Centuries old statue of Buddha blown up in Afghanistan; Fundamentalist Buddhists go on violent rampage! by chrisisall

Chris I'm confused?

You don't understand why Buddhists are the only ones who preach peace forgivness and understanding and actually live by those beliefs, erm, why?

Hasn't this always been the case?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 9:21 AM

JAYTEE

Things really haven't changed much since we lived in caves and worshipped fire. Buddhists don't seek conflict or allow their emotions to cloud their judgement. In fact, when a Buddhist protests something with all his conviction, he'll set himself on fire harming no one else in the process. Many, not all, but many muslims seem to delight in anger and violence and that somehow their religion legitimizes it. I find any culture that suppresses women as backwards and unenlightened. Polygamy is rampant in middle eastern culture and muslims aren't allowed to drink alchohol. With so many wives and the inability to have a beer I'd probably go crazy and wanna set crap on fire or blow something up. Plus it's too damn hot over there to start and it's probably burned up their brains before they even hit puberty. I don't think they will ever learn to behave in a civilized fashion because the way their religion is being taught to them only undermines any chance at tolerance and peaceful resolution.

Jaytee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 9:30 AM

It wasn't long ago that Christians were burning people at the stake and by comparison Muslims were the enlightened ones.

At one time Islam was teaching religious tolerance and Christianity was violently opposing anyone who wasn't Christian, or wasn't the right type of Christian. Let’s try not to get too blinkered and high and mighty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 10:05 AM

NUCKLES87

Thank you, Citizen ;).

All religions have their own quircks. And it's not uncommon for people to usurp a religion in order to gain followers for a political cause, something happens to this day in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. It's something that simply happens. And when you insult them, they'll complain, say that your going to hell, or threaten to blow you up, depending on the current state of their religion. Christians burn people at the stake, Muslims stone people. They all have their quircks.

It's a shame Islam is being usurped but bastards like Osama Bin Laden, in order to convince people to help them in their so called "Holy War".

Also Christians, lets not forget the Crusades ;). Not exactly yer brightest moment.

And as Jew, I can tell you that us getting insulted by others eating pork is nothing like someone making a comical depiction of the Muhhummad. Nothing. The only way you can insult us with pork is by killing a pig in our temple, something those Roman bastards did

How's my firefly speak? Good? Bad? Fee-oo?

...It's fee-oo isn't it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 10:06 AM

NUCKLES87

How's my firefly speak? Good? Bad? Fee-oo?

...It's fee-oo isn't it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 11:02 AM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It wasn't long ago that Christians were burning people at the stake and by comparison Muslims were the enlightened ones.

At one time Islam was teaching religious tolerance and Christianity was violently opposing anyone who wasn't Christian, or wasn't the right type of Christian. Let’s try not to get too blinkered and high and mighty.

I don't see how that's a factor in the debate. Yeah, so Christians did some really stupid things, so that's why we should accept Muslims doing stupid things? No.

I wouldn't even say Muslims were so enlightened back then. While Christians were burning people at the stake, the Muslims were stoning people (pop quiz: one of those two beliefs still does that - which one is it?). Both religions were equally retarded, just in different ways.

And as I've said before in other threads, I'm not at all Christian or even religious, so I'm not defending Christianity. I just don't think one should use the past crimes of one religion to excuse the present crimes of another one.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 11:15 AM

I'm not saying we should excuse anything. I'm saying we should stop being so high and mighty.

"THESE PEOPLE ARE EVIL! DESTROY THEIR RELIGION AND CULTURE!"
I bet you thought I was talking about Muslims didn’t you. Nope, statements like this are coming from this side of the fence, and directed at them too.

How's it okay for us to say it but not them?

I'm saying it's not alright for any of us to say it.

You can't make the distinction that Islam is evil without extending that distinction to Christianity or many other religions. News flash there are sects of Christianity that are just as oppressive as anything in the Muslim world today.

Simple things like that and the past actions of Christians and many other religions are easy to forget today when we're justifying our own racist prejudices.

Quote:
I wouldn't even say the Muslims were so enlightened back then.

Read up on the real history of the Crusades, and how Christians and Jews were treated in Islamic Jerusalem, and conversely how Muslims were treated in Christian Jerusalem.

