PDA

View Full Version : Derail from "Slaughter in Paris."



Pages : [1] 2

Tassman
11-14-2015, 02:19 AM
More from the religion of peace...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_FRANCE_PARIS_SHOOTINGS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-11-13-16-16-27

And so it goes on. "The whole history of the last thousands of years has been a history of religious persecutions and wars, pogroms, jihads, crusades. I find it all very regrettable, to say the least." - Steven Weinberg.

seer
11-14-2015, 03:26 AM
And so it goes on. "The whole history of the last thousands of years has been a history of religious persecutions and wars, pogroms, jihads, crusades. I find it all very regrettable, to say the least." - Steven Weinberg.

Yes, but don't forget about the millions and millions killed by atheistic regimes. But hey Tass, we are just doing what we were determined to do by the forces of nature - right?

Leonhard
11-15-2015, 03:20 AM
Tassman, seer, you're derailing the thread. This is not a discussion about the foundations of morality, we all agree that these acts of terrorism are terrible. Please take it to the philosophy subforum.

Juvenal
11-15-2015, 07:18 AM
In Christianity you have to go directly against what you're expressly told to forcibly convert someone whereas in Islam you have to go directly against what you're expressly told not to forcibly convert someone. You can criticize Christians for some time losing sight of that but you cannot criticize Christianity for it. The same can not be said for Islam. That is not a subtle or insignificant difference.

I'm calling this out as "Lying for Jesus." I don't much care for Islam, but any claim that this ayah isn't central to every muslim's faith can only be attributed to malice.

Surah Al-Baqarah, Ayah 256 (http://quran.com/2/256)


There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

And worse. Dragging the bodies of the dead of Benghazi around to score points for your ideology was beyond contemptible, but this, scoring points on these bodies, before they're even cold, for your religion ... there are no words.

I'm done here.

Cerebrum123
11-15-2015, 08:43 AM
I'm calling this out as "Lying for Jesus." I don't much care for Islam, but any claim that this ayah isn't central to every muslim's faith can only be attributed to malice.

Surah Al-Baqarah, Ayah 256 (http://quran.com/2/256)


There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

Abrogation for this verse is very popular, although you can find a few scholars who say otherwise.

Scholars disagree and hold various positions regarding the legal status and meaning of this ayat.

· It is said that it is ABROGATED because the Prophet FORCED the Arabs to adopt the din of Islam and fought them and was only pleased with Islam for them. Sulayman ibn Musa took the view, saying, "It is abrogated by ‘O Prophet! Do jihad against the unbelievers and the hypocrites.’ (9:73)" That is related from Ibn Mas‘ud and many commentators.

· It is not abrogated and was sent down about the people of the Book in particular and means that they are not forced to adopt Islam when they pay jizya. THOSE WHO ARE FORCED ARE THE IDOLATERS. Only Islam is accepted from them, and they are the ones about whom ‘O Prophet! Do Jihad against the unbelievers and the hypocrites.’ (9:73) was revealed. This is the position of ash-Sha‘bi, Qatada, al-Hasan and ad-Dahhak. The evidence for this position is related by Zayd ibn Aslam from his father, "I heard ‘Umar in al-Khattab say to an old Christian woman, ‘Become Muslim, old woman, become Muslim. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth.’ She replied, ‘I am an old woman and close to death.’ ‘Umar said, ‘O Allah, witness!’ and he recited, ‘There is no compulsion where the din is concerned.’"

· Abu Dawud reported from Ibn ‘Abbas that this was revealed about the Ansar. There was a woman, all of whose children had died. She made a vow that if she had a child who lived she would become a Jew. When the Banu’n-Nadir were exiled, among them were many of the children of the Ansar. They said, "We will not leave our sons!" Then Allah revealed this. One variant has, "We did what we did and we think that their din is better than what we have." When Allah brought Islam, they denied it and this was revealed. Whoever wished remained with them and whoever wished, entered Islam. This is the position of Sa‘id ibn Jubayr, ash-Sha‘bi and Mujahid, but he added that the reason that they were with the Banu’n-Nadir was through suckling. An-Nahhas said, "The position of Ibn ‘Abbas regarding this ayat is the best position since its isnad is sound."

· As-Suddi said that the ayat was revealed about a man of the Ansar called Abu Husayn who had two sons. Some merchants came from Syria to Madina with oil and when they wanted to leave, his sons went to them. They invited the two sons to become Christians and they did so and went back with them to Syria. Their father went to the Messenger of Allah to complain about this and asked the Messenger of Allah to send someone to bring them back. Then, "There is no compulsion where the din is concerned" was revealed. He had not been commanded to fight the People of the Book. He said, "Allah has put them far. They are the first to disbelieve." Abu’l-Husayn felt annoyed that the Prophet did not send someone after them. Then Allah revealed, "No, by your Lord, they are not believers until they make you their judge in the disputes that break out between them" (4:65). Then "No compulsion" WAS ABROGATED and he was commanded to fight the People of the Book in Surat at-Tawba. The sound view for the reason behind the words, "No, by your Lord, they are not believers …" is the hadith of az-Zubayr with his Christian neighbour about water as will be dealt with in Surat at-Tawba, Allah willing.

Source. (http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/compulsion.html)

If you want to accuse someone of lying, it's those who practice Islam and taqqiya/abrogation who you should have your sights on, not rogue06.


And worse. Dragging the bodies of the dead of Benghazi around to score points for your ideology was beyond contemptible, but this, scoring points on these bodies, before they're even cold, for your religion ... there are no words.

I'm done here.

Or, maybe you should do some research before you jump down someone's throat for "lying" when you yourself put in blatant falsehood* in your own post is rather contemptible IMO.

*The underlined specifically is blatantly false. Abrogation, taqqiya, Quranic verses, Sahih Hadith, and Islamic scholars show it to be false.

rogue06
11-15-2015, 09:42 AM
I'm calling this out as "Lying for Jesus." I don't much care for Islam, but any claim that this ayah isn't central to every muslim's faith can only be attributed to malice.

Surah Al-Baqarah, Ayah 256 (http://quran.com/2/256)


There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

And worse. Dragging the bodies of the dead of Benghazi around to score points for your ideology was beyond contemptible, but this, scoring points on these bodies, before they're even cold, for your religion ... there are no words.

I'm done here.
Surah 256, like the other passages that called for peace and tolerance, were later abrogated (superseded or repealed) by surah 9:5 (Ayat al-Sayf or the Verse of the Sword).

The doctrine of abrogation is stated in the Qur'an itself (2:106): "Such of our revelation as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof." So a later statement that contradicts an earlier one is thought to be better and abrogates the earlier statement[1] -- and nearly all Muslim scholars agree that the Surah Bara'ah (the ninth) was the very last surah in the Qur'an that was revealed (although a few say it was al-Nasr or surah 110) meaning what is contained in it abrogates virtually everything else.

This practice caused Muhammad's opponents to declare that he was a calumniator and didn't receive inspiration from God because he changed his mind whenever he wished. While Muslims have no problem with this, it is recognized in the Qur'an itself that others do: "And when we put one revelation in place of another revelation – and Allah knows best what he reveals – they say, 'Lo! Thou art but inventing'” (16:101).

The great Spanish Muslim philosopher Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi (1165-1240) proclaimed that surah 9:5 abrogated something like 124 of the more tolerant and peaceful Quranian ayahs.

The man who is regarded by many as the Muslim world's most respected Qur'an commentator, the revered Muslim expert on tafsir (Quranic exegesis) and faqīh (jurisprudence), Ismail ibn Kathir (c.1300-1373), declared that surah 9:5 "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term. ... No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety since Surah Bara'ah [the ninth] was revealed." He adds that "Allah's pardon for the disbelievers was repealed. Abu Al-`Aliyah, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, Qatadah and As-Suddi said similarly: "It [the pardon, or forgiveness] was abrogated by the Ayah [verse] of the sword."

Today, the conservative Muhammad Saalih Al-Munajjid[3], who's fatawas (edicts or rulings) circulate throughout the Islamic world and are taken very seriously, in discussing surah 2:256 ("Let there be no compulsion in religion"), quoted Surahs 8:39, 9:29 along with 9:5 and declared "these and similar verses abrogate those saying there is no compulsion to become Muslim."

So warfare against non-Muslims until they were converted or utterly oppressed was mandated by Muhammad.

This is confirmed by what we read in the Hadiths including the ones venerated as being authoritative like the Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari:


Sahih Muslim 1:33: The Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat."

Sahih al-Bukhari 2:24: "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Sahih al-Bukhari 8:387: "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.'"

Sahih al-Bukhari 60:80: "The Verse:--'You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.' means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam."

Aside from the Hadiths, Ibn Ishaq (704-767/8, regarded as the earliest and most thorough of Islam's historians), who wrote the Sīrat Rasūl Allāh ("Life of the Messenger of God") relates that,


"Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited."

The text makes clear that the al-Harith[2] were only taught about Islam after their coerced "conversion," demonstrating that it was based on their fear of being slaughtered.

Further, as Ibn Ishaq relates, when Abu Sufyan ibn Harb (the leader of the chief of the Banu Abd-Shams clan of the Quraish tribe of Mecca) went to seek peace with Muhammad, he was instead told (in Muhammad's presence): "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah before you lose your head."

Likewise, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (839–923), the well respected historian and exegete of the Qur'an, best known for his Qur'anic commentary Tafsir al-Tabari and his historical chronicle Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk ("History of the Prophets and Kings") recounts in volume 9 of his History


"In this year, in the month of Rabi II (it is said in the month of Rabi’ I or in Jumada I), the Messenger of God sent Khalid ibn al-Walid with an army of four hundred to the Banu al-Harith ibn Ka’b.

The Messenger of God sent Khalid ibn al-Walid in the month of Rabi II, or Jumada I, in the year 10/631 to the Balharith ibn Ka’b in Najran, and ordered him to invite them to Islam for three days before he fought them. If they should respond to him [with the acceptance of Islam], then he was to accept it from them, and to stay with them and teach them the Book of God, the sunnah of His prophet, and the requirements of Islam (ma’alim al-islam); if they should decline, then he was to fight them.

Khalid departed and came to them, sending out riders in every direction inviting them to Islam and saying, “O people, accept Islam, and you will be safe.” So they embraced Islam and responded to his call. Khalid stayed with them, teaching them Islam, the Book of God, and the sunnah of His prophet."

In volume 10 Tabari quotes Al-Hubab ibn al-Mundhir ibn Zayd (an advisor of Muhammad and who participated during in the meeting at saqifah during the Succession to Muhammad), who was supporting one group of Muslims in their quest for leadership after Muhammad's death, as saying:


"For you are more deserving of this authority than they are, as it was by your swords that those who were not yet converted came to obey this religion."

Finally, I'll cite Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik ("Reliance of the Traveler and Tools of the Worshiper"), one of the most highly respected works on Islamic theology and jurisprudence and based on the teachings of Abu Zakaria Muhiy ad-Din Yahya Ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi (or just Al-Nawawi -- 1233–1277)[4]. It has something to say about jihad and forced conversion that is relevant to this discussion:


"Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word “mujahada”, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self, (nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from jihad, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

1) Fighting is prescribed for you [2:216]

2) Slay them wherever you find them [4:89]

3) Fight the idolaters utterly [9:36]

and such Hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet said:


“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah.”

And the hadith reported by Muslim,


“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”"


















1. AFAICT, without exception, all Islamic religious scholars state that abrogation not only included the abolishing, dropping or replacing of a verse by another (often contradictory) verse, but it also includes abolishing a provision of a verse without eliminating its wording or text from the Qur'an. So the verses that were later repealed and replaced remain in the Qur'an but are no longer in effect

2. Actually the Ghassanids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids) with Al-Harith ibn Jabalah being their king.

3. Popularly known for his attacks on Mickey Mouse, calling women who drive prostitutes and blaming the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami on immorality.

4. He is still so widely esteemed and revered that Jabhat al-Nusra (a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria) demolished his tomb earlier this year because they viewed it as sacrilegious.

shunyadragon
11-15-2015, 10:12 AM
Yes, but don't forget about the millions and millions killed by atheistic regimes. But hey Tass, we are just doing what we were determined to do by the forces of nature - right?

Actually, as usual this is very misleading. In Europe Christians enthusiastically did the dirty work of the pogroms, religious and ethnic cleansing regardless of who the despotic rulers believed.

robrecht
11-15-2015, 10:31 AM
Actually, as usual this is very misleading. In Europe Christians enthusiastically did the dirty work of the pogroms, religious and ethnic cleansing regardless of who the despotic rulers believed.
I think you misunderstood; seer was referring to atheistic regimes, eg, Stalin in the Soviet Union, and not denying Christian violence against Jews in Europe.

shunyadragon
11-15-2015, 01:44 PM
I think you misunderstood; seer was referring to atheistic regimes, eg, Stalin in the Soviet Union, and not denying Christian violence against Jews in Europe.

I did not misunderstand. The Violence against Jews under Stalin and Hitler were committed enthusiastically regardless of the views of the despotic rulers. This also occurred in Yugoslavia in more recent history except the victims were Muslims. Jews were considered 'Christ killers' and the passion plays in Europe fomented violence against the Jews.

seer
11-15-2015, 04:23 PM
Actually, as usual this is very misleading. In Europe Christians enthusiastically did the dirty work of the pogroms, religious and ethnic cleansing regardless of who the despotic rulers believed.

That is a lie, was speaking of the Stalinists, the Maoists, the followers of Pot Pot, Castro, et al...

seer
11-15-2015, 04:25 PM
I did not misunderstand. The Violence against Jews under Stalin and Hitler were committed enthusiastically regardless of the views of the despotic rulers. This also occurred in Yugoslavia in more recent history except the victims were Muslims. Jews were considered 'Christ killers' and the passion plays in Europe fomented violence against the Jews.

You lie again Shuny, show me where Christians were doing the dirty work against Jews for Stalin.

shunyadragon
11-15-2015, 05:05 PM
You lie again Shuny, show me where Christians were doing the dirty work against Jews for Stalin.

Historical records, these countries were predominately Christian.

shunyadragon
11-15-2015, 05:06 PM
That is a lie, was speaking of the Stalinists, the Maoists, the followers of Pot Pot, Castro, et al...I am referring to Europe. Germany and Russia are predominately Christian and remain so today.

Rational Gaze
11-15-2015, 05:26 PM
I am referring to Europe. Germany and Russia are predominately Christian and remain so today.
This is absolutely and unremittingly false, and you know it.

shunyadragon
11-15-2015, 05:31 PM
This is absolutely and unremittingly false, and you know it.

Not false at all pogroms ethnic and religious cleansing and persecution of Jews by Christians were common throughout the whole history of Europe since Rome regardless of who the ruling despot was, king emperor or dictator. In recent history it was Muslims in Yugoslavia.

seer
11-15-2015, 05:33 PM
Historical records, these countries were predominately Christian.

China was predominately Christian, Cambodia? Cuba and the Soviet Union were purging the churches. You are such a liar Shuny. There is no evidence that Christians took a large role in any of this.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html



The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed.

The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. By 1939 only about 500 of over 50,000 churches remained open.

After Nazi Germany's attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. By 1957 about 22,000 Russian Orthodox churches had become active. But in 1959 Nikita Khrushchev initiated his own campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church and forced the closure of about 12,000 churches. By 1985 fewer than 7,000 churches remained active. Members of the church hierarchy were jailed or forced out, their places taken by docile clergy, many of whom had ties with the KGB.

Campaigns against other religions were closely associated with particular nationalities, especially if they recognized a foreign religious authority such as the Pope. By 1926, the Roman Catholic Church had no bishops left in the Soviet Union, and by 1941 only two of the almost 1,200 churches that had existed in 1917, mostly in Lithuania, were still active. The Ukrainian Catholic Church (Uniate), linked with Ukrainian nationalism, was forcibly subordinated in 1946 to the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches of Belorussia and Ukraine were suppressed twice, in the late 1920s and again in 1944.

Attacks on Judaism were endemic throughout the Soviet period, and the organized practice of Judaism became almost impossible. Protestant denominations and other sects were also persecuted. The All-Union Council of Evangelical Christian Baptists, established by the government in 1944, typically was forced to confine its activities to the narrow act of worship and denied most opportunities for religious teaching and publication. Fearful of a pan-Islamic movement, the Soviet regime systematically suppressed Islam by force, until 1941. The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union that year led the government to adopt a policy of official toleration of Islam while actively encouraging atheism among Muslims.

seer
11-15-2015, 05:36 PM
Not false at all pogroms ethnic and religious cleansing and persecution of Jews by Christians were common throughout the whole history of Europe since Rome regardless of who the ruling despot was, king emperor or dictator. In recent history it was Muslims in Yugoslavia.

But you are lying again - I was speaking of atheist governments. And Christians did not play a large role, since for the most part Christians themselves were being purged.

shunyadragon
11-15-2015, 05:38 PM
There is a long history in Europe of pogroms and persecution of Jews by Christians.



The term "pogrom" in the meaning of large-scale, targeted, and repeated anti-Jewish rioting, saw its first use in the 19th century, in reference to the anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire. Pogroms began occurring after the Russian Empire, which previously had very few Jews, acquired territories with large Jewish populations during 1791-1835. These territories were designated "the Pale of Settlement" by the Russian government, within which Jews were reluctantly permitted to live, and it was within them that the pogroms largely took place. Most Jews were forbidden from moving to other parts of the Empire, unless they converted to Orthodox Christianity.

robrecht
11-15-2015, 05:50 PM
I did not misunderstand. The Violence against Jews under Stalin and Hitler were committed enthusiastically regardless of the views of the despotic rulers. This also occurred in Yugoslavia in more recent history except the victims were Muslims. Jews were considered 'Christ killers' and the passion plays in Europe fomented violence against the Jews. I think seer's point was about the murderous regime of Stalin (and others presumably) and did not relate specifically to violence against Jews, whether by Stalin or others while Stalin was in power. His point was merely that terrible violence has not only been done in the name of religion.

Rational Gaze
11-15-2015, 05:54 PM
52 atheist leaders personally presided over the non-martial murder of at least 20,000 of their own citizens during peacetime, with a total body count exceeding over 160,000,000.

Afghanistan: Nur Muhammad Taraki, Babrak Kamal
Albania: Enver Hoxha
Angola: Agostinho Neto, José Eduardo dos Santos
Bulgaria: Vulko Chervenkov, Todor Zhivkov
Cambodia: Pol Pot, Heng Samrin
China: Mao Tse-Tung, Hua Guofeng, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintau
Cuba: Fidel Castro
Czechoslovakia: Klement Gottwald, Antonín Zápotocký, Antonín Novotný, Gustáv Husák
East Germany: Walter Ulbricht, Erich Honecker
Ethiopia: Tafari Benti, Mengistu Haile Mariam
French Republic: Jean-Marie Collot d'Herbois, Jacques Nicolas Billaud-Varenne
Greece: Nikolaos Zachariadis
Hungary: Mátyás Rákosi
Laos: Kaysone Phomvihane, Khamtai Siphandone,
Mongolia: Khorloogiin Choibalsan, Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal
Mozambique: Samora Machel
North Korea: Kim il-Sung, Kim Jong-il
Poland: Władysław Gomułka, Boleslaw Bierut
Romania: Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, Nicolae Ceausescu
Soviet Union: Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev
Spain: Manuel Azaña, Francisco Largo Caballero
Vietnam: Ho Chi Minh, Le Duan, Truong Chinh, Nguyen Van Linh, Do Muoi, Le Kha Phieu, Nong Duc Manh
Yugoslavia: Josip Broz Tito

shunyadragon
11-15-2015, 05:57 PM
I think seer's point was about the murderous regime of Stalin (and others presumably) and did not relate specifically to violence against Jews, whether by Stalin or others while Stalin was in power. His point was merely that terrible violence has not only been done in the name of religion.

He did not make his point as supposedly clear as you are trying to make his point. Very odd.

The fact is the history of Europe is a very violent one in terms of pogroms, persecution against Jews, and, of course, among Christians depending on who is in power. All through this violent religious history Jews were the predominate target since Rome was Rome. If you include the Middle East; the violence between Christians, Jews and Muslims has a rather interwoven history. The conflicts today between Christians, Jews and Muslims has deep bloody roots

The bottom line is there are no angels in this bloody history.

robrecht
11-15-2015, 06:03 PM
He did not make his point as supposedly clear as you are trying to make his point. Very odd.

The fact is the history of Europe is a very violent one in terms of pogroms, persecution against Jews, and, of course, among Christians depending on who is in power. All through this violent religious history Jews were the predominate target since Rome was Rome.

The bottom line is there are no angels in tis bloody history.His point seemed obvious enough to me. I don't think he ever said there were any angels in bloody history, rather the opposite. Just as religious people commit violence, so do atheists.

seer
11-15-2015, 06:05 PM
His point seemed obvious enough to me. I don't think he ever said there were any angels in bloody history, rather the opposite. Just as religious people commit violence, so do atheists.

Exactly, and once again Shuny uses that as an excuse to attack Christians.

seer
11-15-2015, 06:07 PM
There is a long history in Europe of pogroms and persecution of Jews by Christians.

Stop lying Shuny, I was speaking of atheistic governments.

rogue06
11-15-2015, 06:08 PM
Historical records, these countries were predominately Christian.
China was predominantly Christian? Cambodia was predominantly Christian? Are you sure that is the position that you want to take here?

rogue06
11-15-2015, 06:09 PM
Let's please stop with the hurling of accusations of lying here

shunyadragon
11-15-2015, 06:44 PM
Stop lying Shuny, I was speaking of atheistic governments.

The people do the dirty work for the governments. The pogroms, persecution, and ethnic cleansing are much older than any one despot, and continued regardless of who ruled.

shunyadragon
11-15-2015, 06:46 PM
China was predominantly Christian? Cambodia was predominantly Christian? Are you sure that is the position that you want to take here?

I am and have been specifically referred to Europe. I am very sure of the position I want to take here. I never referred to China nor Cambodia.

The interwoven bloody history here involving Christians, Jews and Muslims in the topic of the thread involves Europe and the Middle East, NOT Asia.

robrecht
11-15-2015, 06:47 PM
I am and have been specifically referred to Europe. I am very sure of the position I want to take here. I never referred to China nor Cambodia.But you claimed that seer was being misleading and he was not merely or specifically referring to Europe.

shunyadragon
11-15-2015, 07:36 PM
But you claimed that seer was being misleading and he was not merely or specifically referring to Europe.

No I did not. I accused him of blaming only 'atheist' governments, or possibly atheists, as responsible. Actually he confirmed this.

robrecht
11-15-2015, 07:45 PM
No I did not. I accused him of blaming only 'atheist' governments, or possibly atheists, as responsible. Actually he confirmed this.
Yes, you did. See the part of your post that I have bolded below:


Actually, as usual this is very misleading. In Europe Christians enthusiastically did the dirty work of the pogroms, religious and ethnic cleansing regardless of who the despotic rulers believed.

shunyadragon
11-15-2015, 08:47 PM
Yes, you did. See the part of your post that I have bolded below:

Based on what you highlighted I made no reference to the pogroms and persecution in Asia.


But you claimed that seer was being misleading and he was not merely or specifically referring to Europe.




Actually, as usual this is very misleading. In Europe Christians enthusiastically did the dirty work of the pogroms, religious and ethnic cleansing regardless of who the despotic rulers believed.

Again, never mentioned the Asia problems. Your reading into my post something that simply is not there.

robrecht
11-15-2015, 09:22 PM
Based on what you highlighted I made no reference to the pogroms and persecution in Asia.





Again, never mentioned the Asia problems. Your reading into my post something that simply is not there.
Nonsense. I never said you said anything about Asia. I merely pointed out that you totally missed seer's point.

seer
11-16-2015, 03:02 AM
I am and have been specifically referred to Europe. I am very sure of the position I want to take here. I never referred to China nor Cambodia.

Are you completely dense? Tass was attacking the evils religion and I made the point that atheists have killed million and millions. Then you jump in with you nonsense.

shunyadragon
11-16-2015, 08:21 PM
Are you completely dense? Tass was attacking the evils religion and I made the point that atheists have killed million and millions. Then you jump in with you nonsense.

I believe the evidence indicates that the Christians are just as responsible for the killing of millions in Europe as the atheists were.

seer
11-17-2015, 05:00 AM
I believe the evidence indicates that the Christians are just as responsible for the killing of millions in Europe as the atheists were.

Really? Where do you get the numbers of millions? We know the atheists killed millions and millions and millions.


Communist regimes killed 60 million in the 20th century through genocide, according to Le Monde, more than 100 million people[2] according to The Black Book of Communism (Courtois, Stéphane, et al., 1997).[3] and according to Cleon Skousen[4] in his best-selling book The Naked Communist.[5]

It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives.[6] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[7]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

shunyadragon
11-17-2015, 05:07 AM
Really? Where do you get the numbers of millions? We know the atheists killed millions and millions and millions.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

I like the selective way your conservative source selectively places blame. These countries are predominately Christian, and the mass murder would not take place without their enthusiastic support.

The persecution and pogroms against Jews cover hundreds of years through different rulers. This does not take place without support of the people.

seer
11-17-2015, 05:21 AM
I like the selective way your conservative source selectively places blame. These countries are predominately Christian, and the mass murder would not take place without their enthusiastic support.

They are not selectively doing anything. The point is people kill for all kinds of reasons, political, ideological, religious, for greed, for the State, etc... That is the nature of man. I'm really tired of your SELECTIVE attacks on Christianity. I'm really sorry that your faith never really took off, that it is only a step child to the great religious of history. Your bias Shuny stinks to high heaven.

shunyadragon
11-17-2015, 10:10 AM
They are not selectively doing anything. The point is people kill for all kinds of reasons, political, ideological, religious, for greed, for the State, etc... That is the nature of man. I'm really tired of your SELECTIVE attacks on Christianity. I'm really sorry that your faith never really took off, that it is only a step child to the great religious of history. Your bias Shuny stinks to high heaven.

By far the majority of mass killing consistently over the millennia were millions of Jews. This is a fact of history.

seer
11-17-2015, 10:14 AM
By far the majority of mass killing over the millennia were millions of Jews. This is a fact of history.

Really? We know that the Atheists killed between 60-100 million in the last century, what numbers are you looking at?

shunyadragon
11-17-2015, 10:51 AM
Really? We know that the Atheists killed between 60-100 million in the last century, what numbers are you looking at?

Atheists and Christians killed between 60 and 100 million, likely more in the last century.

seer
11-17-2015, 11:06 AM
Atheists and Christians killed between 60 and 100 million, likely more in the last century.

No, the number I gave only had to do with Atheistic governments. So where are your numbers for the millions and millions of Jews killed over the millennia? Do you have a reference, or did you just make it up?

shunyadragon
11-17-2015, 01:22 PM
No, the number I gave only had to do with Atheistic governments.

The number does not reflect the fact that the Christians enthusiastically carried out the will of the governments regardless of who ruled the government.


So where are your numbers for the millions and millions of Jews killed over the millennia? Do you have a reference, or did you just make it up?

