to be, especially not when you realize just how great and direct an insult and offense this is to these people.

_________________
Back again. I do stuff. Do you?


Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:49 pm
Profile E-mail YIM
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 

Similar topics

 
started making insane song mixes
Forum: ./General Spam
Author: cluelessfurball
Replies: 3
You will see me stand above you then
Forum: ./General Spam
Author: 「H A N Z O」
Replies: 0
i am making...
Forum: ./General No Spam
Author: yellowrock
Replies: 8
You're making this too easy
Forum: ./General Spam
Author: LordofFlames
Replies: 16
Top


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Mods Database :: Imprint :: Crawler Feeds :: Reset blocks
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.

Portal XL 5.0 ~ Premod 0.3 phpBB SEO