Spain under Islamic rule was a very enlightened and peaceful place for the time. Christian Spain had the inquisition.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 11:18 AM

ZISKER

Actually, it's just that the Buddhists got over their violent-political phase around the same time that Islam was really starting to take off. But man oh man, was there one. Was there ever. Especially in Japan.

(Buddhist and history major)

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 11:25 AM

I thought the violence in those countrys at that period was largely to do with non buddhist groups?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zisker:
Actually, it's just that the Buddhists got over their violent-political phase around the same time that Islam was really starting to take off. But man oh man, was there one. Was there ever. Especially in Japan.

That's facinating Zisker, care to expand on that a little? I'm really interested.
My Buddhist influence is mostly Shaolin, and doesn't exclude violence, as it is also part of the natural order of things, but it is to be avoided at almost all costs, for all life is sacred, nor can any be replaced.

Kwi-Chang Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JayTee:
With so many wives and the inability to have a beer I'd probably go crazy and wanna set crap on fire or blow something up.

LOL!
Hey! This is serious....
(although there may be more than a grain of truth in your levity...)

Personally, I find cultures that oppress women to be barbaric in nature, but that's just me.

"Man is by far stronger than woman, yet only woman can create a child, that seem right to you?"

Early Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 1:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It wasn't long ago that Christians were burning people at the stake and by comparison Muslims were the enlightened ones.

I'm guessin' every religion takes their turn at being used by knuckleheads to control people...

Most religions' essences are pure, I suspect.

Chrisisall, loving all men, but not their actions (If I could only be so pure myself...)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 3:51 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
I don't see how that's a factor in the debate. Yeah, so Christians did some really stupid things, so that's why we should accept the Muslims doing stupid things? No.

Khyron, I'm not accusing you of this, so don't take offense, it was merely your post that made me think of it.

Now, I'm seeing a bunch of the religious right say this in regards to the current Muslim hostility, and I find it amusing. "Why should the actions of Xtians from years ago have any bearing on whether or not the actions being taken today by Muslims are right or wrong?"

Let me tell you what I smell here - hypocrisy. It is this same group of right-wing nuts that constantly use the "But Clinton" defense every time someone points out a GWB screwup. Clinton is no longer president, just like Christians are no longer the ones burning people alive. You cannot have this both ways; either we can discuss how the Xtian actions in the past are relevant, or you can stop using the "But Clinton" every time Bush farks up.

Your choice.

7%'s 2c

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 4:02 PM

DC4BS

Ermm...

BULL!

Clinton was president only a few years ago and IF he is, as you claim, no longer relavent then he should SHUT UP and go home. When he does, THEN I'll stop saying "but Clinton..."

The Xtians in question are long gone and are not part of the current mess.

Apples (with grenades) vs. Orages. Totaly useless comparison.

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 4:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
You cannot have this both ways; either we can discuss how the Xtian actions in the past are relevant, or you can stop using the "But Clinton" every time Bush farks up.

Your choice.

How about this,7...
If the next president is a Democrat, and does something wrong, and you or Signy or whoever posts a rant about it, will AURaptor or Hero chime in with "But Bush"?

Just Chrisisall's 2%

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dc4bs:

Apples (with grenades) vs. Oranges. Totaly useless comparison.

Sounds like 12 of one and half a dozen of another.

(?)

I'm not sure what my point was here...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 4:30 PM

ZISKER

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Zisker:
Actually, it's just that the Buddhists got over their violent-political phase around the same time that Islam was really starting to take off. But man oh man, was there one. Was there ever. Especially in Japan.

That's facinating Zisker, care to expand on that a little? I'm really interested.
My Buddhist influence is mostly Shaolin, and doesn't exclude violence, as it is also part of the natural order of things, but it is to be avoided at almost all costs, for all life is sacred, nor can any be replaced.

Kwi-Chang Chrisisall

CHRISISALL: Aw man, I wish my computer hadn’t died a few months ago and taken all my college papers with it – I would’ve just emailed you the thing.

I’m not too familiar with Shaolin (beyond the most superficial of knowledge), but this wasn’t violence utilized in any way in the Buddhist philosophy/belief/esoteric sense at all. It was all about power play and political/economic gain. I did the paper on Japan, so that’s what I’ll get into here (in a brief, brief summary) but if you dig for it the same pattern emerged elsewhere.

