|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| wannago wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
My main objection to the Bible, the Koran, etc. is that, if the Creator of the Universe had actually written a book, I would expect it to be a hell of a lot better -- ethically, factually, and stylistically. I mean, are we really supposed to believe that God designed bacteria, but couldn't take even a freakin' page to say "Hey guys, there are these tiny little things that can make you really sick, so wash your hands, OK? Oh, and if you get some in a cut, here's a hint: bread mold." Or: "You know, keeping other human beings chained up and using them as farm equipment is actually pretty mean."
It just doesn't add up. Some people read the Bible and are awed by what it is. I read the Bible and am puzzled by what it isn't. |
I guess that's why God got the job of being God and you didn't. |
So you're saying that God has some ineffable purpose in wanting to sound like he has no clue?
Well, that's one theory. Another theory would be that the Old Testament was not, in fact, written by God, but by a bunch of primitives whose perspective was farther down the slopes of the real. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Wow! I didn't know you could read Hebrew, ancient Greek, or Aramaic. Congratulations.
I mean, because if you're reading the Bible in English, you're reading God's word in translation. |
Man, that is one bad translation. If you have a better one, please post a link, because the version I've seen was no more written by a supreme being than Blogging for Dummies was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
My main objection to the Bible, the Koran, etc. is that, if the Creator of the Universe had actually written a book, I would expect it to be a hell of a lot better -- ethically, factually, and stylistically. I mean, are we really supposed to believe that God designed bacteria, but couldn't take even a freakin' page to say "Hey guys, there are these tiny little things that can make you really sick, so wash your hands, OK? Oh, and if you get some in a cut, here's a hint: bread mold." Or: "You know, keeping other human beings chained up and using them as farm equipment is actually pretty mean."
It just doesn't add up. Some people read the Bible and are awed by what it is. I read the Bible and am puzzled by what it isn't. |
I guess that's why God got the job of being God and you didn't. |
So you're saying that God has some ineffable purpose in wanting to sound like he has no clue?
Well, that's one theory. Another theory would be that the Old Testament was not, in fact, written by God, but by a bunch of primitives whose perspective was farther down the slopes of the real. |
Let's take for the sake of argument that there are problems with the holy books, and it is easily argued that's the case, it does not mean there is no higher power. After all, human beings wrote these books by hand based on their conception of "God". We can't really know what God is and the word is kind of meaningless, because it gives the idea as if God is some finite concept you can get a hold of, and it's not the case, because that would make the infinite finite. There are definite problems with the Old Testament with Joshua claiming God told him to kill everyone in Jericho including women and children save for a prostitute. Things like that exist in the Old Testament, but you also have the great prophet Isaiah who speaks in many ways like Jesus. The New Testament's Jesus helped set a very different tone than the Old Testament and the New Testament is a lot shorter. People can argue since they find these books fallible, God cannot exist. Religious cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, but men who wrote all these books are engaging in wars over what they think God is or is not or what is and what is not truth when that is something personal mostly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
I don't blame the religion of Islam for Al Qaeda's acts. I blame Al Qaeda.
I don't know what other posters wish to show. I just want to show what groups the like Al Qaeda and Hezzbollah are about. What their religion is immaterial to me. |
That is because you are trying to be objective. Al Qaeda is a fascist organization that is more in touch with their ends, and they don't seem to care about the means. As far as Hezbollah, they are afraid of peace, they don't know how to deal with it. They are in an unusual situation, because 1)Israel is gone except from Shebaa which is either Syrian or Lebanese 2)Sunni support for Hezbollah has evaported in Lebanon and 20% of Shiites have moved away from them. The raison d'etre of Hezbollah its confronting of Israel. The Lebanese Government is not interested in it, and Hezbollah is undemocratic and wants a monopoly of power at the expense of the Christians, Sunnis, and Druze. It is not going to happen. I think Al Qaeda is worse than Hezbollah, though.
Hezbollah is resisting confronting Sunnis whereas Al Qaeda does not.
Two of the Shiite sheikhs are cautioning the leaders of Hezbollah.
I wish for the best for the Lebanese. Both Al Qaeda and Hezbollah do present different problems, but they are not quite the same at all. |
Hizzbollah has goals or a least desires beyond Israel. As all Khomeni followers do.
Remember when Khomeni came to power Iran intended to spread its revolution through out the mideast and even to South Asia.
Al Qaeda and Hezzbollah are the same in they are both fascist hate groups. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Special Report: Why Hezbollah Fights
Stratfor Today � July 23, 2006 | 0132 GMT
To understand Hezbollah, it is important to begin with this point: Almost all Muslim Arabs opposed the creation of the state of Israel. Not all of them supported, or support today, the creation of an independent Palestinian state or recognize the Palestinian people as a distinct nation. This is a vital and usually overlooked distinction that is the starting point in our thinking.
When Israel was founded, three distinct views emerged among Arabs. The first was that Israel was a part of the British mandate created after World War II and therefore should have been understood as part of an entity stretching from the Mediterranean to the other side of Jordan, from the border of the Sinai, north to Mount Hermon. Therefore, after 1948, the West Bank became part of the other part of the mandate, Jordan.
