'I go to bed at night... by chrisisall

oops

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Statistically, you have a greater chance of drowning in a five gallon bucket, than meeting, much less ever taking harm from, some radical islam nutter.

Conversely, if you happen to be gay, pagan, or a minority, your chances of being violently confronted at least once by some radical christian are statistically high enough to qual you for a gun permit even in a may-issue state.
And if you're a woman in college, you have a 1 in 4 chance of being sexually assaulted before you graduate. So we ought to stop any new fraternities or dorms from being built, right? Frat boys are damaging a whole lot more human beings than Muslim extremists!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

Yeah, there's that logic stuff again. I like it so much I'm going to try to use it!

I have a greater chance of dying in a car accident than I do of dying of AIDS. Hence, I need not be concerned about AIDS, and may forgeo condoms in favor of raw dogging dudes I meet in public bathrooms. And also, it is more likely that I'll be not robbed than robbed, so why lock my doors? I bet more folks who fail to lock their doors are not robbed than robbed, hence locking your door is dumb and fearful.

Am I getting close?

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 11:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
I have a greater chance of dying in a car accident than I do of dying of AIDS. Hence, I need not be concerned about AIDS, and may forgeo condoms in favor of raw dogging dudes I meet in public bathrooms. And also, it is more likely that I'll be not robbed than robbed, so why lock my doors? I bet more folks who fail to lock their doors are not robbed than robbed, hence locking your door is dumb and fearful.

If all you're thinking about is yourself, then go ahead and leave your big screen TV out on your front porch, bone whoever you want with no protection, then drive your car into a tree. Have fun with that.

But if you actually care about the society you live in, then maybe you'll take responsible, and yes, logical, measures to stop the spread of disease, and you won't recklessly force the cost of your health care on everyone else.

And if you give a shit about the freedoms that make your country great, you won't let pointless paranoia turn you into a sniveling coward, eager to snatch basic rights away from American citizens who represent absolutely no danger to you.

Using a condom or wearing a seat belt doesn't damage anyone else's life. Racism and biased hate does.

Get it, or was that beyond your logicalabilities?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 11:41 AM

I think I'm just a-logical. I thought that using a condom would potentially affect someone else's life. For example, if I had AIDS and did not wear a condom while doing stuff with my privates, I could give someone else the AIDS, forever changing their life. Let me try again. I'm going to get really good at this. I'm going to wiki logic, thereby becoming an expert on making assertions and then coating them with a veneer of legitimacy by applying the meaningless words "logic" or "reason" to them.

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
I think I'm just a-logical. I thought that using a condom would potentially affect someone else's life. For example, if I had AIDS and did not wear a condom while doign stuff with my privates, I could give someone else the AIDS, forever changing their life.

Yeah, kinda what I meant by saying the wearing a condom doesn't hurt anyone, and going bareback is not good for society.

Quote:
Let me try again. I'm going to get really good at this. I'm going to wiki logic, thereby becoming an expert.

I eagerly await the results.

Wiki up some nice and twisted statistics as well, because logic is only as entertaining as the factoids it's built on.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 11:52 AM

Ok, I spent 30 seconds looking at "logic" on wiki, and am now an expert. This is my second attempt.

According to FBI statistics (and wikipedia), blacks are more likely to be involved in violent crimes than whites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#cite_
note-24

Accordingly, whites commiting violent crime is not a legitimate issue. Discussing the subject of white violence evidences malice, racism and other types of evil intent.

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 12:37 PM

HKCAVALIER

Mince, this shit you're slinging is purest troll, and you know it, don't you?

This has been the right's b.s. argument for 10 years: if we don't accept the Draconian, warcrime-lite methods they propose, then we're "doing nothing." No one is saying that terrorists are not a threat, only that the sort of threat they pose does not require repeal of the Bill of Rights, forcing fringe artists into self-financed hiding and racially profiling anyone whose skin is darker than John Boehner.

You're putting out a lot of energy for no greater purpose than to score points against those of us foolish enough to think "logic" means anything. I don't know what it is about the "turbaned menace" that turns the Mincingbeast into a clodhoppingtroll, but there it is.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 12:42 PM

i admire trolls immensely, and am flattered that you have accused me of being one.

I am currently engaged a quixotic crusade against logic, not muslims, although once logic is vanquished, faith will be the next to go.

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 12:43 PM

DICKCHENEY

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Klesst:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Let us say that most religious terrorists are Muslim. I don't have these figures. It's a supposition for an argument.

One could then say that I am more likely to find a terrorist in a Mosque than in a Church. That's fine, as far as it goes.

However, like you pointed out, the chance of finding a terrorist at all is vanishingly small, much like the chance of getting hit by lightning in my living room. It's happened before, but it's bloody unlikely.

So because the probability of a Muslin terrorist killing you is remote, we should strip search little old ladies and pretend that they are just as likely to be terrorists. I understand there is almost no chance I personally will get killed by a terrorist, but I don't want to see little old ladies get blown up because you're to much of a pussy to accept the fact that stopping Muslim terrorists requires looking in the Muslim population not in an old ladies anus.

Why is this the only post here that makes any sense?.....And you cunts mock it.

I find it hard to believe that a cunt like you would agree with a cunt like you.

Go Fuck Yourself!

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 12:49 PM

DICKCHENEY

Quote:
I have a greater chance of dying in a car accident than I do of dying of AIDS. Hence, I need not be concerned about AIDS, and may forgeo condoms in favor of raw dogging dudes I meet in public bathrooms.