Basically, back in the Nara and Heinan Periods 710 – 1185 the Buddhists were big players politically. Why? Well, when Nara was founded as a capital they began building big monasteries there and were connected with the royal family (similar to the expansion of Christian monasteries in Medieval Europe) since there were always a few extra princes sitting around. The monasteries there got to be so powerful that the Imperial court finally pulled up stakes and bailed in 784. There’s a lot of speculation that the priests and monks were involved in a number of assassinations.

Following the Heiji Rising in 1159 Kiyomori had to deal with warring Buddhist factions who took their monastic disputes into the streets. The disputes would turn into riots and parts of the city being torched. These continued to get worse and worse and then the adherents of Zen (I study the Rinzai school) broke into the scene around 1191 – now, they were a very apolitical bunch, but the doctrine itself was adopted by the samurai caste who managed to fuse their refined art of death and Buddhist precepts about control pretty darn well. There’s a whole senior thesis in there for religious study majors, but basically they were able to reconcile ‘don’t kill anyone’ with their capacity to wage very effective and bloody warfare. You could argue that Christians in the modern Army do the same thing to this day.

Anyway, the Zen temples stayed out of the fighting for the most part – but you could argue that’s just because the other temples didn’t want to mess with the warrior caste. In 1253 the party really started when Nichiren introduced the Lotus Sutra sect and ended up getting into an all-out turf war with the Ikko (Pure Land) sect. The Lotus Sutra sect wanted to wipe out all the other sects and their priests would actually go out, track down priests from other schools, and jump them. These incidents would spill out into large bands of monks arming themselves with clubs and torches and attacking each other’s monasteries. And hey, if bystanders got in the way – oh well. After part of a city was burned down (it might have been Kyoto, but I can’t remember it off the top of my head, apologies! I wrote the paper over a year ago

) the Ikko finally went one night and just torched all the Lotus Sutra temples. There were some pretty grim descriptions about these gang-bangs with kids getting killed and just brutal violence on all sides.

It wasn’t until Nobunga came along and managed to finally put the Ikko sect down in the 1580s that the Buddhist wars completely came to a halt. And he did that by killing most of them and dismantling their monasteries. After that everyone chilled and focused on religious studies.

Obviously, this is the very, very simplified version of what happened and written in the classic message board language of “I’ve had a full day of classes and am currently running on coffee”. The reason all of this was possible is because of the way monasteries were able to occupy strategic locations for defensive purposes and then build darn near impregnable buildings to protect their communities. They had the funds, manpower, and sway with the royals. But when they got entrenched it was very difficult to uproot them – each Japanese era seems to have its land reform program that involved pushing the temples further from the city centers in an attempt to keep them from getting too much power or causing too much destruction with their land wars (they’d fight a lot over who got to collect what tolls on what roads and the like).

If you’re really interested in the subject I can try to track down the books I used – they were pretty old, but you might find them in a college library.

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 5:15 PM

Thanks so much, Zisker, that was real interesting. I, myself, am only vaguely aware of similar happenings in China, and the Buddhist monks of Shaolin, and their political dealings (and violent destruction).

So I guess no religion has a 100% crap-free track record, huh?

*Bows to scholarly Browncoat brother*

Chrisisall, in need of meditation

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 6:17 PM

Just thought I'd weigh in here. No particular reason.

Yeah, everyone has baggage, that's history for you.

I think the cartoon makes a valid point, that Mohammed was a highway robber before he found God, and that many of his followers were former brigands. The religion after Mohammed's death got very much a 'convert by the sword' image because many of the disciples returned to brigand like behavior in the spreading of the faith. This nature may have come down through the years and given credence to things like Al Qaeda when they claim to be true followers of the faith.

Christianity is probably way off course. But it went awry with Paul. Paul didn't really know Jesus, and neither did Saint John the divine. They saw a so called 'Jesus' in their visions, but they might just be madmen with no connection to the Christ. If we take their word as gospel, the whole religion becomes something else. Most of the new christians of the end times set follow only the new testament, and more or less only paul and revelations. Their Jesus is not Jesus who lived, but the Jesus of the second coming, an anti-christ if you will. All of this taken into account, they aren't that off course, just very off course from the actual non-fictional Jesus.