There was a second view that argued that there was a single province of the Ottoman Empire called Syria and that all of this province � what today is Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and the country of Syria � is legitimately part of it. This obviously was the view of Syria, whose policy was and in some ways continues to be that Syria province, divided by Britain and France after World War I, should be reunited under the rule of Damascus.
A third view emerged after the establishment of Israel, pioneered by Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt. This view was that there is a single Arab nation that should be gathered together in a United Arab Republic. This republic would be socialist, more secular than religious and, above all, modernizing, joining the rest of the world in industrialization and development.
All of these three views rejected the existence of Israel, but each had very different ideas of what ought to succeed it. The many different Palestinian groups that existed after the founding of Israel and until 1980 were not simply random entities. They were, in various ways, groups that straddled these three opinions, with a fourth added after 1967 and pioneered by Yasser Arafat. This view was that there should be an independent Palestinian state, that it should be in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, extend to the original state of Israel and ultimately occupy Jordan as well. That is why, in September 1970, Arafat tried to overthrow King Hussein in Jordan. For Arafat, Amman, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv were all part of the Palestinian homeland.
After the Iranian revolution, a fifth strain emerged. This strain made a general argument that the real issue in the Islamic world was to restore religious-based government. This view opposed the pan-Arab vision of Nasser with the pan-Islamic vision of Khomeini. It regarded the particular nation-states as less important than the type of regime they had. This primarily Shiite view was later complemented by what was its Sunni counterpart. Rooted partly in Wahhabi Sunni religiosity and partly in the revolutionary spirit of Iran, its view was that the Islamic nation-states were the problem and that the only way to solve it was a transnational Islamic regime � the caliphate � that would restore the power of the Islamic world.
That pedantic lesson complete, we can now locate Hezbollah�s ideology and intentions more carefully. Hezbollah is a Shiite radical group that grew out of the Iranian revolution. However, there is a tension in its views, because it also is close to Syria. As such, it is close to a much more secular partner, more in the Nasserite tradition domestically. But it also is close to a country that views Lebanon, Jordan and Israel as part of greater Syria, the Syria torn apart by the British and French.
There are deep contradictions ideologically between Iran and Syria, though they share a common interest. First, they both oppose the Sunnis. Remember that when Lebanon first underwent invasion in 1975, it was by Syria intervening on behalf of Christian friends and against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The Syrians hated Arafat because Arafat insisted on an independent Palestinian state and Syria opposed it. This was apart from the fact that Syria had business interests in Lebanon that the PLO was interfering with. Iran also opposed the PLO because of its religious/ethnic orientation; more so because it was secular and socialist.
Hezbollah emerged as a group representing Syrian and Iranian interests. These were:
Opposition to the state of Israel
An ambiguous position on an independent Palestine
Hostility to the United States for supporting Israel and later championing Yasser Arafat
Hezbollah had to straddle the deep division between Syrian secularity and Iranian religiosity. However, the other three interests allowed them to postpone the issue.
This brings us to the current action. Three things happened to energize Hezbollah:
First, the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon, under pressure from the United States, undermined an understanding between Israel and Syria. Israel would cede Lebanon to Syria. Syria would control Hezbollah. When Syria lost out in Lebanon, its motive for controlling Hezbollah disappeared. Syria, in fact, wanted the world to see what would happen if the Syrians left Lebanon. Chaos was exactly what Syria wanted.
Second, the election of a Hamas-controlled government in the Palestinian territories created massive fluidity in Palestinian politics. The Nasserite Fatah was in decline and a religious Sunni movement was on the rise. Both accepted the principle of Palestinian independence. None made room for either Syrian or Iranian interests. It was essential that Hezbollah, representing itself and the two nations, have a seat at the table that would define Palestinian politics for a generation. But Hezbollah was more a group of businessmen making money in Beirut than a revolutionary organization. It had to demonstrate its commitment to the destruction of Israel even if it was ambiguous on the nature of the follow-on regime. It had to do something.
Third, the Sunni-Shiite fault line had become venomous. Tensions not only in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan and Pakistan, were creating a transnational civil war between these two movements. Iran was positioning itself to replace al Qaeda as the revolutionary force in the Islamic world and was again challenging Saudi Arabia as the center of gravity of Islamic religiosity. Israel was a burning issue. It had to be there. Moreover, in its dealings with the United States over Iraq, Iran needed as many levers as possible, and a front in Lebanon confronting Israel, particularly if it bogged down the Israelis, would do just that.
Hezbollah is enabled by both Syria and Iran. But precisely because of both national and ideological differences between those two countries, Hezbollah is not simply a tool for them. They each have influence over Hezbollah, but this influence is sometimes contradictory. Syria�s interests and Iran�s are never quite the same. Nor are Hezbollah�s interests quite the same as those of its patrons. Hezbollah has business interests in legal and illegal businesses around the world. It has interests within Lebanese politics, and it has interests in Palestinian politics. As a client of Syria, it looks at the region as one entity. As a client of Iran, it looks to create a theocratic state in the region. As an entity in its own right, it must keep itself going.