Just look up Jewish pogroms, there are many many references.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/pogroms.html

shunyadragon
11-17-2015, 01:27 PM
There is plenty of motivation for Jewish pogroms in European history given the writings of Christians and references in the New Testament.



I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them. But since I learned that these miserable and accursed people do not cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have published this little book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews who warned the Christians to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the god of the world, and wherever God's word is absent he has an easy task, not only with the weak but also with the strong. May God help us. Amen.

* * *

He did not call them Abraham's children, but a "brood of vipers" [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, "He has a demon' [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord also calls them a "brood of vipers"; furthermore in John 8 [:39,44] he states: "If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil. It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today.

seer
11-17-2015, 05:04 PM
The number does not reflect the fact that the Christians enthusiastically carried out the will of the governments regardless of who ruled the government.

Who were these Christian followers of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot?


Just look up Jewish pogroms, there are many many references.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/pogroms.html

I did say that there weren't pogroms but you claimed that millions and millions of Jews were killed over the millennia. Even your own link only references thousands. Again Shuny you are making stuff up.

shunyadragon
11-18-2015, 05:50 AM
Who were these Christian followers of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot?

The subject here is Europe not Asia related to the problems of the relationship, between Jews, Christians Muslims.


I did say that there weren't pogroms but you claimed that millions and millions of Jews were killed over the millennia. Even your own link only references thousands. Again Shuny you are making stuff up.

The pogroms over the Millennia include 20th century pogroms against Jews including the Holocaust.

robrecht
11-18-2015, 07:08 AM
The subject here is Europe not Asia related to the problems of the relationship, between Jews, Christians Muslims.Why should this discussion be limited to Europe?

seer
11-18-2015, 07:56 AM
The subject here is Europe not Asia related to the problems of the relationship, between Jews, Christians Muslims.

Bunk, my point was about atheistic governments, and the 60-100 million that they killed. Which includes China, Cuba, Cambodia, the Soviet Union, etc, etc...




The pogroms over the Millennia include 20th century pogroms against Jews including the Holocaust.

Ok, so you admit that there were not millions and millions of Jew killed before the Holocaust. And even given the Holocaust we don't get near the numbers killed by atheistic governments.

shunyadragon
11-18-2015, 12:36 PM
Why should this discussion be limited to Europe?

. . .because the thread concerns Europe. If you want broaden the topic start a thread. Nonetheless Christians are knee deep in blood in pogroms against Jews and Muslims, even in recent history. Example the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in what was Yugoslavia.

The religious conflicts we see in Europe and the Middle East have a history. To understand what is happening now, you have to include the history between the relationship between Jews, Christians and Muslims.

shunyadragon
11-18-2015, 12:39 PM
Ok, so you admit that there were not millions and millions of Jew killed before the Holocaust. And even given the Holocaust we don't get near the numbers killed by atheistic governments.

I include the Holocaust in ALL of Europe in the involvement of the Christians in the responsibility for pogroms against the Jews.

Carrikature
11-18-2015, 01:06 PM
Does including atheistic regimes make much of a difference? People are really prone to killing other people due to their religious beliefs or their beliefs about religion.

seer
11-18-2015, 01:17 PM
Does including atheistic regimes make much of a difference? People are really prone to killing other people due to their religious beliefs or their beliefs about religion.

That was my whole point, Tass first attacked people of faith, that is why I responded with the atheist thing, then Shuny jumped on the ban wagon, as usual, and I said to him:


They are not selectively doing anything. The point is people kill for all kinds of reasons, political, ideological, religious, for greed, for the State, etc... That is the nature of man. I'm really tired of your SELECTIVE attacks on Christianity.

So we agree...

Carrikature
11-18-2015, 01:35 PM
That was my whole point, Tass first attacked people of faith, that is why I responded with the atheist thing, then Shuny jumped on the ban wagon, as usual, and I said to him:



So we agree...

:eh:

You started the thread with an attack on people of faith.

seer
11-18-2015, 03:02 PM
:eh:

You started the thread with an attack on people of faith.

True

robrecht
11-18-2015, 03:40 PM
. . .because the thread concerns Europe. If you want broaden the topic start a thread. Nonetheless Christians are knee deep in blood in pogroms against Jews and Muslims, even in recent history. Example the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in what was Yugoslavia.

The religious conflicts we see in Europe and the Middle East have a history. To understand what is happening now, you have to include the history between the relationship between Jews, Christians and Muslims.
The thread is not exclusively about Europe. The initial thread was about Islam, and this this thread was broken off as a derail by Tass and seer about religion as a cause of violence in history and seer's counter with violence committed by atheistic regimes. There's no reason to limit this discussion to European religions or atheistic regimes of Europe.

shunyadragon
11-18-2015, 04:41 PM
The thread is not exclusively about Europe. The initial thread was about Islam, and this this thread was broken off as a derail by Tass and seer about religion as a cause of violence in history and seer's counter with violence committed by atheistic regimes. There's no reason to limit this discussion to European religions or atheistic regimes of Europe.

The subject of Islam in the context of the subject involves Europe and the Middle East in history. The subject gets rather smeared if you go beyond this. I could add the Christian ethnic cleansing and forced conversion of Native Americans. this subject could really go big!!!

If you wish to go the whole nine yards be my guest!!

robrecht
11-18-2015, 06:28 PM
The subject of Islam in the context of the subject involves Europe and the Middle East in history. The subject gets rather smeared if you go beyond this. I could add the Christian ethnic cleansing and forced conversion of Native Americans. this subject could really go big!!!

If you wish to go the whole nine yards be my guest!! Is this supposed to be a reason why Tass & seer's discussion must be limited to European history???

Carrikature
11-18-2015, 06:45 PM
If we're going to be perfectly honest, there's a lot more to past actions by a lot of countries that give fuel to terrorism as much or more than religious belief itself can account for. Most of the countries in the Middle East have been at the bottom of the septic tank for so long they forget what daylight looks like.

shunyadragon
11-18-2015, 07:24 PM
Is this supposed to be a reason why Tass & seer's discussion must be limited to European history???

The topic of the thread is the reason, but as I said, 'go for all nine yards.' Blood and gore every where on the hands and feet of all since humans were first human.

shunyadragon
11-18-2015, 07:36 PM
If we're going to be perfectly honest, there's a lot more to past actions by a lot of countries that give fuel to terrorism as much or more than religious belief itself can account for. Most of the countries in the Middle East have been at the bottom of the septic tank for so long they forget what daylight looks like.

I disagree, the history of the war of the kingdoms of Europe up until the twentieth century, were to a large extent who was going to inherit the Divine right to rule including the British empire well into the twentieth century. The wars of religious beliefs in the Middle East between Islam, Christianity and Judaism have been at war for almost 2000 years or more and they are at war now, and in the religious roots of the Pakistan/India conflicts. The conflicts in Africa have a violent history rooted in colonialism and religion

robrecht
11-18-2015, 08:23 PM
The topic of the thread is the reason, but as I said, 'go for all nine yards.' Blood and gore every where on the hands and feet of all since humans were first human.The topic of the thread is about religion as a cause of violence in history and seer's counter with violence committed by atheistic regimes. You've given no valid reason why this topic must be limited to European history, European religions, and European atheistic regimes.

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 05:07 AM
The topic of the thread is about religion as a cause of violence in history and seer's counter with violence committed by atheistic regimes. You've given no valid reason why this topic must be limited to European history, European religions, and European atheistic regimes.

I said, 'If you wish go for it 'all nine yards.' and all the bloody brutal pogroms, violence against those that are different, and ethnic cleansing in history since humans were first human. I gave my reason and it is valid.

robrecht
11-19-2015, 05:12 AM
I said, 'If you wish go for it 'all nine yards.' and all the bloody brutal pogroms, violence against those that are different, and ethnic cleansing in history since humans were first human. I gave my reason and it is valid.Your reason seems to be that you want the thread to be limited in such a way that you need not respond to all of the examples of atheistic regimes brought forward.

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 05:48 AM
Your reason seems to be that you want the thread to be limited in such a way that you need not respond to all of the examples of atheistic regimes brought forward.

Regardless of who was responsible for this and that and the other bloody pogrom or ethnic cleansing, I will address the issues regarding Jewish, Christian, and Islamic history which is relevant to the discussion of the conflicts today in Europe and the Middle East, which seer and you appear to be uncomfortable with.

seer
11-19-2015, 05:54 AM
Regardless of who was responsible for this and that and the other bloody pogrom or ethnic cleansing, I will address the issues regarding Jewish, Christian, and Islamic history which is relevant to the discussion, which seer and you appear to be uncomfortable with.

I'm not uncomfortable with anything. When men murder in the name of Christ the are not following the teachings or example of Christ. When atheists slaughter, well, there is no governing set of ethics for atheists so they get to make up their moral code as they go along.

robrecht
11-19-2015, 05:59 AM
Regardless of who was responsible for this and that and the other bloody pogrom or ethnic cleansing, I will address the issues regarding Jewish, Christian, and Islamic history which is relevant to the discussion of the conflicts today in Europe and the Middle East, which seer and you appear to be uncomfortable with.
I am not uncomfortable with your choosing to restrict yourself to a limited perspective that is unable to address the larger question posed by this thread.

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 06:37 AM
I'm not uncomfortable with anything. When men murder in the name of Christ the are not following the teachings or example of Christ. When atheists slaughter, well, there is no governing set of ethics for atheists so they get to make up their moral code as they go along.

This is basically a very egocentric biased view, like robrecht, of your own religious beliefs and agenda, and side stepping some very basic issues of the history of religions, morals, ethics, and human nature.

This is a classic dodge and does not work, because there is some very basic justification of the pogroms, and ethnic cleansing in scripture and the writings of the revered leaders of Christianity.

seer
11-19-2015, 06:46 AM
This is basically a very egocentric biased view, like seer, of your own religious beliefs and agenda, and side stepping some very basic issues of the history of religions, morals, ethics, and human nature.

This is a classic dodge and does not work, because there is some very basic justification of the pogroms, and ethnic cleansing in scripture and the writings of the revered leaders of Christianity.

Really Shuny? What specific teaching of Christ were they following? The love your neighbor part? The love your enemy part? How did the early Christians act? How did Christ act? We are Christian, not Old Testament Jews under the Mosaic code.

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 07:19 AM
Really Shuny? What specific teaching of Christ were they following? The love your neighbor part? The love your enemy part? How did the early Christians act? How did Christ act? We are Christian, not Old Testament Jews under the Mosaic code.

Let's deal with the New Testament.

“The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 8.12)

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold your house is left unto you desolate.” (Matthew 23.37,38) Then answered all the people (Jews) and said, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25). 1 “But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you to councils, and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten” (Mark 13.9)

“He that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16.16)

“Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And I say the truth, why do you not believe me? He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God” (John 8.43-47)

“Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so you do. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers” (Acts 7.51-53)

“It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it from you and judge yourself unworthy of everlasting life, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13.45-51)

“For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake ... wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” (Titus 1.10-14).

“The Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” (l Thessalonians 2.14-16)

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is an antichrist, that denieth the father and the son. Whoever denieth the son, the same hath not the father” (l John 2.22,23)

“I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan ...” (Revelation 2.9,10)

“Behold I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews and are not but do lie; behold I will make them to come and worship before thy feet...” (Revelation 3.9)

These vicious and treacherous New Testament verses, have given the impression that the Jews in the time of Jesus were degenerate and cruel and that they are a deicide race. They have been spread by the church for the last two millennia, and have not been rooted out of Christian thinking to the present day. Even those fundamentalist lovers of Israel, only love the Jews in order to save them from the punishment awaiting them for not having accepted Jesus. They, as much, if not more than any other Christian today, believe that the Jew is guilty of deicide and that his Judaism is an old worn out rag which they wish to replace with their New Testament.

Already cited Martin Luther. Other prominent leaders in Christian history will be cited next.

seer
11-19-2015, 07:42 AM
Let's deal with the New Testament.

“The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 8.12)

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold your house is left unto you desolate.” (Matthew 23.37,38) Then answered all the people (Jews) and said, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25). 1 “But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you to councils, and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten” (Mark 13.9)

“He that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16.16)

“Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And I say the truth, why do you not believe me? He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God” (John 8.43-47)

“Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so you do. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers” (Acts 7.51-53)

“It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it from you and judge yourself unworthy of everlasting life, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13.45-51)

“For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake ... wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” (Titus 1.10-14).

“The Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” (l Thessalonians 2.14-16)

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is an antichrist, that denieth the father and the son. Whoever denieth the son, the same hath not the father” (l John 2.22,23)

“I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan ...” (Revelation 2.9,10)

“Behold I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews and are not but do lie; behold I will make them to come and worship before thy feet...” (Revelation 3.9)

These vicious and treacherous New Testament verses, have given the impression that the Jews in the time of Jesus were degenerate and cruel and that they are a deicide race. They have been spread by the church for the last two millennia, and have not been rooted out of Christian thinking to the present day. Even those fundamentalist lovers of Israel, only love the Jews in order to save them from the punishment awaiting them for not having accepted Jesus. They, as much, if not more than any other Christian today, believe that the Jew is guilty of deicide and that his Judaism is an old worn out rag which they wish to replace with their New Testament.

Already cited Martin Luther. Other prominent leaders in Christian history will be cited next.

What is your point Shuny? Even if these are enemies of the Gospel, and our enemies, which they are, Christ never commanded us to harm them, just the opposite. And I don't care what Luther said, I'm not a follower of Luther, but of Christ.


You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 08:03 AM
What is your point Shuny? Even if these are enemies of the Gospel, and our enemies, which they are, Christ never commanded us to harm them, just the opposite. And I don't care what Luther said, I'm not a follower of Luther, but of Christ.

Read again seer, the citation from Luther reflects these citations from the Bible. These citations definitely do inspire, violence, pogroms and ethnic cleansing of Jews over the centuries by Christians and do them great harm when Jews are considered 'enemies of the gospel,' and 'Christ Killers.'

seer
11-19-2015, 08:11 AM
Read again seer, the citation from Luther reflects these citations from the Bible. These citations definitely do inspire, violence, pogroms and ethnic cleansing of Jews over the centuries by Christians and do them great harm when Jews are considered 'enemies of the gospel,' and 'Christ Killers.'

That is a lie, did Christ or the early Christians harm any Jews? Even for the first four or five hundred years, or longer? The fact is, you are an enemy of the Gospel and God, but that does not give me the right to harm you. And yes, the Jewish leaders of that time were instrumental in the killing of Christ, but so were my people - the Italians. And the Biblical fact is that we all put Christ on the cross because of our sin.

The Thinker
11-19-2015, 08:27 AM
52 atheist leaders personally presided over the non-martial murder of at least 20,000 of their own citizens during peacetime, with a total body count exceeding over 160,000,000.

Afghanistan: Nur Muhammad Taraki, Babrak Kamal
Albania: Enver Hoxha
Angola: Agostinho Neto, José Eduardo dos Santos
Bulgaria: Vulko Chervenkov, Todor Zhivkov
Cambodia: Pol Pot, Heng Samrin
China: Mao Tse-Tung, Hua Guofeng, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintau
Cuba: Fidel Castro
Czechoslovakia: Klement Gottwald, Antonín Zápotocký, Antonín Novotný, Gustáv Husák
East Germany: Walter Ulbricht, Erich Honecker
Ethiopia: Tafari Benti, Mengistu Haile Mariam
French Republic: Jean-Marie Collot d'Herbois, Jacques Nicolas Billaud-Varenne
Greece: Nikolaos Zachariadis
Hungary: Mátyás Rákosi
Laos: Kaysone Phomvihane, Khamtai Siphandone,
Mongolia: Khorloogiin Choibalsan, Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal
Mozambique: Samora Machel
North Korea: Kim il-Sung, Kim Jong-il
Poland: Władysław Gomułka, Boleslaw Bierut
Romania: Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, Nicolae Ceausescu
Soviet Union: Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev
Spain: Manuel Azaña, Francisco Largo Caballero
Vietnam: Ho Chi Minh, Le Duan, Truong Chinh, Nguyen Van Linh, Do Muoi, Le Kha Phieu, Nong Duc Manh
Yugoslavia: Josip Broz Tito

Can you show that they killed in the name of atheism, or was it because of some other goal, ideology, or objective?

The Thinker
11-19-2015, 08:28 AM
That is a lie, did Christ or the early Christians harm any Jews? Even for the first four or five hundred years, or longer? The fact is, you are an enemy of the Gospel and God, but that does not give me the right to harm you. And yes, the Jewish leaders of that time were instrumental in the killing of Christ, but so were my people - the Italians. And the Biblical fact is that we all put Christ on the cross because of our sin.

Define "harm".

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 08:28 AM
That is a lie, did Christ or the early Christians harm any Jews? Even for the first four or five hundred years, or longer? The fact is, you are an enemy of the Gospel and God, but that does not give me the right to harm you. And yes, the Jewish leaders of that time were instrumental in the killing of Christ, but so were my people - the Italians. And the Biblical fact is that we all put Christ on the cross because of our sin.

You admonished several times before for accusing people of lying. Your post will be reported. You are misinformed as to the extent of the persecution of the Jews in early Christianity.



Persecution would cease if the person converted to Christianity.

306: The church Synod of Elvira banned marriages, sexual intercourse and community contacts between Christians and Jews. 3,4

315: Constantine published the Edict of Milan which extended religious tolerance to Christians. Jews lost many rights with this edict. They were no longer permitted to live in Jerusalem, or to proselytize.

325: The Council of Nicea decided to separate the celebration of Easter from the Jewish Passover. They stated: "For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people...We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews...our worship follows a...more convenient course...we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews...How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded."

337: Christian Emperor Constantius created a law which made the marriage of a Jewish man to a Christian punishable by death.

339: Converting to Judaism became a criminal offense.

343-381: The Laodicean Synod approved Cannon XXXVIII: "It is not lawful [for Christians] to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety." 5

367 - 376: St. Hilary of Poitiers referred to Jews as a perverse people who God has cursed forever. St. Ephroem refers to synagogues as brothels.

379-395: Emperor Theodosius the Great permitted the destruction of synagogues if it served a religious purpose. Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire at this time.

380: The bishop of Milan was responsible for the burning of a synagogue; he referred to it as "an act pleasing to God."

415: The Bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril, expelled the Jews from that Egyptian city.

415: St. Augustine wrote "The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus."

418: St. Jerome, who created the Vulgate translation of the Bible wrote of a synagogue: "If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil's refuge, Satan's fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever you will, you are still saying less than it deserves."

489 - 519: Christian mobs destroyed the synagogues in Antioch, Daphne (near Antioch) and Ravenna.

528: Emperor Justinian (527-564) passed the Justinian Code. It prohibited Jews from building synagogues, reading the Bible in Hebrew, assemble in public, celebrate Passover before Easter, and testify against Christians in court. 3

535: The "Synod of Claremont decreed that Jews could not hold public office or have authority over Christians." 3

538: The 3rd and 4th Councils of Orleans prohibited Jews from appearing in public during the Easter season. Canon XXX decreed that "From the Thursday before Easter for four days, Jews may not appear in the company of Christians." 5 Marriages between Christians and Jews were prohibited. Christians were prohibited from converting to Judaism. 4

561: The bishop of Uzes expelled Jews from his diocese in France.

robrecht
11-19-2015, 09:04 AM
This is basically a very egocentric biased view, like robrecht, of your own religious beliefs and agenda, and side stepping some very basic issues of the history of religions, morals, ethics, and human nature.

This is a classic dodge and does not work, because there is some very basic justification of the pogroms, and ethnic cleansing in scripture and the writings of the revered leaders of Christianity.
Exactly the opposite. I have merely encouraged you to address the larger and more basic questions raised in this thread. As for my own personal religious beliefs, it should be well known that I have always condemned all of the atrocities committed by Christians as well as any expressions of religious bigotry or inflammatory rhetoric against people of other faiths or none, including the origins of some of these attitudes within the Christian scriptures. By the way, I've also invited you to acknowledge and disassociate yourself from the anti-Jewish rhetoric of the Bahá'u'lláh.

One Bad Pig
11-19-2015, 09:17 AM
You admonished several times before for accusing people of lying. Your post will be reported. You are misinformed as to the extent of the persecution of the Jews in early Christianity.



Persecution would cease if the person converted to Christianity.

306: The church Synod of Elvira banned marriages, sexual intercourse and community contacts between Christians and Jews. 3,4

315: Constantine published the Edict of Milan which extended religious tolerance to Christians. Jews lost many rights with this edict. They were no longer permitted to live in Jerusalem, or to proselytize.

325: The Council of Nicea decided to separate the celebration of Easter from the Jewish Passover. They stated: "For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people...We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews...our worship follows a...more convenient course...we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews...How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded."

337: Christian Emperor Constantius created a law which made the marriage of a Jewish man to a Christian punishable by death.

339: Converting to Judaism became a criminal offense.

343-381: The Laodicean Synod approved Cannon XXXVIII: "It is not lawful [for Christians] to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety." 5

367 - 376: St. Hilary of Poitiers referred to Jews as a perverse people who God has cursed forever. St. Ephroem refers to synagogues as brothels.

379-395: Emperor Theodosius the Great permitted the destruction of synagogues if it served a religious purpose. Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire at this time.

380: The bishop of Milan was responsible for the burning of a synagogue; he referred to it as "an act pleasing to God."

415: The Bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril, expelled the Jews from that Egyptian city.

415: St. Augustine wrote "The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus."

418: St. Jerome, who created the Vulgate translation of the Bible wrote of a synagogue: "If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil's refuge, Satan's fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever you will, you are still saying less than it deserves."

489 - 519: Christian mobs destroyed the synagogues in Antioch, Daphne (near Antioch) and Ravenna.

528: Emperor Justinian (527-564) passed the Justinian Code. It prohibited Jews from building synagogues, reading the Bible in Hebrew, assemble in public, celebrate Passover before Easter, and testify against Christians in court. 3

535: The "Synod of Claremont decreed that Jews could not hold public office or have authority over Christians." 3

538: The 3rd and 4th Councils of Orleans prohibited Jews from appearing in public during the Easter season. Canon XXX decreed that "From the Thursday before Easter for four days, Jews may not appear in the company of Christians." 5 Marriages between Christians and Jews were prohibited. Christians were prohibited from converting to Judaism. 4

561: The bishop of Uzes expelled Jews from his diocese in France.
Not sure where you got this material, but it is not on the page you cited. Both the material on that page and the material you quote here are in the main uncited quotes. You are citing sloppy polemics, not anything remotely scholarly. Would you accept at face value anti-Baha'i writings like this? :no:

I note, in particular, two especially egregious examples:


343-381: The Laodicean Synod approved Cannon XXXVIII: "It is not lawful [for Christians] to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety."
Seriously? A range of 38 years for a synod which met for maybe a couple weeks? It's also persecuting Judaizing Christians, not Jews. :doh:


St. Gregory: “ Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies of God, haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their fathers’ faith, advocates of the devil, brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, leaven of the Pharisees, congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners and haters of goodness.”
There are several saints named Gregory, with voluminous writings. This "citation" is worthless. It is also, assuming it is an accurate quote, most likely polemic delivered to prevent Christians from Judaizing, not to advocate persecution of Jews. Your source is plainly not interested in accuracy, however, but engaging in polemics himself. Would he accept an anti-Jewish writing from an apostate Jew, like he does an anti-Christian writing from an apostate Christian? I highly doubt it.

seer
11-19-2015, 09:23 AM
You admonished several times before for accusing people of lying. Your post will be reported. You are misinformed as to the extent of the persecution of the Jews in early Christianity.

[cite=http://jdstone.org/cr/files/antisemitisminthenewtestament_1.html]

Persecution would cease if the person converted to Christianity.

See Shuny, you had to go almost 300 years after Christ to get to this. So again, where did Christ teach that we should harm our enemies? Jew or otherwise? Where did the early Christians harm anyone. What example did Christ and the Apostles set?

seer
11-19-2015, 09:25 AM
Define "harm".

Physical harm or deprivation of some sort. Rather than hurt feelings...

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 09:54 AM
Exactly the opposite. I have merely encouraged you to address the larger and more basic questions raised in this thread. As for my own personal religious beliefs, it should be well known that I have always condemned all of the atrocities committed by Christians as well as any expressions of religious bigotry or inflammatory rhetoric against people of other faiths or none, including the origins of some of these attitudes within the Christian scriptures. By the way, I've also invited you to acknowledge and disassociate yourself from the anti-Jewish rhetoric of the Bahá'u'lláh.

You have never fully bothered to investigate the Baha'i Faith honestly, and understanding the vocabulary. If you would bother investigating yourself and read my explanation.

Satan in the Baha'i Faith translates to ego. The Jews believing that they are the only chosen people in the whole world is the height of egoism in and definition of the word.

"Self has really two meanings, or is used in two senses, in the Bahá'í writings; one is self, the identity of the individual created by God. This is the self mentioned in such passages as 'he hath known God who hath known himself etc.'. The other self is the ego, the dark, animalistic heritage each one of us has, the lower nature that can develop into a monster of selfishness, brutality, lust and so on. It is this self we must struggle against, or this side of our natures, in order to strengthen and free the spirit within us and help it to attain perfection."

Shoghi Effendi


Read more: http://onebahai.blogspot.com/2011/10/ego.html#ixzz3rxdXrF5I



In the Bahá'í Faith, Satan is not regarded as an independent evil power as he is in some faiths, but signifies the lower nature of humans. `Abdu'l-Bahá explains: "This lower nature in man is symbolized as Satan — the evil ego within us, not an evil personality outside."[53][54] All other evil spirits described in various faith traditions—such as fallen angels, demons, and jinns—are also metaphors for the base character traits a human being may acquire and manifest when he turns away from God.


The quotes you have been harping on instead making an honest effort to understand the Baha'i Faith in an honest way reflect your voluntary ignorance, and hostility toward the Baha'i Faith. As before your biased hostility toward the Baha'i Faith is very offensive.

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 10:10 AM
See Shuny, you had to go almost 300 years after Christ to get to this. So again, where did Christ teach that we should harm our enemies? Jew or otherwise? Where did the early Christians harm anyone. What example did Christ and the Apostles set?

We have nothing written by the apostles, but Paul will do the citation in the gospels and Paul are accurate and reflect the history of the pogroms and persecution of Jews call 'Christ killers' and 'enemies of the gospel.'

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 10:14 AM
Not sure where you got this material, but it is not on the page you cited. Both the material on that page and the material you quote here are in the main uncited quotes. You are citing sloppy polemics, not anything remotely scholarly. Would you accept at face value anti-Baha'i writings like this? :no:

I note, in particular, two especially egregious examples:


Seriously? A range of 38 years for a synod which met for maybe a couple weeks? It's also persecuting Judaizing Christians, not Jews. :doh:


There are several saints named Gregory, with voluminous writings. This "citation" is worthless. It is also, assuming it is an accurate quote, most likely polemic delivered to prevent Christians from Judaizing, not to advocate persecution of Jews. Your source is plainly not interested in accuracy, however, but engaging in polemics himself. Would he accept an anti-Jewish writing from an apostate Jew, like he does an anti-Christian writing from an apostate Christian? I highly doubt it.