I could apologize to anyone this post would offend but you would know I didn't really mean it, so I'll put this proviso: don't go blow things up because of it :)

Anyway, even Taoism spent a long time off course. The Tao was just the way, like the faith, it didn't accord a set of beliefs, anything might have been the Tao before Lao. Afterwords, much of it resorted to a sort of voodoo. Today the govt. of China discourages but tolerates taoism. It's curious to think that someone who was advisor to an imperial monarch could be considered too moderate for a 21st century govt. to the point of making the govt. worry.

Falun Gong, by contrast, is a racket, and one the govt. is probably right to strike down with a firey vengeance. Freedom of religion doesn't extend to human sacrafice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 6:45 PM

ZISKER

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

So I guess no religion has a 100% crap-free track record, huh?

*Bows to scholarly Browncoat brother*

Chrisisall, in need of meditation

Nope, we're all screwed

That's why I don't sweat the religion thing too much.

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 7:13 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
So I guess no religion has a 100% crap-free track record, huh?

What about the Mormons? Did they blow anything up yet? Maybe Mormonism is the true religion of peace and tranquility...

Then again, it's comparatively young. Christianity was also quite peaceful way in the beginning, so maybe in 200 years we'll have the Mormonic World Wars or something.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 7:23 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It wasn't long ago that Christians were burning people at the stake and by comparison Muslims were the enlightened ones.

At one time Islam was teaching religious tolerance and Christianity was violently opposing anyone who wasn't Christian, or wasn't the right type of Christian. Let’s try not to get too blinkered and high and mighty.

Mmmm...ad hominem...

Is this a knock against Christians? Or is it an excusal of militant Islam? Or just a poor argument? Perhaps a combination? Or maybe all three...

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 7:27 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by nuckles87:
Also Christians, lets not forget the Crusades ;). Not exactly yer brightest moment.

Again, ad hominem. Just saying.

Quote:
And as Jew, I can tell you that us getting insulted by others eating pork is nothing like someone making a comical depiction of the Muhhummad. Nothing. The only way you can insult us with pork is by killing a pig in our temple, something those Roman bastards did.

Actually, Antiochus was a Greek.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 7:32 PM

SWAMPREAVER

Basically - the reason that most Muslim countries are so angry is that they are the last ones to the Globalization dinnertable. The have a very high poverty and illiteracy rate, a large young popualtion with little or no economic future. Its been proven that when the rate of literacy increases and when the rate of a regions economy increases that means people reliance on religion decreases. People who are smarter and richer are less religious (for the most part). With globalization comes western ideas of schooling and secularism. When a society becomes modernized by globalization - the old traditional society dies. These peoples civilization are on the brink of collapse and there are a lot of them who cant give up the ghost. Their religion is so intertwined with their society that any change in their society means change to their religion. Basically we are dragging them kicking and screaming into the modern,secular 21st century. And that in my opinion is a good thing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 7:37 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
News flash there are sects of Christianity that are just as oppressive as anything in the Muslim world today.

Are you aware of the controversy in Pakistan over the practice of honor killings? Woman gets raped, so the father kills her to remove the taint on the family's honor. Can you name a current Christian sect practicing such a thing? Also, are you aware of the woman in Nigeria who was sentenced to death by stoning for adultery? Or that the same sentence can be used in Iran? Name a Christian sect still stoning people for adultery? Don't white wash what's happening by accusing others of the same things (especially baselessly). Let's not distract from the issue at hand.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 3:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Mmmm...ad hominem...

Is this a knock against Christians? Or is it an excusal of militant Islam? Or just a poor argument? Perhaps a combination? Or maybe all three...

At least it is an argument, poor or otherwise, beyond a blatant personal attack.

And actually its none of those, your ability to miss the point is worthy of song. I'm not excusing Muslim extremism, and I'm not attacking Christianity, unless you think quoting historical fact as it pertains to your (I presume) religion is an attack, hmmm... Interesting...

It's aimed at the attitude that they and they're religion are evil, and we and our Religions are good. I point this out and I am shouted down for ad hominem attacks on the Christian Religion.

I hadn't realised that I'm not allowed to say bad things about Christianity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 3:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Are you aware of the controversy in Pakistan over the practice of honor killings? Woman gets raped, so the father kills her to remove the taint on the family's honor.

Yes, obviously a fair bit more than you are. These honour killings have also taken place in (notably) Britain and Germany as well as many other countries outside Pakistan. But again before you get so high and mighty lets just remember that this isn’t limited to Muslims.