Given all these forces, Hezbollah was in a position in which it had to take some significant action in Lebanon, Israel and the Islamic world or be bypassed by other, more effective, groups. Hezbollah chose to act. The decision it made was to go to war with Israel. It did not think it could win the war but it did think it could survive it. And if it fought and survived, it would have a seat at the Palestinian and Lebanese tables, and maintain and reconcile the patronage of Syria and Iran. The reasons were complex, the action was clear.
Hezbollah had prepared for war with Israel for years. It had received weapons and training from Iran and Syria. It had prepared systematic fortifications using these weapons in southern Lebanon after Israel�s withdrawal, but also in the Bekaa Valley, where its main base of operations was, and in the area south of Beirut, where its political center was. It had prepared for this war carefully, particularly studying the U.S. experience in Iraq.
In our view, Hezbollah has three military goals in this battle:
1. Fight the most effective defensive battle ever fought against Israel by an Arab army, surpassing the performance of Egypt and Syria in 1973.
2. Inflict direct and substantial damage on Israel proper, using conventional weapons in order to demonstrate the limits of Israeli power.
3. Draw Israel into an invasion of Lebanon and, following resistance, move to an insurgency that does to the Israelis what the Sunnis in Iraq have done to the Americans.
In doing this, the U.S.-Israeli bloc would be fighting simultaneously on two fronts. This would place Jordan in a difficult position. It would radicalize Syria (Syria is too secular to be considered radical in this context). It would establish Hezbollah as the claimant to Arab and Islamic primacy along the Levant. It also would establish Shiite radicalism as equal to Sunni radicalism.
The capture of two Israeli soldiers was the first provocation, triggering Israeli attacks. But neither the capture nor the retaliation represented a break point. That happened when Hezbollah rockets hit Haifa, several times, presenting Israel with a problem that forced it to take military steps � steps for which Hezbollah thought it was ready and which it thought it could survive, and exploit. Hezbollah had to have known that attacking the third-largest city in Israel would force a response. That is exactly what it wanted.
Hezbollah�s strategy will be to tie down the Israelis as long as possible, first in the area south of the Litani River and then north in the Bekaa. It can, and will, continue to rocket Haifa from further north. It will inflict casualties and draw the Israelis further north. At a certain point, Hezbollah will do what the Taliban and Saddam Hussein did: It will suddenly abandon the conventional fight, going to ground, and then re-emerge as a guerrilla group, inflicting casualties on the Israelis as the Sunnis do on the Americans, wearing them down.
Israel�s strategy, as we have seen, will be to destroy Hezbollah�s infrastructure but not occupy any territory. In other words, invade, smash and leave, carrying out follow-on attacks as needed. Hezbollah�s goal will be to create military problems that force Israel to maintain a presence for an extended period of time, so that its follow-on strategy can be made to work. This will be what determines the outcome of the war. Hezbollah will try to keep Israel from disengaging. Israel will try to disengage.
Hezbollah sees the war in these stages:
1. Rocket attacks to force an Israeli response.
2. An extended period of conventional combat to inflict substantial losses on the Israelis, and establish Hezbollah capabilities to both Israel and the Arab and Islamic worlds. This will involve using fairly sophisticated weaponry and will go on as long as Hezbollah can extend it.
3. Hezbollah�s abandonment of conventional warfare for a prepared insurgency program.
What Hezbollah wants is political power in Lebanon and among the Palestinians, and freedom for action within the context of Syrian-Iranian relations. This war will cost it dearly, but it has been preparing for this for a generation. Some of the old guard may not have the stomach for this, but it was either this or be pushed aside by the younger bloods. Syria wanted to see this happen. Iran wanted to see this happen. Iran risks nothing. Syria risks little since Israel is terrified of the successor regime to the Assads. So long as Syria limits resupply and does not intervene, Israel must leave Damascus out.
Looked at from Hezbollah�s point of view, taking the fight to the Israelis is something that has not happened in quite a while. Hezbollah�s hitting of Haifa gives it the position it has sought for a generation. If it can avoid utter calamity, it will have won � if not by defeating Israel, then by putting itself first among the anti-Israeli forces. What Hezbollah wants in Israel is much less clear and important than what it opposes. It opposes Israel and is the most effective force fighting it.
Fatah and Hamas are now bystanders in the battle for Israel. They have no love for or trust in Hezbollah, but Hezbollah is doing what they have only talked about. Israel�s mission is to crush Hezbollah quickly. Hezbollah�s job is to survive and hurt Israel and the IDF as long as possible. That is what this war is about for Hezbollah. |
http://www.stratfor.com/special_report_why_hezbollah_fights |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Hizzbollah has goals or a least desires beyond Israel. As all Khomeni followers do.
Remember when Khomeni came to power Iran intended to spread its revolution through out the mideast and even to South Asia.