Duck, Bob and Weave at its finest. The citations are valid, picking two you have issues with does not amount to a refutation.

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 10:20 AM
See Shuny, you had to go almost 300 years after Christ to get to this. So again, where did Christ teach that we should harm our enemies? Jew or otherwise? Where did the early Christians harm anyone. What example did Christ and the Apostles set?

Until Constantine became Christian. Christianity was a struggling minor religion in Rome. Of course the heavy persecution began when Christianity became Roman, and non-Jews compiled the Bible with the references I cited. The references are real and specific, and the resulting pogroms, ethnic cleansing, and persecution are very real and factual.

seer
11-19-2015, 10:22 AM
We have nothing written by the apostles, but Paul will do the citation in the gospels and Paul are accurate and reflect the history of the pogroms and persecution of Jews call 'Christ killers' and 'enemies of the gospel.'

We have the book of Acts, and we have the teachings and example of Christ, and various other letters. So again, where did any Christian harm any one? Where did they call for harm to any one? For three hundred years where did they harm any one - Jew or not? And yes the Jewish leaders and the Italian Government put Christ to death. And again Shuny, you are an enemy of the Gospel, that however does not give me the Biblical right to harm you.

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 10:26 AM
We have the book of Acts, and we have the teachings and example of Christ, and various other letters. So again, where did any Christian harm any one? Where did they call for harm to any one? For three hundred years where did they harm any one - Jew or not? And yes the Jewish leaders and the Italian Government put Christ to death. And again Shuny, you are an enemy of the Gospel, that however does not give me the Biblical right to harm you.

My references in the gospels and letters are clear and specific. The partial list of actions taken by Roman Christianity are real and specific. The pogroms, ethnic cleansing carried out over the very real history and cannot be denied, but your working on it.

There are more citations and I will provide those to.

One Bad Pig
11-19-2015, 10:29 AM
That is a lie, did Christ or the early Christians harm any Jews? Even for the first four or five hundred years, or longer? The fact is, you are an enemy of the Gospel and God, but that does not give me the right to harm you. And yes, the Jewish leaders of that time were instrumental in the killing of Christ, but so were my people - the Italians. And the Biblical fact is that we all put Christ on the cross because of our sin.
As much as I tend to disagree with Shunya, this is not a direct response to his accusation - which is hyperbolic, but not entirely false. Christians have used such verses as an excuse to do violence to Jews throughout the centuries. You and I agree that it is against Christian tenets to do so, but it has happened nonetheless.

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 10:30 AM
More references:



Origen: “Their rejection of Jesus has resulted in their present calamity and exile. We say with confidence that they will never be restored to their former condition. For they have committed a crime of the most unhallowed kind, in conspiring against the saviour.”

St. Gregory: “ Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies of God, haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their fathers’ faith, advocates of the devil, brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, leaven of the Pharisees, congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners and haters of goodness.”

St. Jerome: “....serpents, haters of all men, their image is Judas ... their psalms and prayers are the braying of donkeys..”

St. John Chrysostom: “I know that many people hold a high regard for the Jews and consider their way of life worthy of respect at the present time... This is why I am hurrying to pull up this fatal notion by the roots ... A place where a whore stands on display is a whorehouse. What is more, the synagogue is not only a whorehouse and a theater; it is also a den of thieves and a haunt of wild animals ... not the cave of a wild animal merely, but of an unclean wild animal ... When animals are unfit for work, they are marked for slaughter, and this is the very thing which the Jews have experienced. By making themselves unfit for work, they have become ready for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “ask for my enemies, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them and slay them before me’ (Luke 19.27).”

St. Augustine: “Judaism is a corruption. Indeed Judas is the image of the Jewish people. Their understanding of the Scriptures is carnal. They bear the guilt for the death of the saviour, for through their fathers they have killed the Christ.”

St. Thomas Aquinas: “It would be licit to hold Jews, because of the crimes, in perpetual servitude, and therefore the princes may regard the possessions of Jews as belonging to the State.”

seer
11-19-2015, 10:37 AM
My references in the gospels and letters are clear and specific. The partial list of actions taken by Roman Christianity are real and specific. The pogroms, and ethnic cleansing carried out over the very real history and cannot be denied, but your working on it.

And my citations on how to deal with our fellow man, Jew or not, enemy or not were clear. And you have not produced one New Testament text that calls us to harm anyone, nor did you show early Christian harming anyone. Listen Shuny I know you hate the Gospel and Christ, but you can not justify pogroms and ethnic cleansing in light of His teachings, and the moral teachings of the NT in general. And you know it - you have not produced one passage that calls for physical harm of any man.

One Bad Pig
11-19-2015, 10:38 AM
Duck, Bob and Weave at its finest. The citations are valid, picking two you have issues with does not amount to a refutation.
:ahem: You, of all people, would know Duck, Bob, and Weave, since you are a peerless master of the practice. Could you possibly have expended less effort in response to a challenge to provide verifiable sources? I do not dispute that Christians have written antagonistic comments about Jews. However, the internet is a wasteland of uncritically copied, unverified material; I refuse to take uncited statements found on the web at face value (whether they support or disagree with my position).

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 10:42 AM
As much as I tend to disagree with Shunya, this is not a direct response to his accusation - which is hyperbolic, but not entirely false. Christians have used such verses as an excuse to do violence to Jews throughout the centuries. You and I agree that it is against Christian tenets to do so, but it has happened nonetheless.

It is not against Christian tenants. Many of the Christian tenants are those of the Baha'i Faith.

It is taking responsibility and being honest about history, which seer seems to want you blame it all on atheists.

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 10:44 AM
:ahem: You, of all people, would know Duck, Bob, and Weave, since you are a peerless master of the practice. Could you possibly have expended less effort in response to a challenge to provide verifiable sources? I do not dispute that Christians have written antagonistic comments about Jews. However, the internet is a wasteland of uncritically copied, unverified material; I refuse to take uncited statements found on the web at face value (whether they support or disagree with my position).

No need to take my references at face value. You may look up the real documents and cite where I am in error.

The history and the documents are very real.

What is happening today between Judaism, Christianity and Islam have a very real problematic history of all concerned. In reality there are no angels.

seer
11-19-2015, 10:47 AM
You and I agree that it is against Christian tenets to do so, but it has happened nonetheless.

And that is the whole point, I never denied that people did wicked things in the name of Christ, but they run contrary to the very teachings of Christ, and the NT in general.

One Bad Pig
11-19-2015, 10:48 AM
No need to take my references at face value. You may look up the real documents and cite where I am in error.

The history and the documents are very real.
You're the one asserting their veracity. YOU have the responsibility to provide proof. C'mon, don't be lazy.

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 10:57 AM
You're the one asserting their veracity. YOU have the responsibility to provide proof. C'mon, don't be lazy.

Not lazy at all. I will continue to cite material. What I have cited so far, you are ignoring the references and facts of history. You have failed to provide counter references that would dispute what I have cited so far. What is missing here is acknowledging the context of history concerning the relationship between Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Again, there are no angels, and there is plenty of bloodshed and blame to go around.

One Bad Pig
11-19-2015, 11:33 AM
Not lazy at all.
:rofl: Yes, you are. You're uncritically copying and pasting from whatever webpage you google up which supports your contentions.

I will continue to cite material. What I have cited so far, you are ignoring the references and facts of history.
What references? All you have is "x" allegedly said "y." Would you accept that about anti-Baha'i sources?

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 11:39 AM
:rofl: Yes, you are. You're uncritically copying and pasting from whatever webpage you google up which supports your contentions.
What references? All you have is "x" allegedly said "y."

If they are not correct, please post your sources that correct me.

You have not posted anything that would contradict what I posted.


Would you accept that about anti-Baha'i sources?

If they are accurate, please do.

robrecht
11-19-2015, 12:58 PM
You have never fully bothered to investigate the Baha'i Faith honestly, and understanding the vocabulary. If you would bother investigating yourself and read my explanation.

Satan in the Baha'i Faith translates to ego. The Jews believing that they are the only chosen people in the whole world is the height of egoism in and definition of the word.

"Self has really two meanings, or is used in two senses, in the Bahá'í writings; one is self, the identity of the individual created by God. This is the self mentioned in such passages as 'he hath known God who hath known himself etc.'. The other self is the ego, the dark, animalistic heritage each one of us has, the lower nature that can develop into a monster of selfishness, brutality, lust and so on. It is this self we must struggle against, or this side of our natures, in order to strengthen and free the spirit within us and help it to attain perfection."

Shoghi Effendi


Read more: http://onebahai.blogspot.com/2011/10/ego.html#ixzz3rxdXrF5I



In the Bahá'í Faith, Satan is not regarded as an independent evil power as he is in some faiths, but signifies the lower nature of humans. `Abdu'l-Bahá explains: "This lower nature in man is symbolized as Satan — the evil ego within us, not an evil personality outside."[53][54] All other evil spirits described in various faith traditions—such as fallen angels, demons, and jinns—are also metaphors for the base character traits a human being may acquire and manifest when he turns away from God.


The quotes you have been harping on instead making an honest effort to understand the Baha'i Faith in an honest way reflect your voluntary ignorance, and hostility toward the Baha'i Faith. As before your biased hostility toward the Baha'i Faith is very offensive.
Your accusation against me of dishonesty is false. Your other ad homenim contention, that I am supposedly hostile to the Baha'i faith is likewise false, and I have attempted to reassure of this many times.

This is the first time you have tried to interpret Bahá'u'lláh's description of the Jews as satanic as relating to ego and self. I do not believe that Jews have a lower nature than anyone else, nor that they are any more likely to develop into monsters of selfishness, brutality, lust and so on. This is hardly a good description of the Jewish belief in the special role God has given them in revelation. Thus I still consider his rhetoric here to be offensive. I do not consider the Jews to be in any way 'cursed or wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy, that God has laid hold of the Jews for their sins, or that he has extinguished in them the spirit of faith, and tormented them with the flames of the nethermost fire.' I don't think any of this rhetoric shows proper respect for the profound Jewish faith.

One Bad Pig
11-19-2015, 03:06 PM
If they are not correct, please post your sources that correct me.
For starters, it is absurd to quote the New Testament as anti-Semitic because nearly all of it was written by Jews, about Jews.

From Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: General and Historical Objections by Michael J. Brown:


However seriously the Jews may have sinned by rejecting the gift of God . . . nevertheless, because they are the children of good people, whose privileges and many benefits from God they have received, they will be received with joy when they return to the faith, because God's love for them is stirred up by the memory of their ancestors.

Although it was rejected, Israel will also be saved eventually, a hope which Paul confirms [in Rom. 11:26] by quoting this text of scripture [viz., Isa. 59:21]. For indeed, Israel will be saved in its own time and will be called at the end, after the calling of the Gentiles.


If they are accurate, please do.
Sorry, I cannot bring myself to sink to that level.

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 03:48 PM
Your accusation against me of dishonesty is false. Your other ad homenim contention, that I am supposedly hostile to the Baha'i faith is likewise false, and I have attempted to reassure of this many times.
[quote]
This is the first time you have tried to interpret Bahá'u'lláh's description of the Jews as satanic as relating to ego and self.

. . . because you made no effort to understand the writings, nor the vocabulary yourself. A simple google search would have produced an adequate explanation. Instead you choose abusive acrid rhetoric. No pretense of respect here.


I do not believe that Jews have a lower nature than anyone else, nor that they are any more likely to develop into monsters of selfishness, brutality, lust and so on.

True, but that is not the issue addressed. You asked if others expressed their Satanic side. I said probably, but I myself would not make that judgment. One citation out of the volumes of Baha'i writings is ridiculously inadequate to understand the context. 'Satanic fancy' of the ego is a problem for ALL humanity


Thus I still consider his rhetoric here to be offensive. I do not consider the Jews to be in any way 'cursed or wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy, that God has laid hold of the Jews for their sins, or that he has extinguished in them the spirit of faith, and tormented them with the flames of the nethermost fire.' I don't think any of this rhetoric shows proper respect for the profound Jewish faith.

That is your problem with your abusive acrid way of dialogue, and refusal to make an effort to understand the Baha'i writings as a whole and the terminology used.

As I said before you are hurling boulders from a glass house.

robrecht
11-19-2015, 04:24 PM
. . . because you made no effort to understand the writings, nor the vocabulary yourself. A simple google search would have produced an adequate explanation. Instead you choose abusive acrid rhetoric. No pretense of respect here. I asked you and, actually, I did search for an explanation on line, but found no acceptable explanations, just as your new explanation today is, as I've said above, not acceptable.


True, but that is not the issue addressed. You asked if others expressed their Satanic side. I said probably, but I myself would not make that judgment. I don't recall asking you that here. If you agree that Jews do not have a lower nature than anyone else, nor that they are any more likely to develop into monsters of selfishness, brutality, lust and so on, then would you also say that Baha'i also are 'wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy'? I would not say that about Jews or Baha'i.

Nor do I believe that the Jews are 'cursed, or that God has laid hold of the Jews for their sins, or that he has extinguished in them the spirit of faith, and tormented them with the flames of the nethermost fire'? Do you?


That is an exact accurate description of the claim of Judaism. Why don't you ask some Jews if they consider it accurate or respectful to say of them that they are 'cursed or wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy, that God has laid hold of the Jews for their sins, or that he has extinguished in them the spirit of faith, and tormented them with the flames of the nethermost fire'?


that is your problem with your abusive acrid way of dialogue, and refusal to make an effort to understand the Baha'i writings as a whole and the terminology used.

As I said before you are hurling boulders from a glass house. I have not been abusive of you! I have patiently made a quite a bit of effort to understand your perspective, and I have a great deal of respect for the Baha'i perspective and the , as I have said many times, but I do not agree with this particular piece of anti-Jewish rhetoric by the Bahá'u'lláh. If you continue to insist that it is not anti-Jewish rhetoric, then please ask some Jews if they consider this to be respectful of their faith.

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 04:26 PM
And that is the whole point, I never denied that people did wicked things in the name of Christ, but they run contrary to the very teachings of Christ, and the NT in general.

Than do not blame only the atheists for the atrocities of pogroms and persecutions. The citations form the NT are specific and accurate.

seer
11-19-2015, 04:46 PM
Than do not blame only the atheists for the atrocities of pogroms and persecutions.

Where did I do that? Really Shuny, are you trying to make me as crazy as you? And remember, I was responding to Tass who quoted this:


And so it goes on. "The whole history of the last thousands of years has been a history of religious persecutions and wars, pogroms, jihads, crusades. I find it all very regrettable, to say the least." - Steven Weinberg.

Then you had to stick your nose in...

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 04:57 PM
Where did I do that? Really Shuny, are you trying to make me as crazy as you?

well yes in a number of places.


Yes, but don't forget about the millions and millions killed by atheistic regimes. But hey Tass, we are just doing what we were determined to do by the forces of nature - right?


You started the thread with an attack on people of faith.


True

One Bad Pig
11-19-2015, 04:59 PM
As I said before you are hurling boulders from a glass house.
This might have some bite if it weren't being hurled by an obvious hypocrite. You might want to stop and think about that before uncritically swallowing whole and regurgitating anti-Christian compilations of unknown provenance stripped wholly of context.

seer
11-19-2015, 05:00 PM
well yes in a number of places.

Yes, and I was responding to Tass, who quoted this:


And so it goes on. "The whole history of the last thousands of years has been a history of religious persecutions and wars, pogroms, jihads, crusades. I find it all very regrettable, to say the least." - Steven Weinberg.

Then you had to stick your nose in...

robrecht
11-19-2015, 05:01 PM
Than do not blame only the atheists for the atrocities of pogroms and persecutions. The citations form the NT are specific and accurate.Where did seer blame only atheists for the atrocities of pogroms and persecutions? I thought he said rather clearly that he 'never denied that people did wicked things in the name of Christ' (92), that 'people kill for religious reasons' (38) and 'have murdered in the name of Christ' (65), and he even agreed that 'the whole regrettable history of the last thousands of years has been a history of religious persecutions and wars, pogroms, jihads, crusades', but only wanted to add that atheistic regimes also perpetrated such violence (2).

Carrikature
11-19-2015, 05:11 PM
well yes in a number of places.

Irony is quoting posts that prove you wrong in the exact same post you make a claim. He can't have only placed blame on atheists when he started with an attack on Islam.

shunyadragon
11-19-2015, 07:33 PM
Yes, and I was responding to Tass, who quoted this:



Then you had to stick your nose in...

Good quote from Tass!!!

Tassman
11-19-2015, 08:51 PM
That was my whole point, Tass first attacked people of faith, that is why I responded with the atheist thing, then Shuny jumped on the ban wagon, as usual, and I said to him.

"Attacked!" How you love your hyperbole. I was making an observation about the negative impact of religious faith upon society and I supported my observation with the following quote from Steven Weinberg:

“The whole history of the last thousands of years has been a history of religious persecutions and wars, pogroms, jihads, crusades. I find it all very regrettable, to say the least.” The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that society is better off without religion, ALL religion, as is evident in the more secular societies of the west.

Abigail
11-20-2015, 02:53 AM
And so it goes on. "The whole history of the last thousands of years has been a history of religious persecutions and wars, pogroms, jihads, crusades. I find it all very regrettable, to say the least." - Steven Weinberg.

Just look about you at the non-Christian and purely secular states and I think the facts will speak for themselves that it has been the Christian nations who have been prepared to allow space for those who do not hold the same views as themselves. Yes the Crusaders were no angels however the Crusades were "in essence a defensive action against the spread of Islam by the sword." (http://normangeisler.com/the-crusades-were-they-justified/). Even today the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and places like Libya have been primarily to give help to those who have been crying out because of oppression under various dictators. If the Christian West had been as hardline as Tassman tries to portray we would not have the Europe we have today. The Europe we have today is primarily because Christianity allows space for those who do not wish to be part of it. 'Whosoever will' is how the Good Book puts it. Cast your eyes back to Maoist China and Stalinist Russia or nowadays to North Korea and to Iraq and Iran and see how secular and non-Christian states operate. They do not allow space for anyone to have a different belief system to those in charge. We are seeing this more and more in the West as the progressive liberals take control. No-one is allowed to have thoughts or beliefs of which they do not approve. Of the three systems (Christian, Muslim, secular-atheist)all would like to see everyone be part of their system, but it is only Christianity which believes that people should have a free choice and it is only Christianity who still values the life and welfare of those who are not part of their system.

seer
11-20-2015, 03:08 AM
"Attacked!" How you love your hyperbole. I was making an observation about the negative impact of religious faith upon society and I supported my observation with the following quote from Steven Weinberg:

Yes, but you failed to mention the negative effects of atheism. And you failed to mention the positive effects of religion.

seer
11-20-2015, 03:10 AM
Good quote from Tass!!!

Right, and I agreed with that quote - so I wasn't just attacking atheists.

shunyadragon
11-20-2015, 05:30 AM
Just look about you at the non-Christian and purely secular states and I think the facts will speak for themselves that it has been the Christian nations who have been prepared to allow space for those who do not hold the same views as themselves. Yes the Crusaders were no angels however the Crusades were "in essence a defensive action against the spread of Islam by the sword." (http://normangeisler.com/the-crusades-were-they-justified/). Even today the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and places like Libya have been primarily to give help to those who have been crying out because of oppression under various dictators. If the Christian West had been as hardline as Tassman tries to portray we would not have the Europe we have today. The Europe we have today is primarily because Christianity allows space for those who do not wish to be part of it. 'Whosoever will' is how the Good Book puts it. Cast your eyes back to Maoist China and Stalinist Russia or nowadays to North Korea and to Iraq and Iran and see how secular and non-Christian states operate. They do not allow space for anyone to have a different belief system to those in charge. We are seeing this more and more in the West as the progressive liberals take control. No-one is allowed to have thoughts or beliefs of which they do not approve. Of the three systems (Christian, Muslim, secular-atheist)all would like to see everyone be part of their system, but it is only Christianity which believes that people should have a free choice and it is only Christianity who still values the life and welfare of those who are not part of their system.

I consider this a very idealistic one-sided view of the reality of the historical persecution, ethnic cleansing, pogroms and violence between Judaism, Christianity and Islam in history.

shunyadragon
11-20-2015, 05:36 AM
For starters, it is absurd to quote the New Testament as anti-Semitic because nearly all of it was written by Jews, about Jews.

From Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: General and Historical Objections by Michael J. Brown:


However seriously the Jews may have sinned by rejecting the gift of God . . . nevertheless, because they are the children of good people, whose privileges and many benefits from God they have received, they will be received with joy when they return to the faith, because God's love for them is stirred up by the memory of their ancestors.

Although it was rejected, Israel will also be saved eventually, a hope which Paul confirms [in Rom. 11:26] by quoting this text of scripture [viz., Isa. 59:21]. For indeed, Israel will be saved in its own time and will be called at the end, after the calling of the Gentiles.

My citations of the NT, and leaders in Christianity were accurate and specific, and resulted in millennia of pogroms, persecution and ethnic cleansing of Jews.


There is no evidence that the gospels were written by Jews. Paul a Hellenist Jew that work for the Romans was hardly representative of Judaism.

[quote]Sorry, I cannot bring myself to sink to that level.

Than why bring it up?!?!!?

shunyadragon
11-20-2015, 05:38 AM
You're the one asserting their veracity. YOU have the responsibility to provide proof. C'mon, don't be lazy.

The documents themselves, and the pogroms, persecution, and ethnic cleansing that resulted testifies to their veracity.

seer
11-20-2015, 06:41 AM
For starters, it is absurd to quote the New Testament as anti-Semitic because nearly all of it was written by Jews, about Jews.

There is no evidence that the gospels were written by Jews. Paul a Hellenist Jew that work for the Romans was hardly representative of Judaism.

Nonsense, so they were gentile authors? And Paul was a Pharisee, never mind the fact that Jesus was a Jew.

One Bad Pig
11-20-2015, 06:45 AM
For starters, it is absurd to quote the New Testament as anti-Semitic because nearly all of it was written by Jews, about Jews.

From Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: General and Historical Objections by Michael J. Brown:


However seriously the Jews may have sinned by rejecting the gift of God . . . nevertheless, because they are the children of good people, whose privileges and many benefits from God they have received, they will be received with joy when they return to the faith, because God's love for them is stirred up by the memory of their ancestors.

Although it was rejected, Israel will also be saved eventually, a hope which Paul confirms [in Rom. 11:26] by quoting this text of scripture [viz., Isa. 59:21]. For indeed, Israel will be saved in its own time and will be called at the end, after the calling of the Gentiles.

My citations of the NT, and leaders in Christianity were accurate and specific, and resulted in millennia of pogroms, persecution and ethnic cleansing of Jews.
They weren't your citations - they were copied uncritically from an anti-missionary site - and the result is far less than what your bombast alleges. And you may as well not have quoted me, since what you posted completely ignores the material I posted.


There is no evidence that the gospels were written by Jews. Paul a Hellenist Jew that work for the Romans was hardly representative of Judaism.
Your unfounded assertions are duly noted.


Than why bring it up?!?!!?
I had some faint hope of causing you to reflect on your own action. Sadly, I was wrong.

robrecht
11-20-2015, 07:04 AM
Paul was certainly a Jew. His writings and those of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo of Alexandria, and Josephus are the best 'first person' witnesses we have to the varieties of contemporary Judaism. Paul was certainly a messianic Jew, and was in conflict with some Judea authorities, as was the sect at Qumran, but he can be much better understood in his thoroughly Jewish context than has been typically the case with his later Christian interpreters. The fact that Paul (also?) spoke and wrote Greek in no way diminishes his Jewish identity.

robrecht
11-20-2015, 07:28 AM
Right, and I agreed with that quote - so I wasn't just attacking atheists.

As I pointed out above, Shuny seems to have misunderstood the fact that you did not blame only atheists for the atrocities of pogroms and persecutions, that you 'never denied that people did wicked things in the name of Christ' (92), that 'people kill for religious reasons' (38) and 'have murdered in the name of Christ' (65), and even agreed that 'the whole regrettable history of the last thousands of years has been a history of religious persecutions and wars, pogroms, jihads, crusades', but only wanted to add that atheistic regimes also perpetrated such violence (2).

seer
11-20-2015, 07:48 AM
As I pointed out above, Shuny seems to have misunderstood the fact that you did not blame only atheists for the atrocities of pogroms and persecutions, that you 'never denied that people did wicked things in the name of Christ' (92), that 'people kill for religious reasons' (38) and 'have murdered in the name of Christ' (65), and even agreed that 'the whole regrettable history of the last thousands of years has been a history of religious persecutions and wars, pogroms, jihads, crusades', but only wanted to add that atheistic regimes also perpetrated such violence (2).

Yes thank you for that, of course facts don't matter that much to Shuny.

The Thinker
11-20-2015, 08:52 AM
Yes thank you for that, of course facts don't matter that much to Shuny.

Oh the irony of this statement.:rofl:

seer
11-20-2015, 09:07 AM
Oh the irony of this statement.:rofl:

Oh please...

The Thinker
11-20-2015, 11:51 AM
Just look about you at the non-Christian and purely secular states and I think the facts will speak for themselves that it has been the Christian nations who have been prepared to allow space for those who do not hold the same views as themselves. Yes the Crusaders were no angels however the Crusades were "in essence a defensive action against the spread of Islam by the sword." (http://normangeisler.com/the-crusades-were-they-justified/). Even today the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and places like Libya have been primarily to give help to those who have been crying out because of oppression under various dictators. If the Christian West had been as hardline as Tassman tries to portray we would not have the Europe we have today. The Europe we have today is primarily because Christianity allows space for those who do not wish to be part of it. 'Whosoever will' is how the Good Book puts it. Cast your eyes back to Maoist China and Stalinist Russia or nowadays to North Korea and to Iraq and Iran and see how secular and non-Christian states operate. They do not allow space for anyone to have a different belief system to those in charge. We are seeing this more and more in the West as the progressive liberals take control. No-one is allowed to have thoughts or beliefs of which they do not approve. Of the three systems (Christian, Muslim, secular-atheist)all would like to see everyone be part of their system, but it is only Christianity which believes that people should have a free choice and it is only Christianity who still values the life and welfare of those who are not part of their system.

Here in America (you know, God's country) it is mostly the Christians who are against secularism, and against all non-Christian beliefs having a place in politics and society, and who want to turn the country into a Christian theocracy. The more Christian they get, the more xenophobic, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant they generally are. Europe was this way for hundreds of years until the Enlightenment helped erode the social and political power of the Christian religion away, and then it became tolerant. So you're just wrong.

The Thinker
11-20-2015, 11:52 AM
Oh please...

Yes, you are not a person who cares much for facts. For one thing you grant the Bible as true without evidence!

The Thinker
11-20-2015, 11:54 AM
Yes, but you failed to mention the negative effects of atheism. And you failed to mention the positive effects of religion.

What are the negative effects of atheism?

One Bad Pig
11-20-2015, 12:20 PM
Here in America (you know, God's country) it is mostly the Christians who are against secularism,
Stands to reason, since Christianity is by far the majority religion.
and against all non-Christian beliefs having a place in politics and society, and who want to turn the country into a Christian theocracy.
These are kind of no-brainers. Why would non-Christians be against non-Christian beliefs, or want to turn the country into a Christian theocracy? :doh: And those who want to turn the country into a Christian theocracy are a tiny majority of Christians.