Quote:
Can you name a current Christian sect practicing such a thing?

Oh wait, for what is this! A Christian Honour killing:

Quote:
as Faten watched a Boy Scouts parade from the balcony of her Ramallah home, the 22-year-old Christian Palestinian was dragged into the living room and bludgeoned to death with an iron bar. Her father was arrested for the murder.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1512394,00.html
I wait the “yeah but, but, but” reply.

Europe has had the custom since ancient Empires operating under Christian law.

Quote:
Also, are you aware of the woman in Nigeria who was sentenced to death by stoning for adultery? Or that the same sentence can be used in Iran?

Yes of course I am; you seem blissfully unaware that Nigeria is a Christian and Muslim state, this isn't a punishment reserved for Muslims or meted out only by Muslims. Sorry, Christians do it too. If you want to look for a place to support your argument that Muslims are evil and Christians are saints might want to pick somewhere other than Nigeria.

Quote:
Don't white wash what's happening by accusing others of the same things (especially baselessly). Let's not distract from the issue at hand.

Don’t cause more evil in the world with your holier than thou attitude, don’t act like your shit don’t stink, don’t make things worse by acting like we’re the happy good little centre of the world and these people and their religion is evil.

White wash? You mean like the one you make by excusing Christianity of all crimes while demonising others for theirs? Double standards are one of the biggest problems of the world.

There’s a few facts here you are missing. Like for instance the fact that Jyllands-Posten’s editor wasn’t prepared to print a cartoon about Christianity in 2003 because of a possible out cry.

Seems that we only need religious tolerance and sensitivity if we’re talking about the children of Christ, of course this is not hypocritical in anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 7:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Faten watched a Boy Scouts parade from the balcony of her Ramallah home, the 22-year-old Christian Palestinian was dragged into the living room and bludgeoned to death with an iron bar. Her father was arrested for the murder.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1512394,00.html
Nigeria is a Christian and Muslim state, this isn't a punishment reserved for Muslims or meted out only by Muslims. Sorry, Christians do it too. If you want to look for a place to support your argument that Muslims are evil and Christians are saints might want to pick somewhere other than Nigeria.

Citizen, point well made.
However, I'd say that Honour killings and general Medevil madness stem from simple tribal mentality, a mentality that, as mentioned above, has no place in 21st century globalization. Their religion (the wacky part) is going to die, and they're going to go out with a bang, obviously.

Hmmm, Buddha....
Here's where I'm from on this.
I incorperate certain Buddhist elements into my 'beliefs'. I would never presume to teach my 'beliefs' to anyone, even my son. I encourage him to seek out his own path. So in my view, to organize a way of believing with rules and such is taking the religion out of the equation, and replacing it with control. Therefore I believe all organized religions to be phoney, unless they encourage exploration outside the system as part of the system.

Way Independent Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
However, I'd say that Honour killings and general Medevil madness stem from simple tribal mentality, a mentality that, as mentioned above, has no place in 21st century globalization. Their religion (the wacky part) is going to die, and they're going to go out with a bang, obviously.

I agree, what gets to me is comments amounting to how we should destroy Islam because it's EVIL. Sorry most of, if not all this stuff is cultural, it's not the religion. You want to destroy Islam and call it evil you HAVE to extend that to ALL religions. Including Buddhism as it appears.

Maybe religions are like people, just on a greater scale, they need nurturing when younger, they grow through a more violent 'teenager' period, then they chill out a bit.

Quote:
I incorperate certain Buddhist elements into my 'beliefs'. I would never presume to teach my 'beliefs' to anyone, even my son. I encourage him to seek out his own path. So in my view, to organize a way of believing with rules and such is taking the religion out of the equation, and replacing it with control. Therefore I believe all organized religions to be phoney, unless they encourage exploration outside the system as part of the system.

Pretty much what I believe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 8:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

I agree, what gets to me is comments amounting to how we should destroy Islam because it's EVIL. Sorry most of, if not all this stuff is cultural, it's not the religion.

Yep.
Imagine if a small group of twisted FF fans bombed a Fox office, and suddenly news stories had 'Browncoats are Terrorists' all over them; any group or religion can be tagged with the 'Evil' label. Although, you'd better believe I'd be out there peacefully protesting those nuts in an attempt to promote the Browncoats' true nature!!!