Al Qaeda and Hezzbollah are the same in they are both fascist hate groups. |
Yes, Hezbollah wants to accomplish the goals of the Iranian Government in Lebanon and wants to promote Shiite militancy in Lebanon and fears that the other sects want to make Hezbollah irrelevant, and it is true that the Christians, Sunnis, and Druze are getting tired of Hezbollah which is extremely undemocratic, autocratic, and it wants to get into some war with Israel over Mughniyeh while it blocks a tribunal into investigating Syria for allegedly killing a Sunni former prime minister. It is a sectarian organization. It is not as bad as Al Qaeda, but it is still a menacing and a problematic organization. Recently, Nasrallah said that the tribunal gets its authority from Meerab which is where Maronite Catholic leader Samir Geagea is based. Of course, this is false since the Sunnis want the trial. He is trying to deflect from the Sunni-Shiite divisions and knows Christians are divided thanks to Michel Aoun and Samir Geagea is challening Nasrallah and Christians are moving away from Aoun and towards the former militia leader... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adventurer wrote: |
| You think it is useful to offend? People fight, Justin, over ideas not over their DNA. If something offends one must look at the impact. |
Let this be my final word on this, since it is not terribly interesting to me: Islamic extremists endorse and kill for a position not far removed from fascistic, since it shares the latter's complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism. Given that it isn't fascism per se motivating these extremists, I say call them Islamofascists because it is clearly attempting to ally itself with Islam and principles of fascism. You think we should not say anything but 'terrorist' because it offends. I think that's just political correctness and it is absurd to remove the reference to Islam in the terminology like it would be absurd to remove 'German' from 'German neo-naziism'. If it offends, chances are the offended folks are adherents. A non-adherent should not be offended, since Islam and Islamofascist have differing reference. If they are nevertheless offended, I advocate subjecting their taking offence to criticism.
| adventurer wrote: |
Yes, but how do you know Al Qaeda's members are simply following their religion literally. If hundreds of children and women are killed because they are Yezidis there is no literal sanction for this. There is no religious precedence for it. Religious scholars don't sanction it, the Prophet Mohammed didn't do it, neither did his main general. If you are talking about slaying the pagans which the Quran mentions it was in reference to fighting adult pagan males who were fighting the Muslims in Arabia. That is different than killing pagan children. No scholar sanctions that.
Killing infidels does not including killing children and women. It never has. The Muslims at the time of Mohammed never did so. They did slay adult pagan males in battle. The urge was for killing infidels who were battling Mohammed. Islam also has rules of conduct in war. You are thinking of the Quran when it says kill the pagans wherever you find them without mercy, but that is not in reference to killing women and children. Find me Islamic scholars who state that. Also, Sabaens, for example, are a protected people not to be slayed or harmed, but a Sabaean family fled to Iraq, because fanatics threatened them. I don't really think people are reading the Quran and interpreting things literally and then following some orders based on words. These are sectarian fascists and you are giving them too much credit in terms of following their religions literally. You do have a point, but you take it too far.
Muhammad's successor and close companion, Abu Bakr, in the form of ten rules for the Muslim army:[8]
� Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.
|
It's OK to have sex with your wives on the night of the fast. 2:187
Menstruation is a sickness. Don't have sex with menstruating women. 2:222
Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." 2:228
A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282
Marry of the women two, or three, or four. 4:3
Males are to inherit twice that of females. 4:11
Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death. 4:15
You may not forcibly inherit women, unless they flagrantly lewd. 4:19
Instructions for exchanging wives 4:20
"All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."
You can't have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war (with whom you may rape or do whatever you like). 4:24
Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them. 4:34
Don't pray if you are drunk, dirty, or have touched a woman lately. 4:43
Women are feeble and are unable to devise a plan. 4:98
They invoke in his (Allah's) stead only females. 4:117
A man cannot treat his wives fairly. 4:129
"Unto the male is the equivalent share of two females." 4:176
When it's time to pray and you have just used the toilet or touched a woman, be sure to wash up. If you can't find any water, just rub some dirt on yourself. 5:6
Lot offers his daughters to a mob of angel rapers. 11:78
Lot offers his daughters to a mob of angel rapers. 15:71
When the doom of Allah comes, pregnant women will suffer miscarriages, nursing mothers with forget their babies. 22:1-2
You don't have to be modest around your wives or your slave girls "that your right hand possess." 23:6
If you accuse an honorable women of adultery, be sure to bring four witness. Otherwise you will receive 80 lashes. 24:4
A husband can accuse his wife of adultery with only one witness. 24:6
Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal themselves except to their husbands, relatives, children, and slaves. 24:31
If Muhammad's wives are good, Allah will give them "an immense reward." 33:28-29
The wives of Muhammad will be punished double for lewdness. (And that is easy for Allah.) 33:30
The wives of Muhammad are not like other women. They must not leave their houses. 33:32-33
When Allah or Muhammad decide that a man and a woman should marry, they must marry. 33:36
Allah gave Zeyd to Muhammad in marriage. This was so that all Muslims would know that it's OK to marry your adopted son's ex-wife. 33:37