The more Christian they get, the more xenophobic, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant they generally are. Europe was this way for hundreds of years until the Enlightenment helped erode the social and political power of the Christian religion away, and then it became tolerant.
I will grant you that Christians are generally anti-Muslim (for good reason, if you paid any attention to history), but the rest of this is codswallop.

So you're just wrong.

Nice assertion. :thumb: Your user name is nicely ironic. Maybe you should start attempting to live up to it.

seer
11-20-2015, 01:00 PM
What are the negative effects of atheism?

Start with this; men are the accidental by products of the forces of nature, with no inherent worth or value. Insignificant creatures in an indifferent universe. Whose life or death is ultimately meaningless.

The Thinker
11-20-2015, 02:58 PM
Stands to reason, since Christianity is by far the majority religion.

The more Christian one gets, the more they tend to be against secularism, and people of other faiths being a part of their society. Christianity is not the answer.


These are kind of no-brainers. Why would non-Christians be against non-Christian beliefs, or want to turn the country into a Christian theocracy? :doh: And those who want to turn the country into a Christian theocracy are a tiny majority of Christians.

That makes no sense. Many fundie Christians want Christian theocracy. The person I was responding to was trying to claim it is Christians who are open. Yeah, mostly the secularized liberal ones. The fundies who take the religion seriously don't.


I will grant you that Christians are generally anti-Muslim (for good reason, if you paid any attention to history), but the rest of this is codswallop.

So it isn't Christianity that is hospitable, it is liberals, Christians or not.


Nice assertion. :thumb: Your user name is nicely ironic. Maybe you should start attempting to live up to it.

Maybe you should pay attention to the argument.

The Thinker
11-20-2015, 03:00 PM
Start with this; men are the accidental by products of the forces of nature, with no inherent worth or value. Insignificant creatures in an indifferent universe. Whose life or death is ultimately meaningless.

How does god give us inherent value or worth? If our value or worth depends on god that would make it extrinsic, and not intrinsic. And why should things being eternal be required to have life that is meaningful? And why is it that the most religious countries tend to be the most violent, and the least religious countries tend to have be the least violent?

Carrikature
11-20-2015, 03:44 PM
Start with this; men are the accidental by products of the forces of nature, with no inherent worth or value. Insignificant creatures in an indifferent universe. Whose life or death is ultimately meaningless.

That's not a negative effect. That's a conclusion reached from certain premises (and not one shared universally by atheists).

Carrikature
11-20-2015, 03:47 PM
And why is it that the most religious countries tend to be the most violent, and the least religious countries tend to have be the least violent?

There's a strong correlation but not a proven causation between the two. Common denominator more likely is relative prosperity and quality of life. Also, the most violent countries are generally those that have been shoved together with complete disregard to cultural/ethnic differences.

lilpixieofterror
11-20-2015, 04:53 PM
Here in America (you know, God's country) it is mostly the Christians who are against secularism, and against all non-Christian beliefs having a place in politics and society, and who want to turn the country into a Christian theocracy. The more Christian they get, the more xenophobic, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant they generally are. Europe was this way for hundreds of years until the Enlightenment helped erode the social and political power of the Christian religion away, and then it became tolerant. So you're just wrong.

:lolo:

You're truly an idiot, huh?

One Bad Pig
11-20-2015, 04:57 PM
The more Christian one gets, the more they tend to be against secularism, and people of other faiths being a part of their society.
Against secularism, sure - since secularism tends to do its best to relegate religion to the margins. Against "people of other faiths being a part of their society"? That would depend on the tenets of the particular group of Christians, which are all over the map. There is no biblical mandate whatsoever mandating a pure Christian society.
Christianity is not the answer. Non sequitur.


These are kind of no-brainers. Why would non-Christians be against non-Christian beliefs, or want to turn the country into a Christian theocracy? And those who want to turn the country into a Christian theocracy are a tiny majority of Christians.That makes no sense.
What makes no sense? Are you unable to comprehend disagreement?

Many fundie Christians want Christian theocracy.
Bald assertion. There are some fundamentalist Christians who want Christian theocracy. They make up a small minority of Christians, even here in the US.

The person I was responding to was trying to claim it is Christians who are open.
Which you obviously disagree with. I get that. Now try formulating an actual argument instead of relying on assertion.

Yeah, mostly the secularized liberal ones. The fundies who take the religion seriously don't.
More assertion.

So it isn't Christianity that is hospitable, it is liberals, Christians or not.
Merely the conclusion your assertions lead to.

Maybe you should pay attention to the argument.
Maybe you should make one.

Tassman
11-20-2015, 07:36 PM
There's a strong correlation but not a proven causation between the two. Common denominator more likely is relative prosperity and quality of life. Also, the most violent countries are generally those that have been shoved together with complete disregard to cultural/ethnic differences.

Except that the one country in the prosperous, developed world where Christianity is still taken seriously is the USA and the US ranks as one of the most violent, inequitable societies in the west with the highest rate of incarceration.

lilpixieofterror
11-20-2015, 07:39 PM
Except that the one country in the prosperous, developed world where Christianity is still taken seriously is the USA and the US ranks as one of the most violent, inequitable societies in the west with the highest rate of incarceration.

:lmbo:

Lived in the US most of my life, never had any run in with the law, but what do I know? Some fundy atheist, who has never lived in the US, reads worthless UN reports that whisper sweet nothings into his ears and tell him stuff he wants to hear and flat out ignores anything that proves him wrong (IE the US is more likely to punish those engaging in unlawful behaviors with jail time vs other western countries, so that would account for the higher prisoner rates, but we don't need those nasty 'fact' things because there is an agenda to press and facts be damned).

Don't worry, I know you're 'ignoring me' after I embarrassed you, on this very subject all those years ago, but others can read this and see for themselves that you're just an idiot that nobody should take seriously.

Tassman
11-20-2015, 07:47 PM
Start with this; men are the accidental by products of the forces of nature, with no inherent worth or value. Insignificant creatures in an indifferent universe. Whose life or death is ultimately meaningless.

Why is facing up to the realities of the universe and our place in it a negative effect? You prefer a fantasy universe of unreality, wish-fulfilment and denial it seems.

The Thinker
11-20-2015, 08:56 PM
:lolo:

You're truly an idiot, huh?

The only idiots are those who think the Bible is true. And republicans.

The Thinker
11-20-2015, 09:23 PM
Against secularism, sure - since secularism tends to do its best to relegate religion to the margins. Against "people of other faiths being a part of their society"? That would depend on the tenets of the particular group of Christians, which are all over the map. There is no biblical mandate whatsoever mandating a pure Christian society. Non sequitur.

All I was responding to what the idea that it's "Christian nations who have been prepared to allow space for those who do not hold the same views as themselves." First, "Christian nations" is a dubious term. Majorities in Canada, the UK, Ireland, France, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, South Korea, China & Japan are either not religious or convinced atheists: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11531005/Britain-one-of-the-worlds-least-religious-countries-says-poll.html

So most of the hospitable nations that are open to various views are secular, not Christian. It is liberal secular nations that Abigail should've been praising, not Christian nations.


What makes no sense? Are you unable to comprehend disagreement?

Of course I am. Either you don't understand me or you are wrong.


Bald assertion. There are some fundamentalist Christians who want Christian theocracy. They make up a small minority of Christians, even here in the US.


57% of republicans want to establish Christianity as the national religion. (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_22415.pdf) 13% are "not sure". 34% of Americans in total (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-rich/breaking-news-34-of-your-_1_b_3461262.html) want a Christian theocracy. These are not "small minority" numbers, this is a third of the country, and more than half of republicans.


Which you obviously disagree with. I get that. Now try formulating an actual argument instead of relying on assertion.

More assertion.

Not according to the facts I presented above. "Small minority" would have to be 48% of Christians, since the US is 70% Christian (http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/), and 34% of Americans in total want a Christian theocracy, virtually all of whom are Christian, and 34% of 70% is 48%. That means nearly half of American Christians want a theocracy. That's not a "small minority." Do you concede now?


Merely the conclusion your assertions lead to.

Maybe you should make one.

Respond to the one I just made.

The Thinker
11-20-2015, 09:36 PM
There's a strong correlation but not a proven causation between the two. Common denominator more likely is relative prosperity and quality of life. Also, the most violent countries are generally those that have been shoved together with complete disregard to cultural/ethnic differences.

I mostly agree. I think that when the standard of living and quality of life in a country goes up, religion goes down. That means that by making the world a better place, we can make it less religious and kill two birds with one stone (http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2015/09/does-making-world-better-place-allow.html).

Andius
11-21-2015, 01:13 AM
Except that the one country in the prosperous, developed world where Christianity is still taken seriously is the USA and the US ranks as one of the most violent, inequitable societies in the west with the highest rate of incarceration.

Oh brother....

Most violent externally? An arguably strong yes considering United States has picked fights with about 60 nations throughout it's history, ranging from covert interventions to full fledged invasions. But USA's violence last I checked were driven by ideas such as Manifest Destiny, Monroe Doctrine, or even good old fashioned military responses of aggression (Pearl Harbor comes to mind), but the Church or Christian Institutionality have hardly contributed to US Foreign Policy.

Internally violent? Say what you will about the crime rate in Los Angeles or Detroit, but they are NOTHING compared to the warzones here in my home. In a 2014 ranking, of the top 50 most violent cities around the world, about 41 of them are right in Latinamerica, with only 4 US cities making the list (the highest being Detroit at 24th). Where I live, we are #8, virtually not a day goes by without somebody getting killed, it is that bad. And even though Latinamerica (with the exception of Uruguay) is virtually a bastion of Christendom nowadays, Christian institutions are hardly instigators of said violence.

http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/why-world-most-violent-cities-latin-america

Inequitable? True, and the gap is widening no doubt. But last I checked, the greed that drives it's politicians and elites are hardly originating from Christian institutionality, and in truth, are far more likely to tell the Church to take a hike instead of acting in Christian charity.

Speaking of associating Christendom with widening inequality, shouldn't Portugal, Spain, and the UK, nations with weak Christian institutions and strong secularity actually not even be in the top 10 nations with highest income inequalitie according to your assertions? Oy vey! Israel, a secular and Judaic nation, tail gates USA! I thought secularity was the magical solution to solving income inequality! No way secular nations should be close to the top 10 of 2015....

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2015/05/29/countries-with-the-widest-gap-between-the-rich-and-the-poor/2/

Regarding incarceration... Yeah I'm not going to comment on that, hardly familiar with why the USA incarcarcerates so many folks.

But your ability to make strong corrolations sucks mate. Maybe you should travel more often, see more of the world if you can afford it.

Abigail
11-21-2015, 01:15 AM
Here in America (you know, God's country) it is mostly the Christians who are against secularism, and against all non-Christian beliefs having a place in politics and society, and who want to turn the country into a Christian theocracy. The more Christian they get, the more xenophobic, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant they generally are. Europe was this way for hundreds of years until the Enlightenment helped erode the social and political power of the Christian religion away, and then it became tolerant. So you're just wrong.

You are somehow conflating the State and the Church. The Church is not the State. When I say Christian State I mean those states who have a Judeo-Christian slant.

Abigail
11-21-2015, 01:26 AM
So most of the hospitable nations that are open to various views are secular, not Christian. It is liberal secular nations that Abigail should've been praising, not Christian nations. Many of those were once predominantly Christian - the fact they are now secular is proof that secular people were able to get ahead and become successful. We do not see this nowadays for Christians as progressive secularism takes hold.

Andius
11-21-2015, 01:31 AM
There's a strong correlation but not a proven causation between the two. Common denominator more likely is relative prosperity and quality of life. Also, the most violent countries are generally those that have been shoved together with complete disregard to cultural/ethnic differences.

Well that.... And outright weak State institutions and corruption. When the folks in charge are more concerned with filling their pockets above all else, they will care less who gets killed in the process.

Abigail
11-21-2015, 02:19 AM
And why is it that the most religious countries tend to be the most violent, and the least religious countries tend to have be the least violent? Well you get two types of religious countries - those where the religion is voluntary and those where it is mandatory. Violence stems from a few things. Either you could be in a situation where the state wields an iron grip and anyone who goes against that is liquidated. Eg a person living in a Caliphate announcing they have converted to Christianity or Kim-jong-Un dissenter (secular). In democratic states which are predominantly religious you can get violence when people are unwilling to use the political process to effect change and also thinking of those states with a Judaeo-Christian heritage, these are proverbial melting pots of different peoples so there will always be conflicts. As the Judaeo-Christian nations have become secularized it has been negotiated under Judaeo-Christian guiding principles, IOW secularists etc have been able to point to Christian principles to win freedoms for themselves. As progressive secularism takes hold there will be no Christian principles of love, tolerance and seeking good for all to point to. It will be what the secularists want and nothing else will be tolerated.

Tassman
11-21-2015, 02:44 AM
Oh brother....

Most violent externally? An arguably strong yes considering United States has picked fights with about 60 nations throughout it's history, ranging from covert interventions to full fledged invasions. But USA's violence last I checked were driven by ideas such as Manifest Destiny, Monroe Doctrine, or even good old fashioned military responses of aggression (Pearl Harbor comes to mind), but the Church or Christian Institutionality have hardly contributed to US Foreign Policy.

That’s the legacy of being a superpower.


Internally violent? Say what you will about the crime rate in Los Angeles or Detroit, but they are NOTHING compared to the warzones here in my home. In a 2014 ranking, of the top 50 most violent cities around the world, about 41 of them are right in Latinamerica, with only 4 US cities making the list (the highest being Detroit at 24th). Where I live, we are #8, virtually not a day goes by without somebody getting killed, it is that bad. And even though Latinamerica (with the exception of Uruguay) is virtually a bastion of Christendom nowadays, Christian institutions are hardly instigators of said violence.

http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/why-world-most-violent-cities-latin-america

I specifically referred to violence in “the developed world” and, nothing personal, Guatemala is not generally ranked thus, whereas the USA is.


Inequitable? True, and the gap is widening no doubt. But last I checked, the greed that drives it's politicians and elites are hardly originating from Christian institutionality, and in truth, are far more likely to tell the Church to take a hike instead of acting in Christian charity.

Nevertheless over 70% of US citizens claim to be actively Christian, which is not the case in the rest of the developed world. So basically you’re saying that the Christians in the USA are greedy hypocrites.

In my country of Australia the churches are virtually empty on Sundays and yet we rank 2nd in the UN Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index…the USA is ranked 28th. FYI Guatemala is ranked 98th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI


Speaking of associating Christendom with widening inequality, shouldn't Portugal, Spain, and the UK, nations with weak Christian institutions and strong secularity actually not even be in the top 10 nations with highest income inequalitie according to your assertions? Oy vey! Israel, a secular and Judaic nation, tail gates USA! I thought secularity was the magical solution to solving income inequality! No way secular nations should be close to the top 10 of 2015....

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2015/05/29/countries-with-the-widest-gap-between-the-rich-and-the-poor/2/

Nevertheless the UK ranks relatively high in the Inequality adjusted Human development Index (16th) and Spain ranks above the USA at 22nd.


Regarding incarceration... Yeah I'm not going to comment on that, hardly familiar with why the USA incarcarcerates so many folks.

I’m not surprised you opt out of commenting upon incarcerations in the US, they top the world by an enormous margin and largely comprise blacks. How’s that for justice?


But your ability to make strong corrolations sucks mate. Maybe you should travel more often, see more of the world if you can afford it.

Nope! “The least religious nations are also the most healthy and successful…” Phil Zuckerman, Pitzer College.

http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/zuckerman.htm

Abigail
11-21-2015, 03:33 AM
Nope! “The least religious nations are also the most healthy and successful…” Phil Zuckerman, Pitzer College.

http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/zuckerman.htm

I think this article you have linked is begging the question in many respects. The Swedes, Danes etc have their own language so the type of foreigner going to those places will often have 'chosen' to go there and so in a way it is self-selecting as to the suitability of the immigrant. Their immigrant populations are not that high overall and it seems they have already been tightening their asylum rules. It is always easier to get along with people who are basically like ourselves.

lilpixieofterror
11-21-2015, 06:31 AM
The only idiots are those who think the Bible is true. And republicans.

So religious hatred and bigotry is all you have. Typical fundy atheist. :thumb:

lilpixieofterror
11-21-2015, 06:32 AM
I mostly agree. I think that when the standard of living and quality of life in a country goes up, religion goes down. That means that by making the world a better place, we can make it less religious and kill two birds with one stone (http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2015/09/does-making-world-better-place-allow.html).

More laziness I see. Do tell non-thinker, why is atheist China so violent, if your claim is true? :popcorn: I await your answer.

lilpixieofterror
11-21-2015, 06:35 AM
I think this article you have linked is begging the question in many respects. The Swedes, Danes etc have their own language so the type of foreigner going to those places will often have 'chosen' to go there and so in a way it is self-selecting as to the suitability of the immigrant. Their immigrant populations are not that high overall and it seems they have already been tightening their asylum rules. It is always easier to get along with people who are basically like ourselves.

Tazzy Wazzy just hates Christians and will do anything he can to display his hatred, every time he opens his fat mouth. He ignores things like:

Common national identity.
Stable governments.
No major wars.
Economic stability.

Etc as being all reasons that some countries are not as violent as others because he doesn't care. He hates Christians and will find any excuse, no matter how much data he has to ignore, to make his arguments work. Don't prove him wrong too much though, he'll accuse you of having a major psychological illness he can't prove or show you have, in any way (that is, beyond the fact you don't bow before him). It's a Tazzy Wazzy world, we're just fortunate enough to live in it.

seer
11-21-2015, 06:44 AM
I think this article you have linked is begging the question in many respects. The Swedes, Danes etc have their own language so the type of foreigner going to those places will often have 'chosen' to go there and so in a way it is self-selecting as to the suitability of the immigrant. Their immigrant populations are not that high overall and it seems they have already been tightening their asylum rules. It is always easier to get along with people who are basically like ourselves.


Never mind that fact that it is largely due to this Christian nation that the Danes, Swedes, Australians, and most of the Western world are not today under some form of totalitarian rule - whether Nazism, Communism, or Japanese imperialism. No thanks required Tass... And it may not remain that way - just look at how ineffectual the faithless, liberal western democracies are in dealing with radical Islam.

Carrikature
11-21-2015, 01:06 PM
Except that the one country in the prosperous, developed world where Christianity is still taken seriously is the USA and the US ranks as one of the most violent, inequitable societies in the west with the highest rate of incarceration.

I think Andius answered this in far more detail than I would have bothered to do. The perception you express is here is fairly common but ignores a real view of the current state of the world. The US isn't that bad overall, and very little of the violence can truly be associated with religiosity. It's not the Christians that are killing each other here, it's the criminals.



I mostly agree. I think that when the standard of living and quality of life in a country goes up, religion goes down. That means that by making the world a better place, we can make it less religious and kill two birds with one stone (http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2015/09/does-making-world-better-place-allow.html).

I've never been convinced by atheist claims that the non-existence of religion gives rise to a better world. There's a lot of stupid things that could be corrected without eradicating religion.



Well that.... And outright weak State institutions and corruption. When the folks in charge are more concerned with filling their pockets above all else, they will care less who gets killed in the process.

Right. I'll not pretend to have covered all the factors that go into it. I hate the term 'perfect storm', but that's effectively what you see in the more violent areas. Rampant corruption, high sectarianism (whether racist or religious in nature), low quality of life (making it easier to trade your life for something else) are just a few.

shunyadragon
11-21-2015, 02:07 PM
:lmbo:

Lived in the US most of my life, never had any run in with the law, but what do I know? Some fundy atheist, who has never lived in the US, reads worthless UN reports that whisper sweet nothings into his ears and tell him stuff he wants to hear and flat out ignores anything that proves him wrong (IE the US is more likely to punish those engaging in unlawful behaviors with jail time vs other western countries, so that would account for the higher prisoner rates, but we don't need those nasty 'fact' things because there is an agenda to press and facts be damned).

Don't worry, I know you're 'ignoring me' after I embarrassed you, on this very subject all those years ago, but others can read this and see for themselves that you're just an idiot that nobody should take seriously.

. . . and Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo! :lmbo:

Carrikature
11-21-2015, 02:36 PM
Never mind that fact that it is largely due to this Christian nation that the Danes, Swedes, Australians, and most of the Western world are not today under some form of totalitarian rule - whether Nazism, Communism, or Japanese imperialism.

I would love to see you support this.

Carrikature
11-21-2015, 02:40 PM
Lived in the US most of my life, never had any run in with the law, but what do I know?

I wonder if it's possible to make a less relevant claim and still remain on topic. Your personal history of crime doesn't have anything to do with incarceration rates. Even at a 95% incarceration rate, there would still be ~16 million Americans that had never seen jail time.

seer
11-21-2015, 04:45 PM
I would love to see you support this.


Really? You don't believe that the US played the major role in defeating Nazism, Communism, and Japanese imperialism?

Tassman
11-21-2015, 07:57 PM
I think Andius answered this in far more detail than I would have bothered to do. The perception you express is here is fairly common but ignores a real view of the current state of the world. The US isn't that bad overall,

It is in comparison with the other developed western powers. Obviously the US is way ahead of the underdeveloped nations of the world.


and very little of the violence can truly be associated with religiosity. It's not the Christians that are killing each other here, it's the criminals.

The question is why, in an overtly Christian society, does such very large criminal underclass exist? Given the sheer numbers and the fact that over 70% of Americans are Christian clearly many of the criminals must be Christians too.

One can make a good case that it’s due to the gross fiscal and social inequity and the legacy of racial discrimination, as evidenced by the hugely disproportionate number of incarcerated blacks.


I've never been convinced by atheist claims that the non-existence of religion gives rise to a better world. There's a lot of stupid things that could be corrected without eradicating religion.

You've got the argument back-to-front. It’s NOT that the non-existence of religion gives rise to a better world. But that a better, highly educated world tends to dispense with religion.

Andius
11-21-2015, 10:27 PM
That’s the legacy of being a superpower.

Aye, all part of the package in a regime of Empire.


I specifically referred to violence in “the developed world” and, nothing personal, Guatemala is not generally ranked thus, whereas the USA is.

Fair enough, non-taken, and noted.


Nevertheless over 70% of US citizens claim to be actively Christian, which is not the case in the rest of the developed world. So basically you’re saying that the Christians in the USA are greedy hypocrites.

And yet the developed nations that actually still have strong Christian participation, and even the ones where the Church have a say in matters of State are hardly falling behind the more secularized nations. When you have you have a two face snake like Rick Scott and the Christian citizens that voted for him, professing faith in Jesus, whilst robbing the state of Florida with fraudulent contracts, he just makes it too easy.


In my country of Australia the churches are virtually empty on Sundays and yet we rank 2nd in the UN Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index…the USA is ranked 28th. FYI Guatemala is ranked 98th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

Nevertheless the UK ranks relatively high in the Inequality adjusted Human development Index (16th) and Spain ranks above the USA at 22nd.

And yet your nation is effectively topped by a government that for all of it's praxis in secularity at State and social level, it still retains an ecclesiastical body as part of State administration. And not just topped, blown out of the water by a .031 points, an awful big difference by IHDI's standards, especially when you consider that (According to Zuckerman's measurements), Norway's secularity amongst the populace is only topped by Sweden, Denmark, and Estonia, and yet they are all below Norway.

Yeah, USA is #28, and yet highly religious nations such as Italy#23, Slovenia#12, or Ireland#10 aren't that close with the land of uncle Sam (Italy being the closest though), whilst secular hubs such as the Spain#22, France#18 (considered a paragon of secularity), and UK#16 aren't too close with Sweden (funnily enough, Estonia#24, approaching awfully close to the USA, and we are talking about a 54% declared non-religious population here, highly contrary to your claim that secular nations ought to blow religious nations out of the water in matters of inequality).

So sorry, I don't buy your correlation, even within the limits of the "developed" nations, and the rankings themselves do not support to your claim that secularity promotes equality whilst religion trumps it. To paraphrase John Green from Crash Course, it's a lot more complicated, especially when dimensions such as geopolitics, available resources, trade partners, state regimes, cultural institutions, civic traditions, etc. will sometimes trump one another in a crazy mess when trying to explain why a nation succeeds or fails (And don't get me started as to what constitutes "success" for a nation).


I’m not surprised you opt out of commenting upon incarcerations in the US, they top the world by an enormous margin and largely comprise blacks. How’s that for justice?

Call it what you will, but I don't delve into matters of which I do not claim expertise, so you might as well forget about dragging me into those matters, I don't play that way. At most, I am awares that after blacks, hispanics are the second group that gets incarcerated, my similiars.


Nope! “The least religious nations are also the most healthy and successful…” Phil Zuckerman, Pitzer College.

http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/zuckerman.htm

Phil Zuckerman may be secular pundit in his free time, but at least at scholarly level, he is careful in advancing the thesis that secular nations are capable of advancement and happiness, and avoids the brute assertion that secularity as the best path to advancement and happiness in his books. His research is still valuable in a great many ways.

Still, I don't see him as a consistent man, One moment he is a dedicated researcher with carefully laid out conclusions, and in another moment he is acting as a secular Bill O'Riley, which would not surprise me considering the fetish he has for secularity (especially his bias in rejecting other factors that contribute to governance within a given nation, as if worldviews were the biggest factor in molding the success of a nation, which damages some of his credibility as a researcher, but not entirely).

Carrikature
11-21-2015, 11:06 PM
Really? You don't believe that the US played the major role in defeating Nazism, Communism, and Japanese imperialism?

To make a reference I'm certain you won't get, the US is a kill-stealer. The US played a part. But the major role? Support it. The Russians held an entire front more or less on their own and helped the British in Africa. They lost ~25 million people in the process. The US? ~400,000. The US wasn't even invaded. Do you think the Cold War would have been as close if the Soviet Union hadn't lost that many people? I don't.

And did you somehow miss the part where China is still a communist nation? Or North Korea? Laos? Vietnam? They sure look defeated to me. :no:

Carrikature
11-21-2015, 11:11 PM
It is in comparison with the other developed western powers. Obviously the US is way ahead of the underdeveloped nations of the world.

This last bit is the entire point. The factors aren't primarily religious belief.



The question is why, in an overtly Christian society, does such very large criminal underclass exist? Given the sheer numbers and the fact that over 70% of Americans are Christian clearly many of the criminals must be Christians too.

Too bad it doesn't work that way. Criminals frequently convert to some religion in prison. Most of them aren't religious prior to that. You can't just apply averages blindly.



One can make a good case that it’s due to the gross fiscal and social inequity and the legacy of racial discrimination, as evidenced by the hugely disproportionate number of incarcerated blacks.

Nice of you to supply your own answer that has nothing to do with religion. I think you've supported my position for me.



You've got the argument back-to-front. It’s NOT that the non-existence of religion gives rise to a better world. But that a better, highly educated world tends to dispense with religion.

It's not my argument, but The Thinker's. I happen to agree with you here.