Chrisisall, forgiving Fox

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 8:07 AM

Quote:
Chrisisall, forgiving Fox

For they know not what they do...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Chrisisall, forgiving Fox

For they know not what they do...

Doesn't mean they're not dumasses...

Just okay Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 8:35 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Maybe religions are like people, just on a greater scale, they need nurturing when younger, they grow through a more violent 'teenager' period, then they chill out a bit.

I think it's actually a culture thing. While a culture believes that those that rule it derive their power from a "divine being" then it invests in those leaders the most dangerous form of arbitory authority "Do what I say because God says so."

That's why the following statement is the most profound in human history

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Power lies with the people, the only authority anyone has over them is that they _choose_ to give to their rulers, not some arbitary authority those rulers claim from a god or a holy book.

People have power over their own lives and with this power comes responsability, you can no longer get away with being a Ahole and claim that you were "just doing God's will."

People don't "Honour kill" their daughters because God commands it. They did it because they are ineffectual, stupid little aholes without the moral gumption to stand against stupid traditions. What makes them even sadder is that they then try to avoid responsability for their actions by claiming their religion "made them do it." It didn't, they had the power to choose and they chose badly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 12:30 PM

DC4BS

Exactly.

A few months back, I read about a guy who killed all his children. The oldest was accused of sleeping with someone. No proof was offered, just the accusation. He killed her and then killed his other, younger children (all girls), just in case they might bring shame to his house someday.

If I remember correctly, this guy actualy did get put away, but a lot don't.

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

People don't "Honour kill" their daughters because God commands it. They did it because they are ineffectual, stupid little aholes without the moral gumption to stand against stupid traditions.

This ain't gonna sound very Buddhist of me, but that's my feeling as well.

We reach

Steppin' out to Eden, Yea, brother Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 12, 2006 1:50 PM

SERYN

Theres a lot of Christian v Islam, West v east stuff flying around, but to be honest, the way I see it, thats almost besides the point.

People seem to be forgetting that a lot of truly depraved and disgusting stuff can be done by secular people as well, people who hate everyone, or a particular group of people, or who don't even have a focus they just hate.
The only difference between them and the religious nut-jobs is that they operate alone - finding others who share their particular fanaticism and are prepared to go to the same extremes is a very long and risky process. So they gain the title of serial killer or 'lone gunman'. Where as within an organised religion you have a ready made pool of candidates, you just sound them out. The fanatics feed off each other, finding something to focus their hate on and magnifying it tenfold, and the sheep tag along for the ride.

With these extremist groups I often get the impression that the people screaming don't particularly care what they are screaming, just as long as they are - those people who turn up to otherwise peaceful protests with little regard for what its about and turn it into a riot - football holigans! They are all varying degrees of the same thing. Religion and culture have almost nothing to do with it, they are only there for the violence.

-------------------------------------------
"She's a mite whimsical in the brainpan."
Xander: "Hi, for those of you who just tuned in, everyone here is a crazy person." *grin*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 12, 2006 4:27 PM

CYBERSNARK

This is why I'm a Wayist. No major badness in Wayist history ('cause it technically won't exist until several hundred years from now).

Although, there is the fact that the Annointed One raped, murdered, and devoured (by proxy) a holy man. . .

(It's an Andromeda thing. Basically what Chrisisall said earlier, about encouraging exploration of other religions. "Wayists don't convert people, we simply seek to show them that they are already Wayists." --Reverend Behemiel Far-Traveller)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Chrisisall, forgiving Fox

For they know not what they do...

This post made me laugh so hard, I now have the hiccups. Thank you.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 12, 2006 4:39 PM

Quote:
People seem to be forgetting that a lot of truly depraved and disgusting stuff can be done by secular people as well

Excellent point. No one argues that Saddam Hussein was the worst most abusive dictator in the region, but also no one disputes that he was the most secular leader. If the rioters were religious they would be chanting something other than Allah Akbar, and ranting about something other than the prophet mohammed, but they might still be rioting. They're down and someone is organizing to get them riled up because it serves their political ends. It also serves the political ends of the Danish paper, which probably wants the muslims gone from its country.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:12 PM

CHRISPV

As a Kansan, I feel obliged to weigh in on the notion that "Christianity doesn't still do bad stuff, even in isolated sects." I have two words for you.