Allah says it is lawful for Muhammad to marry any women he wants. 33:50-51
If men must speak to Muhammad's wives they must speak from behind a curtain. And no one must ever marry one of his wives. 33:53
But it's OK for Muhammad's wives to talk with certain people. 33:55
Women must cover themselves when in public. 33:59
Those who "did wrong" will go to hell, and their wives will go to hell with them (no matter how they behaved). 37:22-23
But the single-minded slaves of Allah will enjoy a Garden filled with lovely-eyed virgins. 37:40-48
Female companions await those who enter the Gardens of Eden on the Day of Reckoning. 38:52
Allah will reward faithful Muslims after they die with "fair ones with wide, lovely eyes." 44:54
Allah will reward those in the Garden with beautiful wives with wide, lovely eyes. 52:20
Those who disbelieve in the afterlife give female names to angels. 53:27
Allah will give those in the Garden women of modest gaze whom neither man nor jinn have touched before them. 55:56
Allah will reward believing men with "fair ones" (beautiful women) in heaven. 55:71-72
Those in the Garden will be attended by immortal youths with wide, lovely eyes. 56:17-23
Allah made virgins to be lovers and friends to those on his right hand. 56:36-37
Your wives and children are your enemies. They are to you only a temptation. 64:14-15
Instructions for divorcing your wives. 65:1-6
Allah's rules for divorcing wives that have not yet reached puberty. 65:4
Muhammad's wives need to be careful. If they criticize their husband, Allah will replace them with better ones. 66:5
The wives of Noah and Lot (who were both righteous) betrayed their husbands and are now in the Fire. 66:10
Doom is about to fall on all disbelievers. Only worshippers (Muslims) and those who preserve their chastity (except with their wives and slave girls) will be spared from "the fires of hell" that are "eagar to roast." 70:1-30
You don't have to be chaste around your wives or your slave girls. 70:29-30
Abu Lahab will die and be plunged in flaming Fire. His wife will have on her neck a halter of palm fiber. 111:1-5
It would not be difficult to sanction killing women based on the above, particularly when one subscribes to the infallibility of scripture. The Koran says women are subhumans. Clearly, extremists pick and choose and there's demonstrably plenty of vile, vulgar stuff to choose from (and the Koran is a huge body of contradictory information).
| adventurer wrote: |
| Yes, religious interpretations motive many people to do bad things, but so what? What does saying that get us which is what you seem to be saying. We all know that. We can't simply get rid of religions. |
Religion ought to be subjected to ceaseless mockery. To be silent is to consent. Those who do not criticize silently consent to religious barbarism and atrocity. Sensible Muslim voices are threatened and bullied by the fundamentalists.
| adventurer wrote: |
| Back to your point about religions being completely against all scientific ideas, that is simply not true. Which religion opposes Newton's laws? I don't know of any. |
Newtonian gravitation was not discussed until the 17th and 18th centuries (when Newton was alive). Obviously, ancient religious scripture offers no direct opposition to Newton which is trivially true, to use a euphemism. A more appropriate question would be "what are biblical and koranic theories of gravitation, if any?"
I told you previously why religion is an affront to reason, nature and decency. If I develop the point here, my post would be horribly long and there are plenty of religion threads around.
| adventurer wrote: |
Justin, in your views, where do moderate Muslims fit into this picture.
What are you trying to accomplish with your views? |
I oppose religious belief of any kind, but obviously moderate Muslims who do not wish to kill civilians in the name of an imaginary genocidal maniac are better than those that do. We need moderate, sensible Muslim voices to be heard in greater number and at greater volume. There's evidence to suggest moderates don't speak up because of fear of the fundamentalist mob.
I am trying to achieve mockery for mockery's sake, but also seek to champion what is reasonable, natural and decent. Our innate morality and intellect come from a far older, far more natural, far more reasonable, far more decent source, not from a fictional deity and his regime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Justin Hale"]
It would not be difficult to sanction killing women based on the above, particularly when one subscribes to the infallibility of scripture. The Koran says women are subhumans. Clearly, extremists pick and choose and there's demonstrably plenty of vile, vulgar stuff to choose from (and the Koran is a huge body of contradictory information).
| adventurer wrote: |
ll those quotes. You said you are scientific. You know the concept of Stare Decisis, I am sure. There is no historical precedent where Mohammed killed innocent women and children, and they (his followers) looked to him for guidance, so this is not a credible refutation. If you were trying to make a case that Islam seems to be misogynistic and patriarchal, that would be another matter, but I was speaking about historical precedent in terms of the prophet killing women and children and his main general Khalid Ibn Walid and the four caliphs who followed him. As I understand it, the Sunnis in Iraq felt Al Qaeda went too far and transgressed the normal bounds of Islam. That's why Al Qaeda is failing. It is not because the US opposes Al Qaeda, but because most Sunnis in Iraq do. I think that's an important point.
[quote="adventurer"]Yes, religious interpretations motive many people to do bad things, but so what? What does saying that get us which is what you seem to be saying. We all know that. We can't simply get rid of religions. |
Religion ought to be subjected to ceaseless mockery. To be silent is to consent. Those who do not criticize silently consent to religious barbarism and atrocity. Sensible Muslim voices are threatened and bullied by the fundamentalists.
| adventurer wrote: |
easeless mockery? The majority of people in the world have a religion. It is not going to bridge the divide.