Tassman
11-22-2015, 02:10 AM
And yet the developed nations that actually still have strong Christian participation, and even the ones where the Church have a say in matters of State are hardly falling behind the more secularized nations. When you have you have a two face snake like Rick Scott and the Christian citizens that voted for him, professing faith in Jesus, whilst robbing the state of Florida with fraudulent contracts, he just makes it too easy.

Well, according to Adherents.com the most secular nations in the world also tend to rank high on the Income Adjusted Human Development Index…obviously there will be some anomalies, e.g. Vietnam...but it's reasonable to correlate the two factors.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html


And yet your nation is effectively topped by a government that for all of it's praxis in secularity at State and social level, it still retains an ecclesiastical body as part of State administration.

There’s no ecclesiastical body as part of State administration in Australia. There’s a minuscule religion-based political party but it has no effective impact.


And not just topped, blown out of the water by a .031 points, an awful big difference by IHDI's standards, especially when you consider that (According to Zuckerman's measurements), Norway's secularity amongst the populace is only topped by Sweden, Denmark, and Estonia, and yet they are all below Norway.

Yeah, USA is #28, and yet highly religious nations such as Italy#23, Slovenia#12, or Ireland#10 aren't that close with the land of uncle Sam (Italy being the closest though), whilst secular hubs such as the Spain#22, France#18 (considered a paragon of secularity), and UK#16 aren't too close with Sweden (funnily enough, Estonia#24, approaching awfully close to the USA, and we are talking about a 54% declared non-religious population here, highly contrary to your claim that secular nations ought to blow religious nations out of the water in matters of inequality).

Yes there will always be anomalies in statistics of this sort, but the overall trend, to quote Zukerman is: “Those societies today that are the most religious — where faith in God is strong and religious participation is high — tend to have the highest violent crime rates [e.g. the USA], while those societies in which faith and church attendance are the weakest — the most secular societies — tend to have the lowest” [e.g. Norway and Australia].


So sorry, I don't buy your correlation, even within the limits of the "developed" nations, and the rankings themselves do not support to your claim that secularity promotes equality whilst religion trumps it. To paraphrase John Green from Crash Course, it's a lot more complicated, especially when dimensions such as geopolitics, available resources, trade partners, state regimes, cultural institutions, civic traditions, etc. will sometimes trump one another in a crazy mess when trying to explain why a nation succeeds or fails (And don't get me started as to what constitutes "success" for a nation).

That’s not the argument. The argument is that the more prosperous and better educated nations tend to dispense with religion, NOT that secularity in itself promotes equality.


Call it what you will, but I don't delve into matters of which I do not claim expertise, so you might as well forget about dragging me into those matters, I don't play that way. At most, I am awares that after blacks, hispanics are the second group that gets incarcerated, my similiars.

Well, whatever the reason, the USA nevertheless has the highest rates of incarcerations in the world.


Phil Zuckerman may be secular pundit in his free time, but at least at scholarly level, he is careful in advancing the thesis that secular nations are capable of advancement and happiness, and avoids the brute assertion that secularity as the best path to advancement and happiness in his books. His research is still valuable in a great many ways.

Still, I don't see him as a consistent man, One moment he is a dedicated researcher with carefully laid out conclusions, and in another moment he is acting as a secular Bill O'Riley, which would not surprise me considering the fetish he has for secularity (especially his bias in rejecting other factors that contribute to governance within a given nation, as if worldviews were the biggest factor in molding the success of a nation, which damages some of his credibility as a researcher, but not entirely).


That’s not his argument. See above re the more prosperous and better educated nations tending to dispense with religion. This tends to be the consequence of secularization, not the cause.

Tassman
11-22-2015, 02:42 AM
This last bit is the entire point. The factors aren't primarily religious belief.

Again, the point being made is that it’s NOT that the non-existence of religion gives rise to a better world. But that a better, highly educated world tends to dispense with religion as being unnecessary.


Too bad it doesn't work that way. Criminals frequently convert to some religion in prison. Most of them aren't religious prior to that. You can't just apply averages blindly.

Well it seems to work that way. One of the few highly religious countries in the developed world, i.e. the US, nevertheless has a disproportionately large criminal under-class…are you saying that despite claims to the contrary, religion has no positive impact on the lives of its adherents?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm


Nice of you to supply your own answer that has nothing to do with religion. I think you've supported my position for me.

So you’re saying that in a nation of c 80% practising Christians, the gross wealth disparity has nothing to do with the religion of its adherents…that religion has no positive impact on national justice or the social mores, that it’s impotent?

“…there’s evidence that rising inequality and many other intractable social problems are related.”

http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/


It's not my argument, but The Thinker's. I happen to agree with you here.

Yes, it’s NOT the non-existence of religion per se that gives rise to a better world but the overall higher education levels of a prosperous nation and the consequent dispensing of religion as being of little use and potentially divisive.

seer
11-22-2015, 03:09 AM
To make a reference I'm certain you won't get, the US is a kill-stealer. The US played a part. But the major role? Support it. The Russians held an entire front more or less on their own and helped the British in Africa. They lost ~25 million people in the process. The US? ~400,000. The US wasn't even invaded. Do you think the Cold War would have been as close if the Soviet Union hadn't lost that many people? I don't.

First, a good case could be made that the Soviet Union and Briton could not have survived the early part of the war without lend lease, which the Soviets shared a large portion. There was no country on earth that had the manufacturing base to match Germany and Japan. We were called the Arsenal of Democracy for a reason. As far as the Cold war it was largely the US alone standing against Soviet expansion, eventually bankrupting them. They were on the moving world wide, even with their lower population. And NATO kept the rest of Europe free (and we the US was basically NATO), we funded the largest share.


And did you somehow miss the part where China is still a communist nation? Or North Korea? Laos? Vietnam? They sure look defeated to me. :no:

Vietnam and Laos are no threat, North Korea is pretty isolated, China is a problem - but who besides the US could keep them in check?

rogue06
11-22-2015, 09:55 AM
Not sure where you got this material, but it is not on the page you cited. Both the material on that page and the material you quote here are in the main uncited quotes. You are citing sloppy polemics, not anything remotely scholarly. Would you accept at face value anti-Baha'i writings like this? :no:

I note, in particular, two especially egregious examples:


Seriously? A range of 38 years for a synod which met for maybe a couple weeks? It's also persecuting Judaizing Christians, not Jews. :doh:


There are several saints named Gregory, with voluminous writings. This "citation" is worthless. It is also, assuming it is an accurate quote, most likely polemic delivered to prevent Christians from Judaizing, not to advocate persecution of Jews. Your source is plainly not interested in accuracy, however, but engaging in polemics himself. Would he accept an anti-Jewish writing from an apostate Jew, like he does an anti-Christian writing from an apostate Christian? I highly doubt it.
I noticed that with several of the examples that shuny provides have nothing whatsoever to do with persecution of the Jews but rather that Christians should refrain from interacting with them. For instance, in two of the first three examples



306: The church Synod of Elvira banned marriages, sexual intercourse and community contacts between Christians and Jews. 3,4

325: The Council of Nicea decided to separate the celebration of Easter from the Jewish Passover. They stated: "For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people...We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews...our worship follows a...more convenient course...we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews...How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded."

To equate these and several others with calls to subjugate and either forcibly convert or exterminate is ridiculous in the extreme.

And while several early church fathers had harsh words for the Jews what is missing is any call to harm them. Those harsh words were used to support injunctions not to interact with them.

rogue06
11-22-2015, 09:58 AM
Duck, Bob and Weave at its finest. The citations are valid, picking two you have issues with does not amount to a refutation.
They more than serve to call into question the validity of your list.

rogue06
11-22-2015, 10:01 AM
It is not against Christian tenants. Many of the Christian tenants are those of the Baha'i Faith.

It is taking responsibility and being honest about history, which seer seems to want you blame it all on atheists.
Then you should have no trouble citing verses where Christians are told to go out and harm those who disagree with them.

shunyadragon
11-22-2015, 11:05 AM
Then you should have no trouble citing verses where Christians are told to go out and harm those who disagree with them.

The list and others I will cite include both, in particular Martin Luther's essay on Jews. Your neglecting some citations to take exceptions to others. To exclude Jews from normal interaction with society is distinctly part of the mix.

The bloody pogroms, ethnic cleansing, and persecution by Christians of Jews are clearly part of the history, which you are conveniently neglecting.

rogue06
11-22-2015, 11:16 AM
The list and others I will cite include both, in particular Martin Luther's essay on Jews. Your neglecting some citations to take exceptions to others. To exclude Jews from normal interaction with society is distinctly part of the mix.

The bloody pogroms, ethnic cleansing, and persecution by Christians of Jews are clearly part of the history, which you are conveniently neglecting.
Do you think that Luther was saying that the Bible teaches that Christians should persecute the Jews? And which of your citations from the Bible tell anyone to persecute the Jews or anyone else?

shunyadragon
11-22-2015, 11:22 AM
Do you think that Luther was saying that the Bible teaches that Christians should persecute the Jews?

Yes!!!


And which of your citations from the Bible tell anyone to persecute the Jews or anyone else?

Gave them, describing Jews as Evil, Christ killers and enemies of the gospel. These are cited by those that persecute Jews.

rogue06
11-22-2015, 11:27 AM
Yes!!!



Gave them, describing Jews as Evil, Christ killers and enemies of the gospel. These are cited by those that persecute Jews.
And yet not a single one states or implies that Christians ought to go out and persecute them, correct? All you have cited are verses that some Christians would cite hundreds of years later in order to try to rationalize their behavior. Are you truly so dense as to not be able to see the difference?

So let's try again, please cite a verse where Christians are instructed to persecute anyone.

Tassman
11-22-2015, 05:13 PM
Do you think that Luther was saying that the Bible teaches that Christians should persecute the Jews? And which of your citations from the Bible tell anyone to persecute the Jews or anyone else?

Of course he does: "...but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!"

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html

rogue06
11-22-2015, 06:13 PM
Of course he does: "...but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!"

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html
Which Biblical verse is he referencing?

Tassman
11-22-2015, 11:01 PM
Which Biblical verse is he referencing?

Ah,so you're suggesting that Martin Luther, a seminal figure in the Protestant Reformation, got it wrong...that he misunderstood the intent of the bible with regard to the Jews?

Juvenal
11-23-2015, 05:13 AM
Abrogation for this verse is very popular, although you can find a few scholars who say otherwise.

Uh huh. Right. And every single Muslim and Imam I've ever spoken to thinks otherwise. And I've spoke to quite a few, having spent years amongst Muslims in Muslim-majority countries. I made no secret of the fact I was not a Muslim, and they made no secret of the fact they'd like me to change my stance on that. Please note I'm not dead.

But get this. They'd always cite that ayah. "No compulsion." It's central to their faith, cutting across all the weird variants you find as you move from country to country. Muslims that know diddly-squat of the Qur'an know this verse.

And let's be honest here. Finding an exception might make your chest pump up a bit, but when all is said and done, 99.9999 percent correct is still correct, and pushing the .0001 position makes you look like you're lying for Jesus, too.

And then there's this ...

Scholars disagree and hold various positions regarding the legal status and meaning of this ayat. A few scholars say otherwise? Where do you get this stuff? Oh, geez ...

No. Just no. You don't learn about Christianity from Muslims, and you don't learn about Islam from Christians. That's absurd. They've been at each others throats for over a thousand years.

It's like trying to get a meaningful character reference from a guy's ex-wife. Only squared, and cubed, and extended across 50 generations. Why bother? Maybe you can convince yourself that's justified, but everyone looking on sees that's only because you're dating his ex-wife.


If you want to accuse someone of lying, it's those who practice Islam and taqqiya/abrogation who you should have your sights on, not rogue06.

And now this. Seriously, dude. Who does this? Would you go into court claiming you're not guilty of murder because someone else committed some other murder? Be my guest, and let me know how that works out for you.

Not that taqiyya is what you think it is. Mostly it's an intra-Muslim insult directed by Sunnis at Shi'a — who represent about ten percent of Islam ... because they had a history of passing as Sunni to prevent Sunnis from whacking off their heads. The "no compulsion" thing is only about becoming Muslim, not leaving Islam, and despite the fact the breach is primarily political, Sunnis have always gotten more traction for their wars against the Shi'a by claiming they were heretics who'd left the faith.

Define taqiyya (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+taqiyya)


In Shi'a Islam, taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, especially while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.

Taqiyya has never been a Sunni tradition, which is why they feel so free to hurl the insult at Shi'a. And, even so, the Shi'a deny the tradition is still relevant, insisting instead that it was meant for a particular time, so in neither case can you claim they feel free to practice it.


Or, maybe you should do some research before you jump down someone's throat for "lying" when you yourself put in blatant falsehood* in your own post is rather contemptible IMO.

Let me suggest you're not the poster child for careful research on this one. So spare me your meaningless contempt, at least until after you've cleaned up enough to get your facts straight.

And maybe you should avoid doubling down on the lying for Jesus while you're at it. Muslims don't believe the ayah has been abrogated. And ever if you were right in thinking they should, it makes no difference that you think they should if they don't. You can't claim they're motivated by something they should believe if they don't believe it.

For all that, if you'd like some cover for that faceplant, it seems the rougelly one has helpfully providing it for you ...


Surah 256, like the other passages that called for peace and tolerance, were later abrogated (superseded or repealed) by surah 9:5 (Ayat al-Sayf or the Verse of the Sword).

Good luck convincing Muslims of that. Just as a helping hand, though, if you're going to try, you might want to learn the difference between a sur'at and an ay'at. There is no "Surah 256." That may be just a small typo, but it's a huge mistake. It's glaring. Not so bad as leaving the "not" out of the adultery commandment in the Wicked Bible, but snigger-worthy still.

Now the fruit of the cherry-picking in your sequel is a hodgepodge of truths, half-truths, and falsehoods, and all kinds of laughable ignorance that needs unpacking before we strike the coup de grace for this argument.

Start with abrogation. It's a real thing, generally supported, and a real embarrassment of the point-and-laugh variety. And worse, because of the piecemeal nature of the oral revelations, and the shuffling and reshuffling that took place in assembling the Qur'an itself, there's plenty of room for doubt about which verses abrogate which. While later obviously abrogates earlier, the most intuitive approach, going by the numbering, is useless. Because the Surah were roughly ordered by length, 2:256 doesn't imply precedence over 9:5. Surah 2 comes first because it's longer, not because Surah 9 was revealed later.

In practice, the order of revelation is determined by linking revelations to their history — a history which, quite naturally for an oral tradition with decades to work with, splits sloppily between the "yeah that probably happened," "maybe, sorta coulda happened," and "did you bring enough of that for everyone" varieties. The splitting of the moon between the mountains? I'm calling 'shrooms on that one.

The largest useful distinction, roughly equivalent to the break between Old and New Testaments, is between the earlier Meccan and later Medinan Surah. While there are some obvious cues to distinguish between the earlier Meccan and later Medinan Surah, such as the "Oh people" / "Oh believers" paradigm, that only gets you so far. In particular, in this case, both of these verses are Medinan.

The argument against Surah 9:5 abrogating 2:256 doesn't rest on arguments against abrogation in any case. The history is clear from the verse itself. They were in the middle of a war that featured a four-month "cease fire" in the battles against a specific enemy at a specific time. It's not generally applicable, though I'd be willing to revisit it if they ever declare a four-month cease-fire against us.

Let me know if that happens, k?


<snipping copyright violations>

1. AFAICT, without exception, all Islamic religious scholars state that abrogation not only included the abolishing, dropping or replacing of a verse by another (often contradictory) verse, but it also includes abolishing a provision of a verse without eliminating its wording or text from the Qur'an. So the verses that were later repealed and replaced remain in the Qur'an but are no longer in effect

2. Actually the Ghassanids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids) with Al-Harith ibn Jabalah being their king.

3. Popularly known for his attacks on Mickey Mouse, calling women who drive prostitutes and blaming the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami on immorality.

4. He is still so widely esteemed and revered that Jabhat al-Nusra (a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria) demolished his tomb earlier this year because they viewed it as sacrilegious.

Pro-tip: When citing sources for authoritative rulings in Islam, don't impugn their authority in your footnotes.

I'm not willing to suspend disbelief far enough to grant you went hunting through the Qur'an, Hadith, and Islamic scholarship and just happened to notice only those scholars and traditions, sahih and otherwise, that supported your thesis, miraculously missing traditions and scholars that said otherwise.

This is somebody else's research, and posting it under your own name, in academic circles, is called "plagiarism" ... though the less politically correct (see what I did there) and arguably more accurate term is "stealing." Then again, you're not an Islamic scholar, or an academic, just another Islamaphobic blowhard on the internet, ironically engaged in a purely Christian form of taqiyya, the kind that quickly comes around to bite you in the butt.

Let me say it again. Muslims don't believe this. They don't believe 2:256 has been abrogated.

And that's a mighty damn good thing.

What are you thinking, you schlub! You want to encourage a religious war between half the humans on the planet by convincing them otherwise?

Dayum.

Freaking think before you post, Rogue.

Juvenal
11-23-2015, 05:40 AM
To be clear, I am in no sense a Muslim apologist. Islam is still centuries behind Christianity in its evolution toward a religion that's safe to be let out in public. Radicalized Christianity is far more rare today. Moreover, the Christian sacred texts went through a decades- and even centuries-longer vetting process, and it shows. And Christianity had better texts to work with in the first place.

But there are good arguments against Islam and its sacred texts, and Christianity and its texts too for that matter, and crap arguments. I'm more than happy to listen to the former, and just as happy to call out the latter.

And I pay close attention to which sources prove themselves unreliable.

The Thinker
11-23-2015, 07:19 AM
You are somehow conflating the State and the Church. The Church is not the State. When I say Christian State I mean those states who have a Judeo-Christian slant.

It's the secular slant that you should be emphasizing. The more serious and "Judeo-Christian" one is the more they tend to be against Muslims and other non-Christians existing in their society. The Republican party here in the US - which is the party of Jesus - is even flirting with the idea of closing Mosques and putting Muslims in a database. And 30 governors have refused to take in Syrian refugees. 29 of those states have Republican governors (http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456336432/more-governors-oppose-u-s-resettlement-of-syrian-refugees).

The Thinker
11-23-2015, 07:22 AM
I've never been convinced by atheist claims that the non-existence of religion gives rise to a better world. There's a lot of stupid things that could be corrected without eradicating religion.

You completely misunderstood what I wrote. I said the exact opposite: making the world a better place makes it less religious.

Cerebrum123
11-23-2015, 07:29 AM
Uh huh. Right. And every single Muslim and Imam I've ever spoken to thinks otherwise. And I've spoke to quite a few, having spent years amongst Muslims in Muslim-majority countries. I made no secret of the fact I was not a Muslim, and they made no secret of the fact they'd like me to change my stance on that. Please note I'm not dead.

And? Not all Muslim majority countries go the route Mohammed mainly used. Taqqiya and propaganda are more useful today anyway.


But get this. They'd always cite that ayah. "No compulsion." It's central to their faith, cutting across all the weird variants you find as you move from country to country. Muslims that know diddly-squat of the Qur'an know this verse.

Yeah, and they know about it due to propaganda, and lies. You know, the kind you have repeated here in this post. Maybe you could show where this verse was made a Pillar of Islam, but I'm pretty sure you can't.


And let's be honest here. Finding an exception might make your chest pump up a bit, but when all is said and done, 99.9999 percent correct is still correct, and pushing the .0001 position makes you look like you're lying for Jesus, too.

:ahem:
It's been the majority position throughout Islamic history.


And then there's this ...

Scholars disagree and hold various positions regarding the legal status and meaning of this ayat. A few scholars say otherwise? Where do you get this stuff? Oh, geez ...

Is there a problem with them citing Muslim scholars? I would have thought that Muslim scholars would be pretty good sources on things like tafsir, and how things like abrogation apply.


No. Just no. You don't learn about Christianity from Muslims, and you don't learn about Islam from Christians. That's absurd. They've been at each others throats for over a thousand years.

You know what they say when someone assumes something, right? Apply that now.
I went to the Muslim sites first when I started my study on Islam, but they were unwilling to answer questions, and lied about many they did answer. How do I know this? By reading what they cited in context. You do know that it's good to read both sides of an issue, right? Well, that's what I did, and I found the Islamic side that I encountered to be dishonest, or uninformed.


It's like trying to get a meaningful character reference from a guy's ex-wife. Only squared, and cubed, and extended across 50 generations. Why bother? Maybe you can convince yourself that's justified, but everyone looking on sees that's only because you're dating his ex-wife.

Read the above.


And now this. Seriously, dude. Who does this? Would you go into court claiming you're not guilty of murder because someone else committed some other murder? Be my guest, and let me know how that works out for you.

:ahem:
By your analogy I was providing evidence that someone else was the murderer.


Not that taqiyya is what you think it is. Mostly it's an intra-Muslim insult directed by Sunnis at Shi'a — who represent about ten percent of Islam ... because they had a history of passing as Sunni to prevent Sunnis from whacking off their heads. The "no compulsion" thing is only about becoming Muslim, not leaving Islam, and despite the fact the breach is primarily political, Sunnis have always gotten more traction for their wars against the Shi'a by claiming they were heretics who'd left the faith.

Define taqiyya (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+taqiyya)


In Shi'a Islam, taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, especially while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.

Taqiyya has never been a Sunni tradition, which is why they feel so free to hurl the insult at Shi'a. And, even so, the Shi'a deny the tradition is still relevant, insisting instead that it was meant for a particular time, so in neither case can you claim they feel free to practice it.

Wow, just wow. They will say that their version of taqiyah is different (http://islamqa.info/en/178975), but Sunni Muslims do subscribe to taqiyah. (http://islamqa.info/en/59879) It is not a Shia only practice, and it mentioned in the Quran and Sahih Hadith.

Quran: Surah:16 Ayat:106]Pickthall: Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom.

Lying isn't just allowed to avoid death either.

It is narrated in al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, v3, p61, that:

After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet (S) was approached by Hajaj Ibn `Aalat and told: "O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you (to escape persecution)?”The Prophet (S) excused him and said:

"Say whatever you have to say."

Narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, v7, p102, that Abu al-Darda’ said:

"(Verily) we smile for some people, while our hearts curse (those same people)."


Let me suggest you're not the poster child for careful research on this one. So spare me your meaningless contempt, at least until after you've cleaned up enough to get your facts straight.

Yeah, this coming from someone who has bought the propaganda hook line and sinker. :ahem:


And maybe you should avoid doubling down on the lying for Jesus while you're at it. Muslims don't believe the ayah has been abrogated. And ever if you were right in thinking they should, it makes no difference that you think they should if they don't. You can't claim they're motivated by something they should believe if they don't believe it.

Yeah, this is going to be reported. This is a clear unfounded, and unsubstantiated accusation of lying. Second, there are Muslim scholars who say it's been abrogated, and that goes back a long way. Third, I never said all Muslims believe what Islam teaches. There you go assuming again.

If I knew that you knew what you were posting was a lie, then I would accuse you of lying, because there is demonstrably false information here. Remember, disagreement doesn't count as lying, sincerely saying something that happens to be wrong isn't lying. Lying is when you say something you know is false.


For all that, if you'd like some cover for that faceplant, it seems the rougelly one has helpfully providing it for you ...

snipping response to rogue. I'll let him deal with that.

:ahem:

I'll let rogue06 finish this one. It's pretty clear you're not worth dealing with any more than I've done so already. I'm writing this because I need to blow off some steam*. It's become clear that you're not someone I can discuss things with seriously. I'll be unsubscribing now.

*Yeah, being called a liar without substantiation can make a person upset. I have a feeling that someone who's nickname is "jerk" knows that already though.

The Thinker
11-23-2015, 07:34 AM
As the Judaeo-Christian nations have become secularized it has been negotiated under Judaeo-Christian guiding principles, IOW secularists etc have been able to point to Christian principles to win freedoms for themselves. As progressive secularism takes hold there will be no Christian principles of love, tolerance and seeking good for all to point to. It will be what the secularists want and nothing else will be tolerated.

That is not completely true. I agree that secularism came out of the Protestant Christian culture, and may not have came out so easily from a Muslim culture or different religion. I'll give you that. But saying there will be no "Christian principles of love, tolerance and seeking good" without Christianity is absurd. Christianity doesn't own the copyrights to love, tolerance and seeking good. They didn't invent it. As Christopher Hitchens said, "Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it." The more secular and liberal people are, the more they tend to be tolerant of others who are different.

The Thinker
11-23-2015, 07:43 AM
More laziness I see. Do tell non-thinker, why is atheist China so violent, if your claim is true? :popcorn: I await your answer.

China is violent? Really? What facts are you backing that up with? I don't see any. I see an assertion, or an assumption, based on your opinion. One source (http://freakonomics.com/2013/02/12/whats-the-real-crime-rate-in-china/)I found says that "Murder rates in China are roughly one-fifth as high as in the United States." Another source (http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/China/United-States/Crime) says that violent gun crimes are 18 times more in the US than China, and violent crime in general is 4 times more in the US than China. So your whole question is based on a false assumption.

rogue06
11-23-2015, 07:53 AM
Good luck convincing Muslims of that.
I don't have to. It's what they teach. Not to non-Muslims though. That's where they pretend that Islam means peace (false, it means submission), act bewildered about the concept of abrogation, and tell the gullible that taqqiya is an intra-Muslim insult[1] (while it is true that the Sunni don't use the same term they have the exact same practice which is called idtirar. Both started out as a way for Muslims to avoid persecution by lying (contrast to early Christian martyrs) but later evolved into far more with the justification that Muhammad regularly employed deception against infidels).

I suggest you look into what the Muslims say to each other and what they teach as opposed to the message that they present to non-Muslims. Over the years the Israelis have done a splendid job translating radio and TV broadcasts that they picked up that were meant for internal consumption. The differences between them and the messages provided to outsiders are stark and unsettling.

And some did nothing to hide exactly what they felt but were quite open about it. One of the most notorious examples was Ayatollah Khomeini (yes I know he was a Shiite, but that hardly disqualifies him as a Muslim) who spoke on the subject of "Peace" and "Jihad," making it clear what the orthodox (Shiite) view is on the matter:


“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other [countries] so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured ? Islam says: Kill them [non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Quranic] psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

Let’s see, "Those who know nothing pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless." and "Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword." Seems pretty clear[[b]2].

But since he was a Shiite, let's throw in a Sunni, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, who was the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia and Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, who delivered a sermon on the history of jihad as recorded by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University of Medina, where he said that for Muslims, fighting (with weapons, that is) is "obligatory" against "all those who worship others along with Allah." That includes Christians and Jews. "The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fires of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures."

Frankly, your assurances that "Muslims don't believe this. They don't believe 2:256 has been abrogated" will come as little comfort to the people living in the Sudan, of whom hundreds of thousands and up to a million have been murdered in recent years by Muslim jihadists intent on forcibly converting them. Likewise, similar things are happening in Indonesia with the Moluccas, as well as in Nigeria and west African countries. But they have nothing to fear because you said otherwise.