Fred Phelps.

Thank you, and good night.

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal, Fox!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 6:11 PM

URSULA

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

What about the Mormons? Did they blow anything up yet? Maybe Mormonism is the true religion of peace and tranquility...

Not to diss the Mormons, but even they, in their short history, had the Danite sect, which was a supposed secret society of "enforcers" taking out revenge on enemies of Mormons.

More information at:
[link] http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/history/danites_eom.htm[\link]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:16 PM

The mormons have quirks, but they don't have mass genocidal campaigns, which puts them one up on islam and catholicism. Before anyone attack this thought, I have to say "Been to Africa lately?"

Bhuddism, Taoism, seem to have the best record, Hinduism seems fairly non-violent. Quakers still doing okay.

My own take on it is pretty simple: Everyone out there killing everything that moves is some decendent of the cult of Yhwh, who was, after all, God of War. And not the way Mars or Ares was God of War. Yhwh was a genocidal God of War in a culture torn apart by ethnic strife, it was the perfect fire for making a hellish tradition of endless slaughter. The only western religions which seem to avoid this problem are ones who focus only on the teachings of their respective profits, and aren't heavy into the history of it.

I also have to combat something that Pirate News has said abou 150 times now, no offense, but...

What's with this hammering on Moloch?

Moloch, for those who don't know, was a middle eastern deity of african origin brought up by the ancient yemenites, who unlike the modern yemeni, were part of the empire of upper egypt. The bible is extremely rough on Moloch as "an evil religion of child sacrafice." In reality, Moloch had child sacrafice, but there's not a lot of historical evidence that it was any more widespread then it was in the worship of Yhwh, which it is also mentioned in the Bible.

I'm by no means making a case in favor of Moloch worship, but I do have a point that I'm getting too. Moloch was a deity not too dissimilar to Yhwh, possibly more sinister, but Yhwh was well and trul evil, so to say Moloch was worse, while possibly true, is really nitpicking.

Furthermore, to say that traditional European paganism is "Moloch Worship" is at best an exaggeration, and at worst: utter hogwash.

The idea of traditional European religions being based on Moloch worship comes from an idea of strange migration.

Scythian Strange Migration:

While this pattern of migration is theoretically possible, the historical record shows it is dwarfed by the amount of natural migration which took place.

Scythian Natural Migration:

Moloch does show up in europe, but not until 1600, long after the founding of the Masons, and then only as an obscure demon. It is more probably that the idea of Moloch was brough back along with many others as a result of the crusades.

But to understand the real underlying flaw in the strange migration idea, you have to look at it's extremely suspect source. The proponents of this theory were not originally basing their idea on a perponderance of evidence, but on a preset belief they already held and wanted to validate: That the Europeans were the natural descendents of the children of Israel, and therefore God's chosen people.

Without going to far into the sheer absurdity of the idea, it's also important to note that the only group to seriously take this as gospel were the Nazis, who were insane, and not a reliable objective source.

The reality is that the pagan rites worshipped by the founding fathers were those of the Masonic order, which was not evil. Whether or not Bush and skull and bones are evil is a separate issue. But the fact that Ben Franklin was the head of the Masonic order, and basically pagan, as were the rest of the crew, and if christian, only nominally so, does not make them evil people.

The reality of the Masons, in spite of their own myths, is that they date from around 1200AD, and are European based, and have no connection to Solomon or Israel, or Moloch for that matter. The Illuminati, which is referenced on the back of the dollar bill, was a group that sought to create separation of church and state, for which they were persecuted by the inquisition. It was an intentional homage to that effort that the symbolism was used by our govt., which openly supported the position, as most Americans do today.

I guess I'm just a little annoyed at the ultra-mysterian approach as if there's a great undiscovered evil out there, and it's concocting satanic plans in Deer Island, NY, where sometimes bad deals are made, possibly of a conspiratorial nature, such as John Kerry and George Bush deciding to corner the '04 election together. I don't really know what goes on in Bohemian Grove California, but my guy suspicion is that it is not that different.