I believe in freedom of speech, but that part of the world is not going to evolve overnight. Europe certainly did not. Definitely secular people need their place, but they are not going to simply get it by ridiculing the moderates and fanatics alike. I don't see your suggestion as productive.
Why don't you try it down there if you think it is...
[quote="adventurer"]Back to your point about religions being completely against all scientific ideas, that is simply not true. Which religion opposes Newton's laws? I don't know of any. |
Newtonian gravitation was not discussed until the 17th and 18th centuries (when Newton was alive). Obviously, ancient religious scripture offers no direct opposition to Newton which is trivially true, to use a euphemism. A more appropriate question would be "what are biblical and koranic theories of gravitation, if any?"
| adventurer wrote: |
f science, they are books of faith. Faith is not based on science. However, as I understand there are some scientific ideas, perhaps, in the various religious books. I remember reading somewhere how the Veddas had something scientific regarding the Earth. Islam supposedly has something regarding embryos. Still, they are not books of science, but you said without proof that the religions are against all scientific fact. How is that so when their followers do not state that. They may be against certain things you and I accept as scientific, but that doesn't mean they oppose everything. Your statement was one of an absolute nature....
I told you previously why religion is an affront to reason, nature and decency. If I develop the point here, my post would be horribly long and there are plenty of religion threads around.
[quote="adventurer"]Justin, in your views, where do moderate Muslims fit into this picture.
What are you trying to accomplish with your views? |
I oppose religious belief of any kind, but obviously moderate Muslims who do not wish to kill civilians in the name of an imaginary genocidal maniac are better than those that do. We need moderate, sensible Muslim voices to be heard in greater number and at greater volume. There's evidence to suggest moderates don't speak up because of fear of the fundamentalist mob.
[You have a right to your views, but America and the rest of the world need to get along and whether you like it or not, most people have a religion or spiritual belief of some sort. You are among a small minority. Nothing wrong with that, but that can't be ignored when people are trying to build bridges and win allies and achieve peace. That's my point.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Let's take for the sake of argument that there are problems with the holy books, and it is easily argued that's the case, it does not mean there is no higher power. After all, human beings wrote these books by hand based on their conception of "God". We can't really know what God is and the word is kind of meaningless, because it gives the idea as if God is some finite concept you can get a hold of, and it's not the case, because that would make the infinite finite. There are definite problems with the Old Testament with Joshua claiming God told him to kill everyone in Jericho including women and children save for a prostitute. Things like that exist in the Old Testament, but you also have the great prophet Isaiah who speaks in many ways like Jesus. The New Testament's Jesus helped set a very different tone than the Old Testament and the New Testament is a lot shorter. People can argue since they find these books fallible, God cannot exist. Religious cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, but men who wrote all these books are engaging in wars over what they think God is or is not or what is and what is not truth when that is something personal mostly. |
You know, there is really only one proper answer to the defenders of religious moderation and "we can't prove anything one way or the other": do you have the same attitude toward the writings of L. Ron Hubbard? Do you think it's likely or plausible that Earth's problems are the result of the ghosts of millions of people who were killed on the prehistoric Earth by an alien named Xenu? Are you, in a word, agnostic with respect to Scientology?
I know crap when I see it. The Bible is crap. The fact that there are a few nuggets of wisdom buried in the pile is of no more consequence than the fact that Dianetics has some useful self-help stuff in it. The framework, the overriding mythos and narrative of the work, is simply false. It is not different in kind from any other flim-flam, and it most certainly was written by human beings.
Is that proof that God doesn't exist? Of course not. Neither is the idiocy of Scientology proof that Xenu doesn't exist. But it doesn't inspire confidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Still not quite got the hang of the quote function, I see, Adventurer.
| Adventurer wrote: |
ll those quotes. You said you are scientific. You know the concept of Stare Decisis, I am sure. There is no historical precedent where Mohammed killed innocent women and children, and they (his followers) looked to him for guidance, so this is not a credible refutation. If you were trying to make a case that Islam seems to be misogynistic and patriarchal, that would be another matter, but I was speaking about historical precedent in terms of the prophet killing women and children and his main general Khalid Ibn Walid and the four caliphs who followed him. As I understand it, the Sunnis in Iraq felt Al Qaeda went too far and transgressed the normal bounds of Islam. That's why Al Qaeda is failing. It is not because the US opposes Al Qaeda, but because most Sunnis in Iraq do. I think that's an important point.