But maybe there is an explanation aside from outright duplicity that explains the contradictory messages. Perhaps this observation from Bassam Tibi (a Muslim who until his retirement was Professor for International Relations at Göttingen University as well as well as having eighteen visiting professorships at top universities such as the University of California Berkeley and Princeton along with being a visiting senior fellow at Yale University) about how Muslims consider waging war to spread Islam to really be an act of peace might explain some of the different messages:


"In this sense Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but fulfillment of the Quranic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (“harb”), a word that is only used to describe the use of force by non-Muslims.”

IOW, wars instigated by Muslims to spread Islam do not count as wars to Muslims (no matter how many people are killed), but are instead meritorious efforts to liberate the world from disbelief (“jahallyya”) by its submission to Islam. Only submission brings peace, and it is the non-Muslim’s failure to submit that “provokes” war! This philosophy is frighteningly reminiscent of the old Communist definition of peace: the ceasing of resistance toward communist expansion.




And yes, I accidentally left out the surah number and only put in the ayah. I meant surah 2:256 where it says "Let there be no compulsion in religion." And yes I'm well aware that the Qur'an is organized by chapter length but that isn't why what is written in surah 9 abrogates what was written in surah 2. Surah 9 was written later, and is in fact regarded by many if not most as the last surah written (again some say it was surah 110).

And btw I do have some understanding about how the Qur'an was ultimately compiled (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8236-Quran-might-predate-Muhammad&p=238498&viewfull=1#post238498).

Oh and as for your...



if you're going to try, you might want to learn the difference between a sur'at and an ay'at.

...don't you think that is rich coming from the same person who made an utter fool of himself the last time he said this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2920-quot-Five-Israeli-talking-points-debunked-quot-Interesting&p=82497&highlight=Surah+2%3A256#post82497)?

And finally, as for your insinuation of plagiarism, I cited my sources throughout my post. The works are for the most part rather widely available. It was no great feat to look them up and, if online, to use the find feature to speed up the process (and considering that most of this I've done over the years and keep bookmarked makes it a pretty quick process for me to do). For those that aren't on the internet, the advantage to living well within walking distance of a university library (1 mile to the campus about another ¼ to the library building itself although I usually drive and go on Sunday when parking is free and widely available) does have its perks.
















1. Farid Esack, a visiting Professor at Auburn Theological Seminary, even told those gullible enough to believe him that jihad has nothing to do with waging Holy War to spread Islam but instead was all about (are you ready for this?) "resisting apartheid or working for women’s rights." Riiiiight. Jihad is all about "working for women’s rights." :lmbo:

2. It should be noted that Shaul Bakhash, an Iranian born Jew who is a noted Middle Eastern historian has said he doubts the authenticity of the quote but AFAICT has never given any reason for why he has doubts. It may be due to the fact that one of those who has cited it, Amir Taheri, does have a history of providing quotes that cannot be substantiated but FWIU he is not the only source (though the most frequently cited one).

Carrikature
11-23-2015, 09:01 AM
Again, the point being made is that it’s NOT that the non-existence of religion gives rise to a better world. But that a better, highly educated world tends to dispense with religion as being unnecessary.

I think you're confused on who is claiming what. I agree with this and have said as much.



Well it seems to work that way. One of the few highly religious countries in the developed world, i.e. the US, nevertheless has a disproportionately large criminal under-class…are you saying that despite claims to the contrary, religion has no positive impact on the lives of its adherents?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm

You made this one up out of whole cloth. What part of "criminals aren't religious" says "religion has no positive impact"?



So you’re saying that in a nation of c 80% practising Christians, the gross wealth disparity has nothing to do with the religion of its adherents…that religion has no positive impact on national justice or the social mores, that it’s impotent?

“…there’s evidence that rising inequality and many other intractable social problems are related.”

http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/

Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth. You've created a bunch of non-sequiturs and are acting as if they're my claims. They're not.



Yes, it’s NOT the non-existence of religion per se that gives rise to a better world but the overall higher education levels of a prosperous nation and the consequent dispensing of religion as being of little use and potentially divisive.

Which, again, I haven't disagreed with.

shunyadragon
11-23-2015, 09:04 AM
And yet not a single one states or implies that Christians ought to go out and persecute them, correct? All you have cited are verses that some Christians would cite hundreds of years later in order to try to rationalize their behavior. Are you truly so dense as to not be able to see the difference?

So let's try again, please cite a verse where Christians are instructed to persecute anyone.

I have already done that. Your not only dense, but carrying a load of heavy bias.

Carrikature
11-23-2015, 09:20 AM
You completely misunderstood what I wrote. I said the exact opposite: making the world a better place makes it less religious.

Yes, I know that's what you said. You also said "kill two birds with stone...eradicate religion." What, exactly, is the point in seeking to eradicate religion unless you think it's a net evil?

rogue06
11-23-2015, 10:02 AM
I have already done that. Your not only dense, but carrying a load of heavy bias.
No shuny, you have not even come close. It is the same as if someone said that when you called me dense and biased that was exactly the same as saying I should be persecuted and attacked.

So were you saying that I should be persecuted?

The Thinker
11-23-2015, 11:06 AM
Yes, I know that's what you said. You also said "kill two birds with stone...eradicate religion." What, exactly, is the point in seeking to eradicate religion unless you think it's a net evil?

When did I say "eradicate religion"?

Andius
11-23-2015, 12:02 PM
Well, according to Adherents.com the most secular nations in the world also tend to rank high on the Income Adjusted Human Development Index…obviously there will be some anomalies, e.g. Vietnam...but it's reasonable to correlate the two factors.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

And it is precisely because of those anomalies that I for one argue that it is unreasonable to correlate those two factors. I for one consider that there are enough anomalies to destroy such correlation, enough anomalies to resist the idea of making a "general theory" between IAHDI rankings and secularity, especially when researchers such as Zuckerman fall short in connecting the dots properly between the correlations (especially at institutional level, where it is critical to justify the correlations beyond the mere correlations).


There’s no ecclesiastical body as part of State administration in Australia. There’s a minuscule religion-based political party but it has no effective impact.

Oh, I was referring to Norway. And the how the Church of Norway and the Government are actually still bound together (Despite their drifting apart in 1997 and 2012 revisions in their Constitution). And I was emphasizing how even Australia is nowhere close to the level of equality and development of Norway in matters of health, education, and income. And how it's ridiculously high rate of IDHI (and wink wink, one where funnily enough the Church is active in) has not brought about levels of secularity on the scale of Sweden or Estonia, which is why (amongst dozens of reasons) I don't find your argument of national Development spawning greater secularity compelling.


Yes there will always be anomalies in statistics of this sort, but the overall trend, to quote Zukerman is: “Those societies today that are the most religious — where faith in God is strong and religious participation is high — tend to have the highest violent crime rates [e.g. the USA], while those societies in which faith and church attendance are the weakest — the most secular societies — tend to have the lowest” [e.g. Norway and Australia].

Oh now you want to insert crime rate? Look Tass, choose a parameter and focus on it okay? If you want to talk about another parameter, by all means start a different thread, I'm fine with that. However, you are wasting time and energy debating with me if you are going to be unwarrantingly adding parameter after parameter trying to argue in general matter how prosperity brings about secularity in societies. One aspect at a time Tass, particulars is what I prefer, especially since the assertion of prosperity having a higher propensity to bring about secularity is about as oversimplified as asserting that market economies have a higher propensity to bring about national prosperity.

One more thing, Phil Zuckerman is sociologist, an overrated yet not a bad one mind you,but quite frankly (and from reading his works) he has a poor understanding of how criminality works. I am not going to take seriously his word on matters that are outside his purview, he is hardly on par with more competent criminologists like say Randall G. Sheldon or Andrés Antillano, and I know of no serious criminologist that advances the argument that there is a connection between religiosity (which one of all?, which already makes the question extremely problematic) and crime (which crimes? Again, problematic). And to reinstate, Zuckerman makes way too many simplistic associations and explanations in his research, which makes me very critical of his work.


That’s not the argument. The argument is that the more prosperous and better educated nations tend to dispense with religion, NOT that secularity in itself promotes equality.

Well that clarifies things a lot more. I stand corrected.

Nonetheless, the argument of prosperity and education leading to greater secularity is an argument that I don't consider compelling nonetheless, at least when too much stock is placed on correlations.


That’s not his argument. See above re the more prosperous and better educated nations tending to dispense with religion. This tends to be the consequence of secularization, not the cause.

Alright agreed, but still doesn't change his statement that secular societies can succeed, and one that I actually find no problem with and am in agreement with. And again see above, I don't consider compelling the thesis that prosperity and education erodes religion.

In a nutshell way too complicated of a subject, and one that I consider absolutely resists simple explanations. The whole truth resists simplicity gig.

Carrikature
11-23-2015, 12:13 PM
When did I say "eradicate religion"?

Destroy what we're against socially, economically, and politically, and we could help destroy religion as a convenient by-product of that.

The Thinker
11-23-2015, 12:59 PM
Destroy what we're against socially, economically, and politically, and we could help destroy religion as a convenient by-product of that.

Ok, but you quoted me saying something I didn't, and that is dishonest.

Carrikature
11-23-2015, 01:23 PM
Ok, but you quoted me saying something I didn't, and that is dishonest.

I did no such thing. I always use the quote function for direct quotes. On top of that, you've admitted here that I wasn't even wrong about what you were saying. :no:

shunyadragon
11-23-2015, 02:32 PM
No shuny, you have not even come close. It is the same as if someone said that when you called me dense and biased that was exactly the same as saying I should be persecuted and attacked.

So were you saying that I should be persecuted?

Calling them Christ killers, enemies of the gospels, and evil.You are ignoring the facts.

Tassman
11-23-2015, 10:57 PM
I think you're confused on who is claiming what. I agree with this and have said as much.




You made this one up out of whole cloth. What part of "criminals aren't religious" says "religion has no positive impact"?




Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth. You've created a bunch of non-sequiturs and are acting as if they're my claims. They're not.




Which, again, I haven't disagreed with.

Well it seems we agree. The world, generally speaking, is more equitable and less violent when it’s less religious.

Tassman
11-23-2015, 11:22 PM
And it is precisely because of those anomalies that I for one argue that it is unreasonable to correlate those two factors. I for one consider that there are enough anomalies to destroy such correlation, enough anomalies to resist the idea of making a "general theory" between IAHDI rankings and secularity, especially when researchers such as Zuckerman fall short in connecting the dots properly between the correlations (especially at institutional level, where it is critical to justify the correlations beyond the mere correlations).

I disagree. The anomalies aren’t sufficient to disregard the whole argument. There’s sufficient evidence to indicate trends and generally speaking, the world is more equitable and less violent when it’s less religious.


Oh, I was referring to Norway. And the how the Church of Norway and the Government are actually still bound together (Despite their drifting apart in 1997 and 2012 revisions in their Constitution). And I was emphasizing how even Australia is nowhere close to the level of equality and development of Norway in matters of health, education, and income. And how it's ridiculously high rate of IDHI (and wink wink, one where funnily enough the Church is active in) has not brought about levels of secularity on the scale of Sweden or Estonia, which is why (amongst dozens of reasons) I don't find your argument of national Development spawning greater secularity compelling.

The Church of Norway as with the Church of England has long been the established church of the land. But in both instances the people are quite indifferent to it as indicated by the Adherents.com statistics.

Presumably Australia ranks no. 2 in the IHDI because it fulfils the required criteria. And religion plays no part in governance at any level. Several Australian prime-ministers have been overtly atheist including one of the most popular prime-ministers ever, Bob Hawke. I doubt an atheist would make it past first base in US politics.


Oh now you want to insert crime rate? Look Tass, choose a parameter and focus on it okay? If you want to talk about another parameter, by all means start a different thread, I'm fine with that. However, you are wasting time and energy debating with me if you are going to be unwarrantingly adding parameter after parameter trying to argue in general matter how prosperity brings about secularity in societies. One aspect at a time Tass, particulars is what I prefer, especially since the assertion of prosperity having a higher propensity to bring about secularity is about as oversimplified as asserting that market economies have a higher propensity to bring about national prosperity.

Do you think that the “crime rates” and high levels of incarceration aren't linked? Surely the USA having the highest rates of incarceration in the world indicates a high crime rate as well.




One more thing, Phil Zuckerman is sociologist, an overrated yet not a bad one mind you,but quite frankly (and from reading his works) he has a poor understanding of how criminality works. I am not going to take seriously his word on matters that are outside his purview, he is hardly on par with more competent criminologists like say Randall G. Sheldon or Andrés Antillano, and I know of no serious criminologist that advances the argument that there is a connection between religiosity (which one of all?, which already makes the question extremely problematic) and crime (which crimes? Again, problematic). And to reinstate, Zuckerman makes way too many simplistic associations and explanations in his research, which makes me very critical of his work.

Zukerman is merely making an observation based upon statistics, namely: “Those societies today that are the most religious — where faith in God is strong and religious participation is high — tend to have the highest violent crime rates [e.g. the USA], while those societies in which faith and church attendance are the weakest — the most secular societies — tend to have the lowest” [e.g. Norway and Australia].

This seems to be a reasonable conclusion to arrive at, especially as one would be hard-pressed to find a deeply religious nation that ranks high on the IHDI…the very religious USA only ranked 28th, as noted, despite its great wealth.


Well that clarifies things a lot more. I stand corrected.

That's courteous of you, thank you.


Nonetheless, the argument of prosperity and education leading to greater secularity is an argument that I don't consider compelling nonetheless, at least when too much stock is placed on correlations.

Nevertheless the correlation is there.


Alright agreed, but still doesn't change his statement that secular societies can succeed, and one that I actually find no problem with and am in agreement with. And again see above, I don't consider compelling the thesis that prosperity and education erodes religion.

In a nutshell way too complicated of a subject, and one that I consider absolutely resists simple explanations. The whole truth resists simplicity gig.

Even so, as a general rule the better educated nations statistically tend be the least religious and vice versa. The same tends to apply within nations, e.g. the most religiously orientated states in the US tend to be in the Mid-West and Deep-South…areas not known for their intellectual sophistication.

mrcurious
11-24-2015, 12:49 AM
Surah 256, like the other passages that called for peace and tolerance, were later abrogated (superseded or repealed) by surah 9:5 (Ayat al-Sayf or the Verse of the Sword).

The doctrine of abrogation is stated in the Qur'an itself (2:106): "Such of our revelation as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof." So a later statement that contradicts an earlier one is thought to be better and abrogates the earlier statement[1] -- and nearly all Muslim scholars agree that the Surah Bara'ah (the ninth) was the very last surah in the Qur'an that was revealed (although a few say it was al-Nasr or surah 110) meaning what is contained in it abrogates virtually everything else.

This practice caused Muhammad's opponents to declare that he was a calumniator and didn't receive inspiration from God because he changed his mind whenever he wished. While Muslims have no problem with this, it is recognized in the Qur'an itself that others do: "And when we put one revelation in place of another revelation – and Allah knows best what he reveals – they say, 'Lo! Thou art but inventing'” (16:101).

The great Spanish Muslim philosopher Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi (1165-1240) proclaimed that surah 9:5 abrogated something like 124 of the more tolerant and peaceful Quranian ayahs.

The man who is regarded by many as the Muslim world's most respected Qur'an commentator, the revered Muslim expert on tafsir (Quranic exegesis) and faqīh (jurisprudence), Ismail ibn Kathir (c.1300-1373), declared that surah 9:5 "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term. ... No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety since Surah Bara'ah [the ninth] was revealed." He adds that "Allah's pardon for the disbelievers was repealed. Abu Al-`Aliyah, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, Qatadah and As-Suddi said similarly: "It [the pardon, or forgiveness] was abrogated by the Ayah [verse] of the sword."

Today, the conservative Muhammad Saalih Al-Munajjid[3], who's fatawas (edicts or rulings) circulate throughout the Islamic world and are taken very seriously, in discussing surah 2:256 ("Let there be no compulsion in religion"), quoted Surahs 8:39, 9:29 along with 9:5 and declared "these and similar verses abrogate those saying there is no compulsion to become Muslim."

So warfare against non-Muslims until they were converted or utterly oppressed was mandated by Muhammad.

This is confirmed by what we read in the Hadiths including the ones venerated as being authoritative like the Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari:


Sahih Muslim 1:33: The Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat."

Sahih al-Bukhari 2:24: "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Sahih al-Bukhari 8:387: "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.'"

Sahih al-Bukhari 60:80: "The Verse:--'You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.' means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam."

Aside from the Hadiths, Ibn Ishaq (704-767/8, regarded as the earliest and most thorough of Islam's historians), who wrote the Sīrat Rasūl Allāh ("Life of the Messenger of God") relates that,


"Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited."

The text makes clear that the al-Harith[2] were only taught about Islam after their coerced "conversion," demonstrating that it was based on their fear of being slaughtered.

Further, as Ibn Ishaq relates, when Abu Sufyan ibn Harb (the leader of the chief of the Banu Abd-Shams clan of the Quraish tribe of Mecca) went to seek peace with Muhammad, he was instead told (in Muhammad's presence): "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah before you lose your head."

Likewise, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (839–923), the well respected historian and exegete of the Qur'an, best known for his Qur'anic commentary Tafsir al-Tabari and his historical chronicle Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk ("History of the Prophets and Kings") recounts in volume 9 of his History


"In this year, in the month of Rabi II (it is said in the month of Rabi’ I or in Jumada I), the Messenger of God sent Khalid ibn al-Walid with an army of four hundred to the Banu al-Harith ibn Ka’b.

The Messenger of God sent Khalid ibn al-Walid in the month of Rabi II, or Jumada I, in the year 10/631 to the Balharith ibn Ka’b in Najran, and ordered him to invite them to Islam for three days before he fought them. If they should respond to him [with the acceptance of Islam], then he was to accept it from them, and to stay with them and teach them the Book of God, the sunnah of His prophet, and the requirements of Islam (ma’alim al-islam); if they should decline, then he was to fight them.

Khalid departed and came to them, sending out riders in every direction inviting them to Islam and saying, “O people, accept Islam, and you will be safe.” So they embraced Islam and responded to his call. Khalid stayed with them, teaching them Islam, the Book of God, and the sunnah of His prophet."

In volume 10 Tabari quotes Al-Hubab ibn al-Mundhir ibn Zayd (an advisor of Muhammad and who participated during in the meeting at saqifah during the Succession to Muhammad), who was supporting one group of Muslims in their quest for leadership after Muhammad's death, as saying:


"For you are more deserving of this authority than they are, as it was by your swords that those who were not yet converted came to obey this religion."

Finally, I'll cite Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik ("Reliance of the Traveler and Tools of the Worshiper"), one of the most highly respected works on Islamic theology and jurisprudence and based on the teachings of Abu Zakaria Muhiy ad-Din Yahya Ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi (or just Al-Nawawi -- 1233–1277)[4]. It has something to say about jihad and forced conversion that is relevant to this discussion:


"Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word “mujahada”, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self, (nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from jihad, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

1) Fighting is prescribed for you [2:216]

2) Slay them wherever you find them [4:89]

3) Fight the idolaters utterly [9:36]

and such Hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet said:


“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah.”

And the hadith reported by Muslim,


“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”"


















1. AFAICT, without exception, all Islamic religious scholars state that abrogation not only included the abolishing, dropping or replacing of a verse by another (often contradictory) verse, but it also includes abolishing a provision of a verse without eliminating its wording or text from the Qur'an. So the verses that were later repealed and replaced remain in the Qur'an but are no longer in effect

2. Actually the Ghassanids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids) with Al-Harith ibn Jabalah being their king.

3. Popularly known for his attacks on Mickey Mouse, calling women who drive prostitutes and blaming the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami on immorality.

4. He is still so widely esteemed and revered that Jabhat al-Nusra (a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria) demolished his tomb earlier this year because they viewed it as sacrilegious.

I find it quite amazing, you quote a verse COMPLETELY out of context and saying that since sura 9 is one of the last suras revealed then it abrogates ALL verses of peace. Lets analyze this just a bit and put things in a bit of context so we can all see what verse 9:5 is speaking of.

9:3 And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.

So I have a question here maybe the "experts" who you were quoting, or even yourself can help us answer: Why, if Muhammad is truly powerful at this point and Islam is established, and since this supposedly is an evil religion that is spread by the sword, would he give the polytheists a chance to repent? Why not just kill them all regardless if they repented or not? If you believe this is the last sura and it abrogates every other peaceful verse regarding war, why wouldn't this sura flat out say kill all the polytheists regardless?

now lets go to verse 4 which you skipped as well:

9:4 Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

So again I'm confused here. Why would a so called evil, tryannical, suppressive, forceful religion let the polytheists who didn't violate the peace treaty made at hudaibiya, live? Why didn't the verse say, let them live if they become muslims if not kill them?

Now 9:5
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

So clearly the ones who have violated the treaty, if they repent pray, and give to the poor they get to live. Also there is a 4 month period for them to repent, the Muslims didn't fight them in the times of sacred months. I don't know if you can put the dots together, but it was a certain group of polytheists who broke the treaty FIRST, the ones that didn't were left alone. Seems very practical, you don't attack me I don't attack you. But if you attack me I will attack you.

And then you skipped 9:6 so conveniently:
And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

Ok Ok, How you can build your case here I don't know. This chapter supposedly abrogates other peaceful verses but here Allah says if the polytheists come to the muslims for protection the muslims are to protect them so they can HEAR (note, it doesn't say convert) the words of God.

9:7 How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

I can't believe this! Allah tells the Muslims to honor their treaty!!! Where is the forceful conversion or not, death by the sword?! Where are the evil verses?!!!

But here is the defining verse, so you can really see the scope of 9:5 had you bothered to actually read it instead of going to an anti-muslim website and cherry pick your verses to try and make a quite deceiving claim.

9:13 Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.

So let me get this straight, you have a problem with killing a certain group of polytheists who started the killing first? Just what do you expect?! Let them continue to be slaughtered and not defend themselves. Quoting sura 9 worked COMPLETELY against you. You quoted a chapter that was revealed during a time of war.

But just in case you want to know for certainty who started this battle, maybe you should have read a bit farther along:

shunyadragon
11-24-2015, 05:47 AM
Surah 256, like the other passages that called for peace and tolerance, were later abrogated (superseded or repealed) by surah 9:5 (Ayat al-Sayf or the Verse of the Sword).

The doctrine of abrogation is stated in the Qur'an itself (2:106): "Such of our revelation as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof." So a later statement that contradicts an earlier one is thought to be better and abrogates the earlier statement[1] -- and nearly all Muslim scholars agree that the Surah Bara'ah (the ninth) was the very last surah in the Qur'an that was revealed (although a few say it was al-Nasr or surah 110) meaning what is contained in it abrogates virtually everything else.

This practice caused Muhammad's opponents to declare that he was a calumniator and didn't receive inspiration from God because he changed his mind whenever he wished. While Muslims have no problem with this, it is recognized in the Qur'an itself that others do: "And when we put one revelation in place of another revelation – and Allah knows best what he reveals – they say, 'Lo! Thou art but inventing'” (16:101).

The great Spanish Muslim philosopher Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi (1165-1240) proclaimed that surah 9:5 abrogated something like 124 of the more tolerant and peaceful Quranian ayahs.

The man who is regarded by many as the Muslim world's most respected Qur'an commentator, the revered Muslim expert on tafsir (Quranic exegesis) and faqīh (jurisprudence), Ismail ibn Kathir (c.1300-1373), declared that surah 9:5 "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term. ... No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety since Surah Bara'ah [the ninth] was revealed." He adds that "Allah's pardon for the disbelievers was repealed. Abu Al-`Aliyah, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, Qatadah and As-Suddi said similarly: "It [the pardon, or forgiveness] was abrogated by the Ayah [verse] of the sword."

Today, the conservative Muhammad Saalih Al-Munajjid[3], who's fatawas (edicts or rulings) circulate throughout the Islamic world and are taken very seriously, in discussing surah 2:256 ("Let there be no compulsion in religion"), quoted Surahs 8:39, 9:29 along with 9:5 and declared "these and similar verses abrogate those saying there is no compulsion to become Muslim."

So warfare against non-Muslims until they were converted or utterly oppressed was mandated by Muhammad.

This is confirmed by what we read in the Hadiths including the ones venerated as being authoritative like the Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari:


Sahih Muslim 1:33: The Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat."

Sahih al-Bukhari 2:24: "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Sahih al-Bukhari 8:387: "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.'"

Sahih al-Bukhari 60:80: "The Verse:--'You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.' means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam."

Aside from the Hadiths, Ibn Ishaq (704-767/8, regarded as the earliest and most thorough of Islam's historians), who wrote the Sīrat Rasūl Allāh ("Life of the Messenger of God") relates that,


"Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited."

The text makes clear that the al-Harith[2] were only taught about Islam after their coerced "conversion," demonstrating that it was based on their fear of being slaughtered.

Further, as Ibn Ishaq relates, when Abu Sufyan ibn Harb (the leader of the chief of the Banu Abd-Shams clan of the Quraish tribe of Mecca) went to seek peace with Muhammad, he was instead told (in Muhammad's presence): "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah before you lose your head."

Likewise, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (839–923), the well respected historian and exegete of the Qur'an, best known for his Qur'anic commentary Tafsir al-Tabari and his historical chronicle Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk ("History of the Prophets and Kings") recounts in volume 9 of his History


"In this year, in the month of Rabi II (it is said in the month of Rabi’ I or in Jumada I), the Messenger of God sent Khalid ibn al-Walid with an army of four hundred to the Banu al-Harith ibn Ka’b.

The Messenger of God sent Khalid ibn al-Walid in the month of Rabi II, or Jumada I, in the year 10/631 to the Balharith ibn Ka’b in Najran, and ordered him to invite them to Islam for three days before he fought them. If they should respond to him [with the acceptance of Islam], then he was to accept it from them, and to stay with them and teach them the Book of God, the sunnah of His prophet, and the requirements of Islam (ma’alim al-islam); if they should decline, then he was to fight them.

Khalid departed and came to them, sending out riders in every direction inviting them to Islam and saying, “O people, accept Islam, and you will be safe.” So they embraced Islam and responded to his call. Khalid stayed with them, teaching them Islam, the Book of God, and the sunnah of His prophet."

In volume 10 Tabari quotes Al-Hubab ibn al-Mundhir ibn Zayd (an advisor of Muhammad and who participated during in the meeting at saqifah during the Succession to Muhammad), who was supporting one group of Muslims in their quest for leadership after Muhammad's death, as saying:


"For you are more deserving of this authority than they are, as it was by your swords that those who were not yet converted came to obey this religion."

Finally, I'll cite Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik ("Reliance of the Traveler and Tools of the Worshiper"), one of the most highly respected works on Islamic theology and jurisprudence and based on the teachings of Abu Zakaria Muhiy ad-Din Yahya Ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi (or just Al-Nawawi -- 1233–1277)[4]. It has something to say about jihad and forced conversion that is relevant to this discussion:


"Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word “mujahada”, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self, (nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from jihad, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

1) Fighting is prescribed for you [2:216]

2) Slay them wherever you find them [4:89]

3) Fight the idolaters utterly [9:36]

and such Hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet said:


“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah.”