Finally, there is one thing I am very sure of: The Masons are not in control right now. They are suffering a total collapse at the moment, which would be a definite indication that they are out of power. Since the founding fathers were Masons, and the Masons are currently folding, and something new is in power, it's safe to assume that Bush and Clinton are something else. Bush is a member of Skull and Bones, a pagan cult which Kerry is also a member, I assume everyone knows this already. But even the characterization of Skull and Bones as "evil" is somewhere between unfair and totally inaccurate. If you follow the careers of Bonesmen over the centuries, the majority of their efforts have been to found universities and other educational institutions. Not exactly the hallmark of a great satanic institution of evil.

I know most of y'all already take it with a grain of salt, I guess I think Pirate News and Jenny, (who I assume is some relation?) should also.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:46 PM

Footnotes for those who don't know: (A lot of this many of you already know, it's just here for those who don't, and some of this may just be dreamtrove's opinion, so it's not to be taken as completely objective, just the facts as I understand them.)

Scythians were russian tribes which populated europe a few thousand years ago. The modern Europeans are all descended from them to some extent, celts are probably their closest blood kin.

2. I believe that strange migration, which was concocted in the late christian era, was a contrivance to funnel the Scythian race through Israel in order to give a historical biblical pretext to the peoples of Europe. IMHO.

3. The appearance of Scythians in the bible is most like a result of middle easterners of Scythian descent, rather than evidence that they were our ancestors.

4. The prominant jews of the bible were most likely semitic as arabs, and had no Sythian blood. I read one theory which provided decent evidence that Jezebel et al may have been of Scythian descent, which may very well be true, but wouldn't particularly help the idea, since the christians don't wish to be related to Jezebel.

5. The major dilution of the jewish race almost certainly had nothing to do with Sythian migrations, and happened later when Israel was destroyed and the people were scattered across the mediterranean and points east.

6. The earliest depiction of Jesus is Istanbul, and dates from around 300. The people of Byzantium at the time were greek, and thus mediteranean, and not closely related to the present day Turks, who are the descendents, in part, of mongolian raiders. Nonetheless, they were most likely not blondes, and yet they chose to depict Jesus this way, a fact which spawned a really bad idea that probably has no factual basis to it, that Jesus was somehow aryan or European. If anything, there is a remote possibility that he had some persian influence, whether or not any of it was blood related, as many of his ideas seem to have sprung from Zoroastrianism, which which he was familiar. Some Iranians have blonde hair. Anyway, this is where the whole idea of aryan Jesus comes from, a notion that the decidedly Christian, and not jewish, Nazis, came from. Today Naziism is still a problem in Iran, which was an axis country, and it is part of our current political problem. Most of our political problem is that Iran is a domino for Cheney's MEU plan, IMHO.

Not being a christian, or a jew, it doesn't really effect me particularly at all. Many of my ancestors, who were lutherans, were killed in Auschwitz (roughly half of those killed in Auschwitz were not jewish.) But to me it's all 6 of one half a dozen of the other - Both are more or less Cult of Yhwh, God of War, as is Islam.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 1:46 PM

Now your just flexing your e-penis, to much virtual testosterone

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 7:46 PM

1. Fred Phelps is not the evil of Christianity. He's a moron. But the world is full of morons. Saying Fred Phelphs is the Christian evil of our day is like saying McCarthyism was the worst thing America did in the 20th century. There are tribes in Africa that are genocidally exterminating the non-believers, and govts in eastern europe and central america that recently did the same.

2. Actually, Citizen, I was making a point. I actually have a degree in this stuff, not just posting random stuff from the internet, and I know what I'm talking about. The point is that pirate is overzealous, which everyone already knows. But I guess if I have another point, it's this. I think PN has something to say, perhaps a lot, which is obscured by a convoluted conspiracy theory which is founded in a library of base historical points, some of which I don't think to be true. I would like him to take a serious analytical look at his own theory, which would imply the possibility that he might find that it shed an unfriendly light on christianity, and a more neutral light on the pagan traditions of the europeans. If the investigative reporter in him is willing to take on the christian in him.

I realize now that i posted all of this on a thread he wasn't writing on, so maybe he won't see it, and I feel stupid. And very tired.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 1:08 PM

I know DT, I was being flippant, based on the attacks I recieved my self from stating a similar case on the Jihad thread. I wasn't posting random stuff from the internet in that thread either, BTW.

I sometimes get the feeling that you want to start a fight with me?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 2:00 PM

Why?

And, no, I'm not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 3:23 PM