Yes, religious interpretations motive many people to do bad things, but so what? What does saying that get us which is what you seem to be saying. We all know that. We can't simply get rid of religions. |
The Koran sanctions violence and women being subhuman. Adherents to the Koran being infallibly true are unsurprisingly violent and won�t have any problem at all killing a woman on the basis of those quotes. Sharia Law practically means: stoning of women for honor offences including for the crime of being raped; beheadings for apostasy or blasphemy and hand/foot amputations for lesser offences; public hanging of homosexuals and outspoken women; incessant war against infidels especially Jews; female sexual slavery; no democracy; no human rights; everyone down on their knees; Mullahs as Gods; non-Muslims as dhimmis; public floggings for sexual crimes such as flirting or speaking with an unrelated person of the opposite sex; all women under the veil; prison rape-brothels run by the Mullahs. It is perhaps the sickest, cruelest system of human life and social organization which has so far been invented.
| Adventurer wrote: |
easeless mockery? The majority of people in the world have a religion. It is not going to bridge the divide.
I believe in freedom of speech, but that part of the world is not going to evolve overnight. Europe certainly did not. Definitely secular people need their place, but they are not going to simply get it by ridiculing the moderates and fanatics alike.
Mockers of religion, this mocker at least, try to appeal to people�s reason by highlighting how contrary to reason, nature and decency the Abrahamic religions are
I don't see your suggestion as productive.
Why don't you try it down there if you think it is... |
If I mock religion �down there� I will be killed. What on earth you intend with this stupid comment, I've no idea.
| Adventurer wrote: |
| f science, they are books of faith. Faith is not based on science. However, as I understand there are some scientific ideas, perhaps, in the various religious books. I remember reading somewhere how the Veddas had something scientific regarding the Earth. Islam supposedly has something regarding embryos. Still, they are not books of science, but you said without proof that the religions are against all scientific fact. How is that so when their followers do not state that. They may be against certain things you and I accept as scientific, but that doesn't mean they oppose everything. Your statement was one of an absolute nature.... |
That individuals and bits of land can be holier than others is not endorsed by scientific fact. It is a primitive, mean, base, insane, irrational and, yes, faith-based belief. Faith-based belief is belief in something for which one has no evidence. The universe being a celestial totalitarian regime whereby one can be convicted of thought crime and sentenced to eternal torture is not a view dignified by the modern-day scientific worldview. That the only reason we do not go out and commit rape, murder and theft is said dictator�s existence, fear of a divine punishment, seeking a divine reward is a view dismissed by the modern-day scientific worldview. Our intellects and morality are an advanced version of social instincts observable in other mammals, emerged through millions of years of evolution for which we have mountains of evidence. How you can say they are books of faith and not science I do not know. Clearly these absurd and ancient faiths are a systematic, primitive attempt at science, metaphysics, history and ethics. The first book of the Bible alone gives us a version of the creation of the whole of reality.
| Adventurer wrote: |
| You have a right to your views, but America and the rest of the world need to get along and whether you like it or not, most people have a religion or spiritual belief of some sort. You are among a small minority. Nothing wrong with that, but that can't be ignored when people are trying to build bridges and win allies and achieve peace. That's my point.. |
My point is that I seek to appeal to people�s reason via mockery of religion. I also seek to declare war on the kind of barbarism I mentioned above and am a supporter of Mr Bush, the War on Terror and the Iraq war.
Hey, if you want to regulate your comments in accordance with how they'll go down with the Mullahs in Tehran, go for it, but I find that a sordid, loathsome conception of political correctness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
My point is that I seek to appeal to people�s reason via mockery of religion. I also seek to declare war on the kind of barbarism I mentioned above and am a supporter of Mr Bush, the War on Terror and the Iraq war.
Hey, if you want to regulate your comments in accordance with how they'll go down with the Mullahs in Tehran, go for it, but I find that a sordid, loathsome conception of political correctness. |
George W. Bush's ways of operating in the first several years have been discarded in favour of approaches that would similar to that of James Baker and George H.W. Bush. If you said, George H. W. Bush, then I would say you have a point. W has embraced Sunni tribesmen as allies, and they do not have the same religion as George Bush, and he and the soldiers could mock the religions of their allies. Where would that get them in the War on Terror? The Iraq War was a disaster until the Sunni mainstream was embraced to fight Al Qaeda. The fanatics, Al Qaeda, were encouraged in the past by Washington, and that had to reversed in the end. I still don't see how what you propose is productive for U.S. foreign policy. I never stated that one should look toward Mullahs for approval, but mocking one's allies won't do anything. By the way, diplomacy has since the beginning of time used some politcal correctness. It cannot be avoided. Even David Ben Gurion, who was an atheist, could not ignore Judaism. You want to go completely against the flow. George Bush, by the way, is religious...You can do as you wish, but I think we need to promote a dialogue of civilizations and not a clash of civilizations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
My point is that I seek to appeal to people�s reason via mockery of religion. I also seek to declare war on the kind of barbarism I mentioned above and am a supporter of Mr Bush, the War on Terror and the Iraq war.