And the hadith reported by Muslim,


“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”"


















1. AFAICT, without exception, all Islamic religious scholars state that abrogation not only included the abolishing, dropping or replacing of a verse by another (often contradictory) verse, but it also includes abolishing a provision of a verse without eliminating its wording or text from the Qur'an. So the verses that were later repealed and replaced remain in the Qur'an but are no longer in effect

2. Actually the Ghassanids with Al-Harith ibn Jabalah being their king.

3. Popularly known for his attacks on Mickey Mouse, calling women who drive prostitutes and blaming the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami on immorality.

4. He is still so widely esteemed and revered that Jabhat al-Nusra (a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria) demolished his tomb earlier this year because they viewed it as sacrilegious.

As before with the Bible, your selective one-sided citation of the Quran, like the Bible, is used to justify the biased view of the justification of what you.

It sort of reminds me of how YEC and OEC believers justify their selective dishonest view of science to justify what the believe.

The post by 'mrcurious' clearly demonstrates this. In reality Judaism, Christianity and Islam are ancient world views with a scripture that is a minefield of selective justification to make it comfortable for believers to make it fit today's world.

Carrikature
11-24-2015, 06:46 AM
Well it seems we agree. The world, generally speaking, is more equitable and less violent when it’s less religious.

Which is why criminals tend to not be religious?

:doh:

The Thinker
11-24-2015, 07:19 AM
I did no such thing. I always use the quote function for direct quotes. On top of that, you've admitted here that I wasn't even wrong about what you were saying. :no:

Yes you did. You quoted me saying "eradicate religion". I wrote no such thing either on this thread or in that blog post I linked you to. You're being dishonest and now you're lying to get out of it. I challenge you to find where I wrote "eradicate religion" anywhere on this thread.

shunyadragon
11-24-2015, 07:40 AM
Which is why criminals tend to not be religious?

:doh:

Actually many criminals in prisons claim to be very religious, either Christian or Jesus.

:doh: is not meaningful.

Littlejoe
11-24-2015, 07:40 AM
Yes you did. You quoted me saying "eradicate religion". I wrote no such thing either on this thread or in that blog post I linked you to. You're being dishonest and now you're lying to get out of it. I challenge you to find where I wrote "eradicate religion" anywhere on this thread.

...So you have to consider whether doing this may be a chance to kill two birds with one stone for the secular, liberal, progressive advocate like myself: Destroy what we're against socially, economically, and politically, and we could help destroy religion as a convenient by-product of that. It's a win-win situation!"

Source of Quote (http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2015/09/does-making-world-better-place-allow.html)

That seems pretty clear cut. Destroy and eradicate are certainly close enough synonyms here that you owe Carrikature an apology.

Carrikature
11-24-2015, 07:48 AM
Yes you did. You quoted me saying "eradicate religion". I wrote no such thing either on this thread or in that blog post I linked you to. You're being dishonest and now you're lying to get out of it. I challenge you to find where I wrote "eradicate religion" anywhere on this thread.

:sigh:

I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I said. I do not use " " in an attempt to portray direct quotes. I use the quote and cite functions for that. It is why we have them, after all. There is no lying here nor is there any possible benefit to me to do so. I don't care that much. I paraphrased what I took to be your meaning from the things you said. You haven't bothered to challenge that meaning; you're just mad about how I expressed it. Do so if you wish, but don't expect me to care.

For what it's worth, you should be careful with accusations of lying on this website. Once upon a time, the rules required demonstrating the lie in the same post where you call someone a liar. Mods have been pretty lax about enforcing that afaict, but I don't think the rule has changed. In this particular case, you can't demonstrate me to be lying because I wasn't. Miscommunication happens, but that doesn't mean one party is lying.

Carrikature
11-24-2015, 07:52 AM
Actually many criminals in prisons claim to be very religious, either Christian or Jesus.

Maybe that has something to do with conversion rates in prison...



:doh: is not meaningful.

Anything to score a point, eh Shuny?

seer
11-24-2015, 07:55 AM
Actually many criminals in prisons claim to be very religious, either Christian or Jesus.

:doh: is not meaningful.

They are called jail house conversions - I know, I did prison ministry for a number of years. And after all the Gospel is made for sinners.

The Thinker
11-24-2015, 07:59 AM
...So you have to consider whether doing this may be a chance to kill two birds with one stone for the secular, liberal, progressive advocate like myself: Destroy what we're against socially, economically, and politically, and we could help destroy religion as a convenient by-product of that. It's a win-win situation!"

Source of Quote (http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2015/09/does-making-world-better-place-allow.html)

That seems pretty clear cut. Destroy and eradicate are certainly close enough synonyms here that you owe Carrikature an apology.

I'm accusing him of quoting me on something I did not write, which is what he did. I don't care whether the meaning is the same. Attributing a quote to someone that has not written those exact words sets a dangerous precedent.

The Thinker
11-24-2015, 08:01 AM
:sigh:

I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I said. I do not use " " in an attempt to portray direct quotes. I use the quote and cite functions for that. It is why we have them, after all. There is no lying here nor is there any possible benefit to me to do so. I don't care that much. I paraphrased what I took to be your meaning from the things you said. You haven't bothered to challenge that meaning; you're just mad about how I expressed it. Do so if you wish, but don't expect me to care.

For what it's worth, you should be careful with accusations of lying on this website. Once upon a time, the rules required demonstrating the lie in the same post where you call someone a liar. Mods have been pretty lax about enforcing that afaict, but I don't think the rule has changed. In this particular case, you can't demonstrate me to be lying because I wasn't. Miscommunication happens, but that doesn't mean one party is lying.

It's OK Carrikature. No one's perfect, not even Jesus. Just try not to do it again.

Tassman
11-24-2015, 08:44 PM
Which is why criminals tend to not be religious?

:doh:

This is questionable.

And it doesn't explain why the only overtly religious nation in the developed Western World, i.e. the USA, has by far the highest rates of incarceration and that the least religious nations tend to have much lower rates of incarceration, e.g. Norway. Don’t Christians claim that only religion can provide a solid moral foundation for a nation, so why so many criminals in the US?

Tassman
11-24-2015, 09:49 PM
They are called jail house conversions - I know, I did prison ministry for a number of years. And after all the Gospel is made for sinners.

Poor creatures! Haven't they been punished enough? :ahem:

seer
11-25-2015, 06:09 AM
Poor creatures! Haven't they been punished enough? :ahem:

Except, I have seen some pretty hard men turn their lives around and become good citizens because of the Gospel. They came to believe in a God that loves and forgives them, and they have hope beyond this vale of tears. Something atheism can not offer.

Carrikature
11-25-2015, 08:19 AM
This is questionable.

There aren't real numbers on it. Conversions while incarcerated are really high, though, which would pretty much indicate that pre-incarceration numbers are low. In truth, 'religious' is much too broad, as one can identify as religious without identifying with a specific religion. More to the point, people following the tenets of their religion aren't likely to be committing crimes that are specifically prohibited by their religion.



And it doesn't explain why the only overtly religious nation in the developed Western World, i.e. the USA, has by far the highest rates of incarceration and that the least religious nations tend to have much lower rates of incarceration, e.g. Norway. Don’t Christians claim that only religion can provide a solid moral foundation for a nation, so why so many criminals in the US?

It doesn't explain it because you're not looking at what's actually happening. What you should be asking is "what are people being imprisoned for[/URL]?" Currently, ~48% are in federal prison (https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp) for drug related offenses at the federal level, and ~16% at the state level (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf). Drug-use and religion aren't mutually exclusive (thought most religious will frown on drug-use, I don't know that it's specifically forbidden).

You should also be looking at contributing factors, like income disparity and ethnicity. Correlation is not causation. The percentage of religious people in the US and relative rates of incarceration aren't remotely related, but you're sticking them together as if they were.

shunyadragon
11-25-2015, 09:43 AM
There aren't real numbers on it. Conversions while incarcerated are really high, though, which would pretty much indicate that pre-incarceration numbers are low. In truth, 'religious' is much too broad, as one can identify as religious without identifying with a specific religion. More to the point, people following the tenets of their religion aren't likely to be committing crimes that are specifically prohibited by their religion.




It doesn't explain it because you're not looking at what's actually happening. What you should be asking is "what are people being imprisoned for[/URL]?" Currently, ~48% are in federal prison (https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp) for drug related offenses at the federal level, and ~16% at the state level (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf). Drug-use and religion aren't mutually exclusive (thought most religious will frown on drug-use, I don't know that it's specifically forbidden).

You should also be looking at contributing factors, like income disparity and ethnicity. Correlation is not causation. The percentage of religious people in the US and relative rates of incarceration aren't remotely related, but you're sticking them together as if they were.

As I said before, 'It is a meaningless issue.'

lilpixieofterror
11-25-2015, 03:42 PM
. . . and Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo! :lmbo:

Is that sort of like how you keep pretending to be a theist?

lilpixieofterror
11-25-2015, 03:45 PM
I wonder if it's possible to make a less relevant claim and still remain on topic. Your personal history of crime doesn't have anything to do with incarceration rates. Even at a 95% incarceration rate, there would still be ~16 million Americans that had never seen jail time.

Curious how you totally ignored most of my post (you know, the part where I pointed out a reason nobody has refuted yet) and how you don't want to jump down Andus' throat for saying the same thing I did. In case you forgot what Tazzy Wazzy said, let me remind you:


Except that the one country in the prosperous, developed world where Christianity is still taken seriously is the USA and the US ranks as one of the most violent, inequitable societies in the west with the highest rate of incarceration.

Did you skip over the underlined part, in your quest to try to make those you disapprove of look bad?

lilpixieofterror
11-25-2015, 03:50 PM
To make a reference I'm certain you won't get, the US is a kill-stealer. The US played a part. But the major role? Support it. The Russians held an entire front more or less on their own and helped the British in Africa. They lost ~25 million people in the process. The US? ~400,000. The US wasn't even invaded. Do you think the Cold War would have been as close if the Soviet Union hadn't lost that many people? I don't.

And did you somehow miss the part where China is still a communist nation? Or North Korea? Laos? Vietnam? They sure look defeated to me. :no:

The US also sent tons and tons of materials and supplies to the Russians and you seem to be forgetting that before Stalin and Hitler were at war with one another, they helped one another (or did you forget about the secret deals between Hitler and Stalin). Remember, the war didn't start turning to the allies favor until after the US entered the war.

BTW the Soviet Union usually lagged beyond the west in technology and industry and was only really able to keep up by giving harsher conditions to it's people and the reason they lost 25 million people was mainly due to Stalin's paranoia and fear about his own power in which he killed/imprisoned anybody who could oppose him before the USSR entered WWII and therefore ensured that the country was unprepared to fight the Nazi's. If anything, Stalin's poor choices is what got many of his people killed.

lilpixieofterror
11-25-2015, 03:56 PM
China is violent? Really? What facts are you backing that up with? I don't see any. I see an assertion, or an assumption, based on your opinion. One source (http://freakonomics.com/2013/02/12/whats-the-real-crime-rate-in-china/)I found says that "Murder rates in China are roughly one-fifth as high as in the United States." Another source (http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/China/United-States/Crime) says that violent gun crimes are 18 times more in the US than China, and violent crime in general is 4 times more in the US than China. So your whole question is based on a false assumption.

Check out the states on how many people China executes on a yearly bases dear and get back to me and I also don't recall the US murdering people for being Christians or running down people, on purpose, with tanks, do you?

Carrikature
11-25-2015, 04:19 PM
Curious how you totally ignored most of my post (you know, the part where I pointed out a reason nobody has refuted yet) and how you don't want to jump down Andus' throat for saying the same thing I did. In case you forgot what Tazzy Wazzy said, let me remind you:

Did you skip over the underlined part, in your quest to try to make those you disapprove of look bad?

I don't disapprove of you. I have no need to make you look bad (you do that yourself). I generally find talking to you to be a waste of time because you frequently can't even tell when we're agreeing about something.

In this particular case, we agree that Tassman's portrayals regarding violence and religion in the US are wrong. Andius has been challenging things using statistics and comparisons of other countries (things Tassman has also been referencing). I've been challenging things along another track (religious affiliation of criminals). You used an anecdote that doesn't even interact with the subject except tangentially. I'm not 'jumping down Andius' throat' because he keeps making intelligent posts.



The US also sent tons and tons of materials and supplies to the Russians and you seem to be forgetting that before Stalin and Hitler were at war with one another, they helped one another (or did you forget about the secret deals between Hitler and Stalin). Remember, the war didn't start turning to the allies favor until after the US entered the war.

BTW the Soviet Union usually lagged beyond the west in technology and industry and was only really able to keep up by giving harsher conditions to it's people and the reason they lost 25 million people was mainly due to Stalin's paranoia and fear about his own power in which he killed/imprisoned anybody who could oppose him before the USSR entered WWII and therefore ensured that the country was unprepared to fight the Nazi's. If anything, Stalin's poor choices is what got many of his people killed.

None of which establishes the US as putting a stop to Nazism or Communism. I didn't 'forget' anything. I don't find it sufficient to counter my point for all that Stalin is a convenient scapegoat.

seer
11-25-2015, 04:26 PM
None of which establishes the US as putting a stop to Nazism or Communism. I didn't 'forget' anything. I don't find it sufficient to counter my point for all that Stalin is a convenient scapegoat.


First, a good case could be made that the Soviet Union and Briton could not have survived the early part of the war without lend lease, which the Soviets shared a large portion. There was no country on earth that had the manufacturing base to match Germany and Japan. We were called the Arsenal of Democracy for a reason. As far as the Cold war it was largely the US alone standing against Soviet expansion, eventually bankrupting them. They were on the moving world wide, even with their lower population. And NATO kept the rest of Europe free (and we the US was basically NATO), we funded the largest share.

lilpixieofterror
11-25-2015, 04:31 PM
I don't disapprove of you. I have no need to make you look bad (you do that yourself). I generally find talking to you to be a waste of time because you frequently can't even tell when we're agreeing about something.

And yet, you're trying to jump down my throat for no real reason. How quaint. :ahem: I also love the passive aggressive back slap you've added in to boot. :thumb: You're on a roll tonight!


In this particular case, we agree that Tassman's portrayals regarding violence and religion in the US are wrong. Andius has been challenging things using statistics and comparisons of other countries (things Tassman has also been referencing). I've been challenging things along another track (religious affiliation of criminals). You used an anecdote that doesn't even interact with the subject except tangentially. I'm not 'jumping down Andius' throat' because he keeps making intelligent posts.

Tazzy Wazzy makes a bald assertion, so sorry... I'm not spending time refuting bald assertions when he doesn't bother to back his assertions, with evidence. I know that is a hard concept for you to understand, but if Tazzy Wazzy isn't going to take the time to back up his claims, it isn't my job to spend the time to refute him. Anyway, I'm sorry, I thought you lived in the US too, so tell me, if you avoid criminal activities and avoid areas, of your city or town known for criminal activities, what is your chances of being involved in a crime?


None of which establishes the US as putting a stop to Nazism or Communism. I didn't 'forget' anything. I don't find it sufficient to counter my point for all that Stalin is a convenient scapegoat.

I'm sorry, but Stalin's poor leadership and paranoia is what caused his country to suffer as much as it did and you're forgetting that the USSR was given tons of supplies by the US government for it's war efforts and likely would not have survived the war without those supplies (remember, 40% of the USSR's industry was destroyed during the war and the USSR was already behind the rest of the west, including Germany, in industrial capacity). Sorry, but only somebody who is ignorant of history and the basic facts of the WWII could seriously claim the US didn't play a major rule in putting a stop to the Axis Powers or is it just happenstance that the war turned in favor of the allies after the US joined the war and not before? If you don't believe me, just look at all the stuff the US built during WWII, at the end of the war, the US Navy had 6,768 ships in service, the US built 200,000 combat aircraft, over 2,000 liberty ships were built, etc. Go take a look at the other countries outputs and see if they compare. In essence, the Axis powers lost because they couldn't keep up with this mass production effort and this isn't counting the other allies efforts either. To try to seriously claim that the US had 'little effect' in putting a stop to Nazism is foolishness (to say the least). We'll deal with this first before we move onto Communism.

Carrikature
11-25-2015, 04:45 PM
First, a good case could be made that the Soviet Union and Briton could not have survived the early part of the war without lend lease, which the Soviets shared a large portion. There was no country on earth that had the manufacturing base to match Germany and Japan. We were called the Arsenal of Democracy for a reason. As far as the Cold war it was largely the US alone standing against Soviet expansion, eventually bankrupting them. They were on the moving world wide, even with their lower population. And NATO kept the rest of Europe free (and we the US was basically NATO), we funded the largest share.

I don't really deny any of this. I don't agree with the representation of them as 'the major role', but there's not much point arguing degrees. :shrug:

I definitely don't agree with the idea that we defeated them. Communism is still around in a big way. Nazism still exists, though not in any meaningful way, but it's not as if it would have been defeated if there weren't other major powers keeping it at bay on multiple fronts. We had the manufacturing, but I don't think we could have contained them if Britain and the Soviet Union hadn't acted as they did. Imagine what it would be like if Germany had actually managed to flood into Northern Africa and Asia, or eliminated the UK as an European ally.

Carrikature
11-25-2015, 04:55 PM
And yet, you're trying to jump down my throat for no real reason. How quaint. :ahem: I also love the passive aggressive back slap you've added in to boot. :thumb: You're on a roll tonight!

What back slap? I don't think you have any ability at reading comprehension, and I've never pretended otherwise. I'm not on your side. I'm not on anyone's side.

My comment to you about irrelevant anecdotes has nothing to do with you being the source. I'd have said the same to anyone. It was irrelevant. I prefer people that actually contribute (always have).



Tazzy Wazzy makes a bald assertion, so sorry... I'm not spending time refuting bald assertions when he doesn't bother to back his assertions, with evidence. I know that is a hard concept for you to understand, but if Tazzy Wazzy isn't going to take the time to back up his claims, it isn't my job to spend the time to refute him.

No one asked you to refute bald assertions, but you did try to refute what he said. You just did so extremely unsuccessfully.



Anyway, I'm sorry, I thought you lived in the US too, so tell me, if you avoid criminal activities and avoid areas, of your city or town known for criminal activities, what is your chances of being involved in a crime?

I do live in the US. I have no idea what the crime rate is where I live. It's not something I pay attention to. Whether or not I am involved in crime doesn't drastically affect the crime rate. If the US has a really high violent crime rate, that in no way implies that any given person will have committed a crime. That's pretty basic.



I'm sorry, but Stalin's poor leadership and paranoia is what caused his country to suffer as much as it did and you're forgetting that the USSR was given tons of supplies by the US government for it's war efforts and likely would not have survived the war without those supplies (remember, 40% of the USSR's industry was destroyed during the war and the USSR was already behind the rest of the west, including Germany, in industrial capacity). Sorry, but only somebody who is ignorant of history and the basic facts of the WWII could seriously claim the US didn't play a major rule in putting a stop to the Axis Powers or is it just happenstance that the war turned in favor of the allies after the US joined the war and not before? If you don't believe me, just look at all the stuff the US built during WWII, at the end of the war, the US Navy had 6,768 ships in service, the US built 200,000 combat aircraft, over 2,000 liberty ships were built, etc. Go take a look at the other countries outputs and see if they compare. In essence, the Axis powers lost because they couldn't keep up with this mass production effort and this isn't counting the other allies efforts either. To try to seriously claim that the US had 'little effect' in putting a stop to Nazism is foolishness (to say the least). We'll deal with this first before we move onto Communism.

I didn't say 'little effect'. That's you putting words in my mouth. Repeating the same stuff doesn't make me more convinced of it. Again, I haven't 'forgotten' any of this. I simply don't find it sufficient. There are more factors than just our manufacturing capability involved (one of which is the fact we weren't being invaded by anyone).

Andius
11-25-2015, 05:24 PM
I disagree. The anomalies aren’t sufficient to disregard the whole argument. There’s sufficient evidence to indicate trends and generally speaking, the world is more equitable and less violent when it’s less religious.

It can be disregarded on the grounds that a coherent explanation on how education (Which education?), health, and income distribution contribute to propagation of secularity is not given, and one that gives account as to why it doesn't apply to nations like Ireland or Italy, and even USA. Just insisting on mere correlation makes for a very poor case.

'Ang on.... I thought you're thesis is that development in the areas of education, health, and income distribution leads to higher secularity. What's with the punditry asserting that when there is less religion, the world is more equitable? Shouldn't you be arguing for the other way around? :eh:


The Church of Norway as with the Church of England has long been the established church of the land. But in both instances the people are quite indifferent to it as indicated by the Adherents.com statistics.

Presumably Australia ranks no. 2 in the IHDI because it fulfils the required criteria. And religion plays no part in governance at any level. Several Australian prime-ministers have been overtly atheist including one of the most popular prime-ministers ever, Bob Hawke. I doubt an atheist would make it past first base in US politics.

Very true that British and Norwegian folk are very indifferent, nonetheless, Norway's Church still enjoys a fairly privileged position and role (the funds) in the State and society, and yet it's secularity still doesn't match the levels of Sweden or Estonia, despite the presence of Christian religiosity (admittedly though, very limited, and one somewhat subordinate to the interests of the Norwegian State) in matters of State, and even in it's own Constitution. So explain that.

Okay great, and true true. That's one country that fulfills your criteria, however, you still need to explain then how Australia's development lead to the decline of religion, not just say, so and so are correlated, therefore it's true.


Do you think that the “crime rates” and high levels of incarceration aren't linked? Surely the USA having the highest rates of incarceration in the world indicates a high crime rate as well.

I am open to a coherent explanation if you have one, but citing mere correlations by themselves do not make a compelling or rational case. Oh, and correction: The highest incarceration rate, as a minimum, means that the institution of US law enforcement is extremely efficient in putting folks there, and have tons of space for a nation of it's size. It has nothing to little to do with the crime rate.


Zukerman is merely making an observation based upon statistics, namely: “Those societies today that are the most religious — where faith in God is strong and religious participation is high — tend to have the highest violent crime rates [e.g. the USA], while those societies in which faith and church attendance are the weakest — the most secular societies — tend to have the lowest” [e.g. Norway and Australia].

This seems to be a reasonable conclusion to arrive at, especially as one would be hard-pressed to find a deeply religious nation that ranks high on the IHDI…the very religious USA only ranked 28th, as noted, despite its great wealth.

It is about as reasonable as making the observation upon statistics, namely: "Those folks today that are the most indigenous -- where adherence to indigenous Australian way of life is high -- tend to have the highest propensity to commit violent crimes, while those folks in which indigenousity is weakest -- the European Australians --- tend to have the lowest".

It's using the same logic, and by your standard, it ought to be a reasonable conclusion.

And no, it's not hard pressing to find deeply religious nations ranking high IHDI, Ireland is #10, and Italy is there #23. Italy being my personal favorite. :teeth:



That's courteous of you, thank you.

Your welcome, what's right is right.


Nevertheless the correlation is there.

No it isn't. :teeth: Not enough consistency by my reckoning, and more importantly, 0 explanation and justification as to how it comes about.


Even so, as a general rule the better educated nations statistically tend be the least religious and vice versa. The same tends to apply within nations, e.g. the most religiously orientated states in the US tend to be in the Mid-West and Deep-South…areas not known for their intellectual sophistication.

It doesn't work as a general rule even amongst developed nations, case in point Germany. The eastern states are some of the most secular states in Germany, yes, they tend to have superior education (I think, admittedly I am unable to find data to back that up though), and yet said education hasn't helped much in matching the level of development as western states, whilst the western states tend to have higher rates of religiosity (by German standards) coupled along with high rates of development. By your reckoning, it should be the other way around I think. At most (by your standards), Eastern may have more education, which in turn it continues to reproduce it's secularity, yet it is still lagging behind compared to the western states.

Intellectual sophistication low in the South?? Have you not read their literature?

Tassman
11-25-2015, 08:35 PM
There aren't real numbers on it. Conversions while incarcerated are really high, though, which would pretty much indicate that pre-incarceration numbers are low. In truth, 'religious' is much too broad, as one can identify as religious without identifying with a specific religion. More to the point, people following the tenets of their religion aren't likely to be committing crimes that are specifically prohibited by their religion.




It doesn't explain it because you're not looking at what's actually happening. What you should be asking is "what are people being imprisoned for[/URL]?" Currently, ~48% are in federal prison (https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp) for drug related offenses at the federal level, and ~16% at the state level (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf). Drug-use and religion aren't mutually exclusive (thought most religious will frown on drug-use, I don't know that it's specifically forbidden).

You should also be looking at contributing factors, like income disparity and ethnicity. Correlation is not causation. The percentage of religious people in the US and relative rates of incarceration aren't remotely related, but you're sticking them together as if they were.

So you're disagreeing with the Christian claim that only religion can provide a solid moral foundation for a nation. I concur. The tendency is that nations that ranking high in the IHDI tend to be the more secular nations, not the more religious ones.

Tassman
11-25-2015, 08:58 PM
It can be disregarded on the grounds that a coherent explanation on how education (Which education?), health, and income distribution contribute to propagation of secularity is not given, and one that gives account as to why it doesn't apply to nations like Ireland or Italy, and even USA. Just insisting on mere correlation makes for a very poor case.

'Ang on.... I thought you're thesis is that development in the areas of education, health, and income distribution leads to higher secularity. What's with the punditry asserting that when there is less religion, the world is more equitable? Shouldn't you be arguing for the other way around? :eh:

The IHDI takes into account not only the average achievements of a country on health, education and income, but also how those achievements are distributed among its population. And the trend is that the countries ranking higher on IHDI tend to be less religious…remembering that “trend" is defined as “a general tendency or course of events”, not an explanation of these events. This is all I'm discussing here.

This is all that needs to be said in a discussion of this sort especially when a qualified sociologist such as Professor Zukerman, who specializes in the sociology of secularity, is is able to arrive at a generalized conclusion that: “Those societies today that are the most religious — where faith in God is strong and religious participation is high — tend to have the highest violent crime rates, while those societies in which faith and church attendance are the weakest — the most secular societies — tend to have the lowest. - Phil Zuckerman, professor of secular studies at Pitzer College.


Very true that British and Norwegian folk are very indifferent, nonetheless, Norway's Church still enjoys a fairly privileged position and role (the funds) in the State and society, and yet it's secularity still doesn't match the levels of Sweden or Estonia, despite the presence of Christian religiosity (admittedly though, very limited, and one somewhat subordinate to the interests of the Norwegian State) in matters of State, and even in it's own Constitution. So explain that.

…but it does. Both countries rank relatively high on the list of Agnostics/Atheists compared to the USA with only 9% Agnostics/Atheists.


Okay great, and true true. That's one country that fulfills your criteria, however, you still need to explain then how Australia's development lead to the decline of religion, not just say, so and so are correlated, therefore it's true.

No I don’t have to do that. The correlation is there for all to see, and this trend is similar in many other countries in the Western World. There maybe unknown mitigating factors which would modify the picture, but it's nevertheless a reasonable assumption to make given the trends.


I am open to a coherent explanation if you have one, but citing mere correlations by themselves do not make a compelling or rational case. Oh, and correction: The highest incarceration rate, as a minimum, means that the institution of US law enforcement is extremely efficient in putting folks there, and have tons of space for a nation of it's size. It has nothing to little to do with the crime rate.