Hey, if you want to regulate your comments in accordance with how they'll go down with the Mullahs in Tehran, go for it, but I find that a sordid, loathsome conception of political correctness. |
George W. Bush's ways of operating in the first several years have been discarded in favour of approaches that would similar to that of James Baker and George H.W. Bush. If you said, George H. W. Bush, then I would say you have a point. W has embraced Sunni tribesmen as allies, and they do not have the same religion as George Bush, and he and the soldiers could mock the religions of their allies. Where would that get them in the War on Terror? The Iraq War was a disaster until the Sunni mainstream was embraced to fight Al Qaeda. The fanatics, Al Qaeda, were encouraged in the past by Washington, and that had to reversed in the end. I still don't see how what you propose is productive for U.S. foreign policy. I never stated that one should look toward Mullahs for approval, but mocking one's allies won't do anything. By the way, diplomacy has since the beginning of time used some politcal correctness. It cannot be avoided. Even David Ben Gurion, who was an atheist, could not ignore Judaism. You want to go completely against the flow. George Bush, by the way, is religious...You can do as you wish, but I think we need to promote a dialogue of civilizations and not a clash of civilizations. |
A far more sensible post, but I'd question why you deem the US/Sunni alliance inherently good given that the Sunnis are a minority in Iraq. Saddam saw to it that his Sunni minority were the ruling class. From the perspective of the Shiite majority, your position is contentious.
The Sunnis and the Americans aren't going to start talking religion any time soon and, in any case, I suspect the large majority of US Military to be Christian. Both Christianity and Islam from the perspective of belief are equally false and rotten. We will see no dialog at all between atheists and theists in Iraq. I seek dialog between atheists and theists in the civilized world. One can appeal to Muslims here, but not in the Middle East.
Obviously President Bush is religious and indeed he and I disagree otherwise on everything that it is dear to me - climate change, evolution, religion, stem cell research, everything pretty much - but nevertheless his govt's hardline stance against Islamic extremism I passionately endorse, since our former enemy, the Soviet Union, were godless, secular communists who didn't believe they would go to Heaven and have pleasures with virgins (male and female). Islamic extremists do believe that. The US and USSR never had a thermonuclear war and never will. I cannot express the same confidence about there not being a thermonuclear exchange between the US, or other Western nuclear power, and a fanatical Middle Eastern theocracy.
Support for the Iraq war is very good for US foreign policy, since war between Sunnis and Shiites, the real motivation behind the endeavor, is good for the US and civilization. Saddam Hussein became no good to us, because he was a successful ruler who held the country together by brute force. That's no longer any good. Since 9/11, returning Iraq - and I predict other countries - to their bloody, sectarian chaos became kosher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Justin Hale"]
A far more sensible post, but I'd question why you deem the US/Sunni alliance inherently good given that the Sunnis are a minority in Iraq. Saddam saw to it that his Sunni minority were the ruling class. From the perspective of the Shiite majority, your position is contentious.
[What one views as sensible depends on one's weltanshaaung. The US Government appears to think that Sunnis should be supported in Iraq, and you said you support George W. Bush. If the Shiite component of Iraq is too powerful, it would upset Saudi Arabia, and the US Government wants a stable Iraq, and the key to eradicating Al Qaeda in Iraq is through Sunni cooperation. The US does not want the Shiites too powerful in both Iran and Iraq. Many of the Shiites recently have welcomed Sunnis into the government including the armed Arab tribesmen. Yes, the US arming Sunni tribesmen was controversial, but it supposedly paid off, and now the Shiites are accepting the idea of integrating them in the government. I am going based on following the Iraqi Government and the news.
[You stated that the goal of the Iraq War was to promote fighting between Sunnis and Shiites. Would you care to provide evidence for such an allegation? How is fighting between Sunnis and Shiites good for "civilization"? What do you mean by civilization? It doesn't sound like an empirical term, but rather something quite relative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Adventurer"]
| Justin Hale wrote: |
A far more sensible post, but I'd question why you deem the US/Sunni alliance inherently good given that the Sunnis are a minority in Iraq. Saddam saw to it that his Sunni minority were the ruling class. From the perspective of the Shiite majority, your position is contentious.
[What one views as sensible depends on one's weltanshaaung. The US Government appears to think that Sunnis should be supported in Iraq, and you said you support George W. Bush. If the Shiite component of Iraq is too powerful, it would upset Saudi Arabia, and the US Government wants a stable Iraq, and the key to eradicating Al Qaeda in Iraq is through Sunni cooperation. The US does not want the Shiites too powerful in both Iran and Iraq. Many of the Shiites recently have welcomed Sunnis into the government including the armed Arab tribesmen. Yes, the US arming Sunni tribesmen was controversial, but it supposedly paid off, and now the Shiites are accepting the idea of integrating them in the government. I am going based on following the Iraqi Government and the news.
[You stated that the goal of the Iraq War was to promote fighting between Sunnis and Shiites. Would you care to provide evidence for such an allegation? How is fighting between Sunnis and Shiites good for "civilization"? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
[You stated that the goal of the Iraq War was to promote fighting between Sunnis and Shiites. Would you care to provide evidence for such an allegation? How is fighting between Sunnis and Shiites good for "civilization"? What do you mean by civilization? It doesn't sound like an empirical term, but rather something quite relative. |
Well, I don't fancy an Iraq debate here, but see my comment in this thread and reply there if you wish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