So you’re saying that the USA has the highest incarceration rates in the world because it has more available space? But surely the US is not incarcerating people who haven’t committed crimes. Therefore, it seems that the most actively religious nation in the West does in fact have the most crime.


It is about as reasonable as making the observation upon statistics, namely: "Those folks today that are the most indigenous -- where adherence to indigenous Australian way of life is high -- tend to have the highest propensity to commit violent crimes, while those folks in which indigenousity is weakest -- the European Australians --- tend to have the lowest".

It's using the same logic, and by your standard, it ought to be a reasonable conclusion.

And no, it's not hard pressing to find deeply religious nations ranking high IHDI, Ireland is #10, and Italy is there #23. Italy being my personal favorite. :teeth:

See above re the meaning of the word “trend”. There will always be exceptions…exceptions prove the rule.


It doesn't work as a general rule even amongst developed nations, case in point Germany. The eastern states are some of the most secular states in Germany, yes, they tend to have superior education (I think, admittedly I am unable to find data to back that up though), and yet said education hasn't helped much in matching the level of development as western states, whilst the western states tend to have higher rates of religiosity (by German standards) coupled along with high rates of development. By your reckoning, it should be the other way around I think. At most (by your standards), Eastern may have more education, which in turn it continues to reproduce it's secularity, yet it is still lagging behind compared to the western states.

Well it does “work” when viewed as a general trend, which is all that’s being argued.


Intellectual sophistication low in the South?? Have you not read their literature?

...and their music is good too. But the demographic of higher education in the US is what it's all about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment

Carrikature
11-26-2015, 08:50 AM
So you're disagreeing with the Christian claim that only religion can provide a solid moral foundation for a nation. I concur. The tendency is that nations that ranking high in the IHDI tend to be the more secular nations, not the more religious ones.

You're really bad at this. I've said repeatedly that this is NOT what I'm saying.



So you’re saying that the USA has the highest incarceration rates in the world because it has more available space? But surely the US is not incarcerating people who haven’t committed crimes. Therefore, it seems that the most actively religious nation in the West does in fact have the most crime.

You clearly didn't understand my previous quote, despite bolding part of it. Incarceration is two-fold: crime rates and successful apprehension of criminals. In the US, drug related crimes are a significant percentage of violations. Nothing in Christianity specifically prohibits drug use (though adherents generally frown upon it).

Juvenal
11-26-2015, 10:29 AM
I don't have to. It's what they teach. Not to non-Muslims though. That's where they pretend that Islam means peace (false, it means submission), act bewildered about the concept of abrogation, and tell the gullible that taqqiya is an intra-Muslim insult[1] (while it is true that the Sunni don't use the same term they have the exact same practice which is called idtirar.

Somebody's really been slacking on their conspiracy calls. Would you believe it, I crossed whole Muslim countries without anyone getting out the word they weren't supposed to clue me in on any of that.

Let's be clear here. It's not true. Muslims talk about these things openly.

I learned that Islam means, literally, submission from Muslims in Morocco, I'd guess, as that's where I first landed, and it's about as basic a first question as you could ask. "Islam means peace" is no more deceitful than "Christianity means love." Or "lao tzu means perfect hair." It's something true believers, and non-existent ones, want associated with their image, or lack thereof, respectively, TWebbers excepted, of course. :wink:

I learned about abrogation from an Imam in Senegal. I'd originally gone to talk with him about differences between the more orthodox versions of Islam and the Mourides, an Islamic offshoot with a large following, as in millions, mostly between Senegal and the Gambia. I'd made plans to attend "Le Magal de Touba," and my host, a Sunni, had cautioned me that their beliefs were outside the Sunnah, but deferred answering how to a religious authority.

The biggest difference, according to the Imam, is the Mourides' rejection of Salah, daily prayers, the second pillar. Needless to say, the marabout I spoke to in Touba differed substantially from the Imam in Dakar in justifying the divergence, but they both spoke of abrogation as a point of contention.

I first heard the word taqiyya from the lips of a Sunni verbally attacking a Shi'a in Lebanon. It was a marketplace thing. It was an insult. It was intra-Muslim.

I've lived with these people. That's how I learned about these concepts. You learned about them from conspiracy sites, and sites dedicated to anti-Muslim propaganda.

And it shows.


Both started out as a way for Muslims to avoid persecution by lying (contrast to early Christian martyrs) but later evolved into far more with the justification that Muhammad regularly employed deception against infidels).

Are you familiar with the first pillar of Islam?


I suggest you look into what the Muslims say to each other and what they teach as opposed to the message that they present to non-Muslims. Over the years the Israelis have done a splendid job translating radio and TV broadcasts that they picked up that were meant for internal consumption. The differences between them and the messages provided to outsiders are stark and unsettling.

MEMRI, right? I've seen those, and some are truly disturbing. They're also quite obviously cherry-picked. There's no good way to tell how representative they might be.


And some did nothing to hide exactly what they felt but were quite open about it. One of the most notorious examples was Ayatollah Khomeini (yes I know he was a Shiite, but that hardly disqualifies him as a Muslim) who spoke on the subject of "Peace" and "Jihad," making it clear what the orthodox (Shiite) view is on the matter:


“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other [countries] so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured ? Islam says: Kill them [non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Quranic] psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

Let’s see, "Those who know nothing pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless." and "Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword." Seems pretty clear[[b]2].

2. It should be noted that Shaul Bakhash, an Iranian born Jew who is a noted Middle Eastern historian has said he doubts the authenticity of the quote but AFAICT has never given any reason for why he has doubts. It may be due to the fact that one of those who has cited it, Amir Taheri, does have a history of providing quotes that cannot be substantiated but FWIU he is not the only source (though the most frequently cited one).

AFAICT, Taheri's the original source, and there's no good candidate for anything independent of him. He lost his position in the Iranian revolution and has an understandable grudge against Ayatollah Khomeini because of it. His target audience doesn't need much corroboration.


But since he was a Shiite, let's throw in a Sunni, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, who was the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia and Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, who delivered a sermon on the history of jihad as recorded by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University of Medina, where he said that for Muslims, fighting (with weapons, that is) is "obligatory" against "all those who worship others along with Allah." That includes Christians and Jews. "The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fires of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures."

I wouldn't be surprised to find something at least half-true in there, but you can't lump Jews in with Christians in an imprecation against "ascribing partners to Allah," which is the frame underlying "worship others along with," something else you'd know if you'd learned your Islam from Muslims rather than anti-Muslim apologists.


Frankly, your assurances that "Muslims don't believe this. They don't believe 2:256 has been abrogated" will come as little comfort to the people living in the Sudan, of whom hundreds of thousands and up to a million have been murdered in recent years by Muslim jihadists intent on forcibly converting them. Likewise, similar things are happening in Indonesia with the Moluccas, as well as in Nigeria and west African countries. But they have nothing to fear because you said otherwise.

"Hundreds of thousands murdered" is right. "By Muslim jihadists intent on forcibly converting them" is straight up alternate reality. The Janjaweed went through those villages looking to make corpses, not converts, if you're talking about the genocide surrounding the crisis in Dafur. If you're talking about the civil war, there was indeed a Muslim/Christian/Animist component, and the north actually did try to impose their version of sharia on the south, intermittently at least, but the conflict was first and foremost about control of the oil fields.

It's the same thing over and over again. You can't find the right target because you're practicing apologetics instead of research.


But maybe there is an explanation aside from outright duplicity that explains the contradictory messages. Perhaps this observation from Bassam Tibi (a Muslim who until his retirement was Professor for International Relations at Göttingen University as well as well as having eighteen visiting professorships at top universities such as the University of California Berkeley and Princeton along with being a visiting senior fellow at Yale University) about how Muslims consider waging war to spread Islam to really be an act of peace might explain some of the different messages:


"In this sense Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but fulfillment of the Quranic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (“harb”), a word that is only used to describe the use of force by non-Muslims.”

IOW, wars instigated by Muslims to spread Islam do not count as wars to Muslims (no matter how many people are killed), but are instead meritorious efforts to liberate the world from disbelief (“jahallyya”) by its submission to Islam. Only submission brings peace, and it is the non-Muslim’s failure to submit that “provokes” war! This philosophy is frighteningly reminiscent of the old Communist definition of peace: the ceasing of resistance toward communist expansion

The Meaning of Peace (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/207580/meaning-peace-batyeor?target=author&tid=901236)


Hence Islamic wars are not wars, but meritorious efforts to liberate the world from disbelief (jahaliyya) by its submission to Islam. Only submission brings peace, and it is the non-Muslim’s failure to submit that provokes war.

Doubling down again. You didn't research those quotes. Somebody else did. Those are the sources I was asking for that you didn't provide. Your quote from Tibi starts and ends exactly as given by Bat Yeor in the article. I can find other, longer versions. You ripped that right off, Rogue. I'm calling that busted.


And yes, I accidentally left out the surah number and only put in the ayah. I meant surah 2:256 where it says "Let there be no compulsion in religion." And yes I'm well aware that the Qur'an is organized by chapter length but that isn't why what is written in surah 9 abrogates what was written in surah 2. Surah 9 was written later, and is in fact regarded by many if not most as the last surah written (again some say it was surah 110).

And btw I do have some understanding about how the Qur'an was ultimately compiled (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8236-Quran-might-predate-Muhammad&p=238498&viewfull=1#post238498).

Oh and as for your...




...don't you think that is rich coming from the same person who made an utter fool of himself the last time he said this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2920-quot-Five-Israeli-talking-points-debunked-quot-Interesting&p=82497&highlight=Surah+2%3A256#post82497)?

I can't spend the time necessary to go haring after everyone who's wrong on the internet, so forgive me for leaving you in error on that one. The importance in knowing the difference between Ayah and Surah is that you can put Ayah in a chronological order. You can't do that with Surah. It makes no sense to say that one Surah came before another. That's incoherent, because the Ayah within any one Surah can be taken from both earlier and later Gabey-whispers in comparison to individual Ayah in any other Surah. That means you can speak coherently about a particular Ayah as being the last revealed, but you can't do that with a particular Surah.

What use knowing how the jumble was put together if you can't even recognize it's a jumble?

And for what it's worth, it should be Quran 2:256, according to APA. MLA wants the chapter title, too.


And finally, as for your insinuation of plagiarism, I cited my sources throughout my post. The works are for the most part rather widely available. It was no great feat to look them up and, if online, to use the find feature to speed up the process (and considering that most of this I've done over the years and keep bookmarked makes it a pretty quick process for me to do). For those that aren't on the internet, the advantage to living well within walking distance of a university library (1 mile to the campus about another ¼ to the library building itself although I usually drive and go on Sunday when parking is free and widely available) does have its perks.

:lol:

Proven plagiarism, this time.

So how's about taking two steps down from your pretensions of doing anything more than parroting anti-Islamic articles from sources you know better than to name, and trying out some honest research, the kind that's looking for straight answers.

There were real threats exposed in the attacks on Paris. They're not keeping track of their bad guys. The ringleader had already been convicted of terrorism in Belgium, and he was waved on by at a checkpoint after the attacks. Half of them were already on watch lists.

Go ahead and explain to me how casting this as a religious war and barring refugees is going to have any effect on that.

Use your own words this time.

Tassman
11-26-2015, 08:09 PM
You're really bad at this. I've said repeatedly that this is NOT what I'm saying.

Well, in that case, I’m afraid it’s not clear what you’re saying.


You clearly didn't understand my previous quote, despite bolding part of it. Incarceration is two-fold: crime rates and successful apprehension of criminals. In the US, drug related crimes are a significant percentage of violations. Nothing in Christianity specifically prohibits drug use (though adherents generally frown upon it).

No, I think perhaps you’re not getting my argument. My interest is in the overall law and order issue, not the specific components of it.

Christians claim that a Christian-based society is necessary for the maintenance of “family values” (so called), social justice and the equitable maintenance of law and order…in short a moral, well regulated society. They claim that: “The fruit of the secular worldview can be seen in and around us. As we observe society, it is evident that not all is well. Television has degenerated into a bordello of violence, soft-pornography, anti-family sit-coms, commercials that appeal to immediate gratification, and senseless children's cartoons that are full of violence, occultism, and disobedience to parents” and so on ad nauseam. https://carm.org/what-christian-worldview-and-why-do-christians-need-one

The irony is that, among the developed nations of the western world, these dire “fruits” are most apparent in most religious nation by far, namely the USA where c. 80% of the population is Christian. These same “fruits” are not so apparent in the more secular nations of the developed world (e.g. Norway, where 72% are atheist/agnostic) and where Norway is ranked no 1, as indicated by the IHDI stats...these figures being a composite statistic of health, life expectancy, education levels, per capita income and potential human development.

Abigail
11-27-2015, 02:47 AM
That is not completely true. I agree that secularism came out of the Protestant Christian culture, and may not have came out so easily from a Muslim culture or different religion. I'll give you that. But saying there will be no "Christian principles of love, tolerance and seeking good" without Christianity is absurd. Christianity doesn't own the copyrights to love, tolerance and seeking good. They didn't invent it. As Christopher Hitchens said, "Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it." I don't think we are talking about the existence of love, tolerance and seeking good etc but rather the extents of it. Matthew 7:9-11 " 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"


The more secular and liberal people are, the more they tend to be tolerant of others who are different. I believe this will be proved to be a false impression. We are in the early days of secular liberal power. Nuff said.

shunyadragon
11-27-2015, 05:50 AM
I don't think we are talking about the existence of love, tolerance and seeking good etc but rather the extents of it. Matthew 7:9-11 " 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"

Well, I do believe that the growing lack of tolerance is an issue. Unfortunately tolerance is by degrees intolerance on how people treat and consider those who are 'different.'


I believe this will be proved to be a false impression. We are in the early days of secular liberal power. Nuff said.

Nuff said? The more apparent is that we are progressively being dominated by a right wing Evangelical agenda which proposes a Theocracy. A close (very conservative) friend and I visit different churches. We visited a church and the sermon very much exemplified the problem of what we would have with a Christian Theocracy with an Evangelical Christian agenda. I most definitely advocate a more secular government advocating a separation of Religion and State.

There is a liberal progressive side, most often described in demonizing radical terms by the Conservatives, in American society, and unfortunately an increased polarity of political, social and religious identity and middle ground that is increasingly missing from our society.

seer
11-27-2015, 07:35 AM
There is a liberal progressive side, most often described in demonizing radical terms by the Conservatives, in American society, and unfortunately an increased polarity of political, social and religious identity and middle ground that is increasingly missing from our society.

What about the demonizing of Conservatives by the left? Or are you so bias that you can't see it?

shunyadragon
11-27-2015, 09:57 AM
What about the demonizing of Conservatives by the left? Or are you so bias that you can't see it?

I basically hope for the middle ground which is becoming scarce.

seer
11-27-2015, 11:02 AM
I basically hope for the middle ground which is becoming scarce.

There is no middle ground for the left or right.

shunyadragon
11-27-2015, 02:45 PM
There is no middle ground for the left or right.

This the problem in a nutshell from the Christian conservative perspective, ie; the Tea Party no compromise.

seer
11-27-2015, 05:37 PM
This the problem in a nutshell from the Christian conservative perspective, ie; the Tea Party no compromise.

And where is the left compromising? You are completely bias Shuny..

shunyadragon
11-27-2015, 07:35 PM
And where is the left compromising? You are completely bias Shuny..

Politically the Tea Party is the on that declared 'no compromise' on anything. What you call the left never did. In the past compromise was rule for both political parties in Congress.

Your prior statement speaks for itself.

From the extreme religious view of Fundamentalist and/or Conservative Judaism, Christianity, and Islam there, of course be no compromise.

Tassman
11-27-2015, 07:35 PM
And where is the left compromising? You are completely bias Shuny..

Secularists can compromise because they're open to alternate viewpoints, whereas adherents to the one true god cannot...regardless whether it's Yahweh or Allah. Because there's no compromising "the truth".

seer
11-28-2015, 03:22 AM
Politically the Tea Party is the on that declared 'no compromise' on anything. What you call the left never did. In the past compromise was rule for both political parties in Congress.

Really, where did Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Obama, (peace be upon his name) compromise with the Republicans in his first two years before the tea party was elected? Be specific please.


From the extreme religious view of Fundamentalist and/or Conservative Judaism, Christianity, and Islam there, of course be no compromise.

As there can not be compromise with extreme liberal ideologues. You are completely bias Shuny.

seer
11-28-2015, 03:24 AM
Secularists can compromise because they're open to alternate viewpoints, whereas adherents to the one true god cannot...regardless whether it's Yahweh or Allah. Because there's no compromising "the truth".

Nonsense, liberals don't have alternate viewpoints - you are a perfect example.

robrecht
11-28-2015, 04:54 AM
Really, where did Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Obama, (peace be upon his name) compromise with the Republicans in his first two years before the tea party was elected? Be specific please. They removed the public option from Obamacare in an effort to get any Republicans and enough Democrats to support it.

shunyadragon
11-28-2015, 05:40 AM
Nonsense, liberals don't have alternate viewpoints - you are a perfect example.

You are not responding to the facts that the Conservatives imposed a 'no compromise' mandate in the Republican party, and the The Ermocrates made no such mandate. Tassman and Robrecht also made points you are not responding to.

seer
11-28-2015, 05:47 AM
They removed the public option from Obamacare in an effort to get any Republicans and enough Democrats to support it.

Wow, one thing! Be honest robrecht, the Republicans had no real input when this bill was being designed. And the Republicans had almost no say in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As opposed to Bush who had wide bipartisan support on his Medicare Prescription Drug bill, and on his Education Bill. The fact is Shuny is bias, liberals are just as closed mined (or not) as conservatives.

robrecht
11-28-2015, 05:57 AM
Wow, one thing! Be honest robrecht, the Republicans had no real input when this bill was being designed. And the Republicans had almost no say in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As opposed to Bush who had wide bipartisan support on his Medicare Prescription Drug bill, and on his Education Bill. The fact is Shuny is bias, liberals are just as closed mined (or not) as conservatives.
Obama bent over backwards trying to get just one Republican senator to endorse the plan. I think most liberals were rather unhappy with the version of Obamacare that finally passed. Don't belittle it as only one thing, since it was the single largest legislative initiative of his presidency or any other recent presidency. I do believe that Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, atheists and theists, Cubs and White Sox fans can all be as open or closed minded as each other.

seer
11-28-2015, 06:06 AM
You are not responding to the facts that the Conservatives imposed a 'no compromise' mandate in the Republican party, and the The Ermocrates made no such mandate. Tassman and Robrecht also made points you are not responding to.

Nonsense, Harry Reid would not allow Republican bills or amendments to come to the floor when he was Majority leader. And where is this no compromise mandate? Did it come from John Boehner? Paul Ryan? Mitch McConnell in the Senate? You are just making stuff up again. And remember Shuny the Tea Party members are doing what the voters sent them there to do. So really you need to blame the voters.

seer
11-28-2015, 06:07 AM
I do believe that Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, atheists and theists, Cubs and White Sox fans can all be as open or closed minded as each other.

Thank you, that was my only point. I'm tired of Shuny's selective, and bias, outrage.

lilpixieofterror
11-28-2015, 06:41 AM
What back slap? I don't think you have any ability at reading comprehension, and I've never pretended otherwise. I'm not on your side. I'm not on anyone's side.

My comment to you about irrelevant anecdotes has nothing to do with you being the source. I'd have said the same to anyone. It was irrelevant. I prefer people that actually contribute (always have).

While it's quite cute to watch you pretending that you were not being aggressive with your comments, I have better things to do than exchange passive aggressive jabs with you, so moving on...


No one asked you to refute bald assertions, but you did try to refute what he said. You just did so extremely unsuccessfully.

Nah, the problem is that you don't know the history of what you're talking about and make up assumptions as you go along because your dislike of me is in control of you. Sorry sweety, Tazzy Wazzy didn't back up his claims and it isn't my job to back them up when he refuses to back them up. I know... difficult concept...


I do live in the US. I have no idea what the crime rate is where I live. It's not something I pay attention to. Whether or not I am involved in crime doesn't drastically affect the crime rate. If the US has a really high violent crime rate, that in no way implies that any given person will have committed a crime. That's pretty basic.

Again, you're missing the point because you don't want to bother to understand what I'm saying and just assume you automatically know. My true argument is this:

If you live a life of crime; your odds of being a victim of a crime are higher than if you don't (at least living in a country, like the US).

That's all, but hey... if you want to jump down my throat and demand I give facts and figures for somebody that will just ignore them anyway... that's you're choice, but sorry... Tazzy Wazzy doesn't take the time to bother to give analysis and it isn't my job to refute his bald assertions for him. I know... difficult concept...


I didn't say 'little effect'. That's you putting words in my mouth. Repeating the same stuff doesn't make me more convinced of it. Again, I haven't 'forgotten' any of this. I simply don't find it sufficient. There are more factors than just our manufacturing capability involved (one of which is the fact we weren't being invaded by anyone).

And ignoring it doesn't make it go away either nor does making factually errors add to your credibility at all (you aware aware that US Pacific territories were invaded during WWII, therefore making your claim factually incorrect, unless you want to amend your claim that the US mainland wasn't invaded, but than again... the British isles were not invaded either). The reality is that WWII was very much a war of attrition in which the allies and axis powers tried to wear down one another and the key to winning the war was the side that could outproduce the other. Just a few examples:

- The Battle of the Atlantic was the German U-boats trying to sink ships coming to the UK faster than they could be built or deliver supplies. The Germans lost because they were unable to sink ships and supplies faster than they could be built and delivered.
- The Battle of Brittan was another key battle in which Germany was trying to wear down the RAF to establish Air superiority for their invasion of the British Isles.
- The Eastern Front was pretty much a war of attrition in which the USSR and Nazi Germany tried to kill one another and destroy each others equipment faster than can be replenished. Obviously, the Axis powers failed to do this.
- The Pacific Theater was a war of attrition in which the USN and IJN tried to sink each other faster than other one could produce ships. The Japanese could not hope to win that sort of war with the US (remember, Japanese war victories, in the late 19th and early 20th century, against another industrial power, mostly realized on winning key strategic victories and achieving limited objectives. Japanese pre-US war doctrine seems to have reflected this doctrine since they would eventually lose a war of attrition).

Sorry, but all of this stuff is pretty easy to confirm and look up if you really do not believe me. The introduction of the US into the war, on the side of the allies, gave the allies a key production advantage which allowed the allies to outproduce the axis powers and defeat them though sheer numbers (remember, by 1943 the axis powers found themselves often outnumbered and outgunned in most major engagements from about mid year to the end of the war). While you are correct, to a degree, that pure numbers do not always give you a victory; WWII lasted 6 long years and that gives the one that could produce things faster than they could be destroyed, ended up being the one with a huge advantage.

shunyadragon
11-28-2015, 09:26 AM
Wow, one thing! Be honest robrecht, the Republicans had no real input when this bill was being designed. And the Republicans had almost no say in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As opposed to Bush who had wide bipartisan support on his Medicare Prescription Drug bill, and on his Education Bill. The fact is Shuny is bias, liberals are just as closed mined (or not) as conservatives.

Your neglecting the fact that the Republicans refused to have any input in the process of the bill.

seer
11-28-2015, 09:39 AM
Your neglecting the fact that the Republicans refused to have any input in the process of the bill.

If the bill was flawed at it core, why would they? And they did offer market based solutions, like tax credits, tort reform, and the ability of health insurance companies to sell nation wide. But it all fell on deaf ears. I mean we are not socialists like the liberals Shuny. We tend to look for free market solutions.

Tassman
11-28-2015, 11:12 PM
Nonsense, liberals don't have alternate viewpoints -

I said “secularists”. Secularists can compromise because they’re not locked into (alleged) revelation-based, beliefs...they're open to many views. Conversely, religionists cannot compromise their beliefs. How can you “compromise” THE IMMUTABLE TRUTH as revealed by the one-true-god? Answer: You can’t, not without being disobedient and risking divine punishment.


you are a perfect example.

Tsk, tsk, tsk! Charity little Christian or you'll make god angry. :teeth:

Tassman
11-28-2015, 11:19 PM
If the bill was flawed at it core, why would they? And they did offer market based solutions, like tax credits, tort reform, and the ability of health insurance companies to sell nation wide. But it all fell on deaf ears. I mean we are not socialists like the liberals Shuny. We tend to look for free market solutions.

Except that you never found any with the result that until the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act the richest nation on earth was the only nation in the developed world without universal health cover.

shunyadragon
11-29-2015, 04:56 AM
Except that you never found any with the result that until the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act the richest nation on earth was the only nation in the developed world without universal health cover.

Actually I agree it is flawed, but the bottom line is that the Republicans when in power have refused to provide a healthcare system that provides healthcare for erveryone. Like Tassman said, we are the only developed nation that has provide this. It remains that, 'no compromise,' on most issues. This does reflect the over riding religious issue that extreme religious views will not compromise out side there belief system with a religious agenda. This in turn leads to violence against others ;who are different' over the millennia.

seer
11-29-2015, 05:12 AM
I said “secularists”. Secularists can compromise because they’re not locked into (alleged) revelation-based, beliefs...they're open to many views. Conversely, religionists cannot compromise their beliefs. How can you “compromise” THE IMMUTABLE TRUTH as revealed by the one-true-god? Answer: You can’t, not without being disobedient and risking divine punishment.

This is nonsense. Which secularists? The Chinese? The Stalinists? North Koreans? The liberal left in this country?



Tsk, tsk, tsk! Charity little Christian or you'll make god angry. :teeth:

The fact is bro, you are one of the most closed minded posters on this site.

seer
11-29-2015, 05:16 AM
Actually I agree it is flawed, but the bottom line is that the Republicans when in power have refused to provide a healthcare system that provides healthcare for erveryone. Like Tassman said, we are the only developed nation that has provide this. It remains that, 'no compromise,' on most issues. This does reflect the over riding religious issue that extreme religious views will not compromise out side there belief system with a religious agenda. This in turn leads to violence against others ;who are different' over the millennia.

This is stupid even for you Shuny. Conservatives don't believe that the government is the solution for all of life's ills. The fact is these social programs are sending this country into bankruptcy. They are unsustainable. This is not a religious position, it is a rational one.

seer
11-29-2015, 05:21 AM
Except that you never found any with the result that until the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act the richest nation on earth was the only nation in the developed world without universal health cover.

Well we offered them, like health saving accounts, tort reform, and tax credits, but Obama (peace be upon his names) wanted nothing to do with them. And we are the richest nation on earth because we have not accepted socialism to the degree that other Western nations have. But that is changing thanks to our liberals, our financial will be as broken as Greece in a few years.

JimL
11-29-2015, 07:38 AM
If the bill was flawed at it core, why would they? And they did offer market based solutions, like tax credits, tort reform, and the ability of health insurance companies to sell nation wide. But it all fell on deaf ears. I mean we are not socialists like the liberals Shuny. We tend to look for free market solutions.
Actually the bill is flawed because republicans did have input and democrats unlike republicans understand the necessity to compromise. The aca has a lot of good in it, which even republicans can not deny, but do you think that they, the republicans, would have actually advocated for those things on their own. Damn straight they wouldn't have.