Go for it. Stay away from kaneman and riverlove. I gave both of them aids.

Go Fuck Yourself!

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 1:15 PM

You're absolutely right, MB. You suck at logic. You missed the whole point of the statistics discussion above, and you're using the same exact stupid argument that Rappy was.

Oh, and you're not exactly tearing things up research-wise either. If you want to convince anyone of anything, find a better link.

ETA: Yep, HK. Mincingbeast is a'trolling. I wonder if these dopes realize that all they do is make themselves look backwards-ass stupid?

Unless you're meaning to be ironic, MB. In which case, you suck at being ironic.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 1:20 PM

Though I concede that I suck as a general proposition, in this case, it is logic itself that sucks. I used, but for superficial differences, the exact same stupid argument as Rappy, who used the exact same stupid argument as those he was arguing against.

And you're wrong about my link. As I stated earlier, the ability to wiki something makes me an expert on it.

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 1:21 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Mr. Beast,

After discussing and acknowledging the threat of Islamic Terror, what is your next step? Is there any Islamic specific action you wish to take to counter the threat?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 1:21 PM

DICKCHENEY

Quote:
I wonder if these dopes realize that all they do is make themselves look backwards-ass stupid?

Do they realize it? Wheee-doggies, they're fecken proud of it.

Look at a tea party, see if you can find a sign that isn't misspelled.

Go Fuck Yourself!

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 1:23 PM

I have now passed my limit. My irony/troll detector is maxed out and no longer operational. It's time to put on a Deadwood DVD and enjoy all the bad words. You know, because I don't get enough of them here.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Mr. Beast,

After discussing and acknowledging the threat of Islamic Terror, what is your next step? Is there any Islamic specific action you wish to take to counter the threat?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

I suppose folks would expect me to advocate a Constitutional amendment declaring all Muslims to be pigs, hence unprotected by the law, and subject to smoking and glazing.

We are at the next step: name calling and unfettered dialogue (or in my case, monologues) on the subject. Maybe we'll reach a point were we can discuss Islam without folks feeling obliged to shriek "OMG 911 NEVAR FORGET!!!1" or "OMG U HATE MONGER"...but I hope not.

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 1:37 PM

BYTEMITE

HK, did you read the parts of the thread where Mincingbeast was arguing that "logic consists of calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a troll?" This really isn't doing the alternate argument any favours.

As an aside, MB isn't a troll. A troll by definition is someone who contributes nothing to the community except riling people up and offending them. There are very few people here who fall under that description. Even kaneman is not one of them.

MB will play with people, and does use a good degree of shock humour, sophistry, and mocking by imitation to make a point, but this alone does not make a troll. I'm perhaps more likely to be a troll than anyone else is, as my contributions to the community are lacking in general.

As for the argument here, one side is correct in that it is very difficult to profile a possible subject of a crime with only rough age and height, and that efforts to catch dangerous criminals should try to be narrow in scope.

However, race and religion are actually still pretty general traits IMO, and not as useful in catching specific suspects as, say, a name, or a motive, or declared intention, or previously existing criminal record. I would think any one of those other factors would narrow the suspect pool down a good deal more than race or religion.

And *IF* declared intention, motive, and criminal record are the main factors we're using to sift suspects, then it's not necessarily discriminatory to also add race or religion into the profile, but rather a matter of convenience for identification. I think we might all be able to agree on this.

Whether this is what happens in practice is, I admit, questionable.

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 1:42 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

I don't know what it is about the "turbaned menace" that turns the Mincingbeast into a clodhoppingtroll, but there it is.

Same ole thing, HK. Rush is his God.

Or Beck.

Whatever.

Imma watch CHUCK now, hope you are as well. Nightynight.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 1:54 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Maybe we'll reach a point were we can discuss Islam without folks feeling obliged to shriek "OMG 911 NEVAR FORGET!!!1" or "OMG U HATE MONGER""

Hello Mr. Beast,

So the idea is that by pointing out the dangers of Islam and Muslim terrorists, the issue will become de-sensitized and make rational conversation possible.

And what would such a rational conversation look like, in a world where you wanted it to happen? What would you say about Islam in that world?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 2:27 PM

HKCAVALIER

(Edited to remove unnecessary fake profanity.)

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
HK, did you read the parts of the thread where Mincingbeast was arguing that "logic consists of calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a troll?" This really isn't doing the alternate argument any favours.

As an aside, MB isn't a troll. A troll by definition is someone who contributes nothing to the community except riling people up and offending them. There are very few people here who fall under that description. Even kaneman is not one of them.

Dang it, Byte, why??? I never said MB was a troll, I said that his latest line of argument was trolling. There's a big difference, why do you feel the need to instruct me on crap I already know? Drives me up a wall. Here's a hint, Byte: if I believe someone to be a troll in the sense you mean it, I don't talk to 'em--like, ever.

Quote:
MB will play with people, and does use a good degree of shock humour, sophistry, and mocking by imitation to make a point, but this alone does not make a troll. I'm perhaps more likely to be a troll than anyone else is, as my contributions to the community are lacking in general.

Thanks for the MB 101 class. Do you think I'm that clueless? Again, one bit of trolling does not make a person a troll.

Byte, you do this on a semi-regular basis with me and I would appreciate it if you knocked it off for good and all. I like you, but I don't appreciate your instruction in remedial internet etiquette. In the context of this board I find your whinging at my crimes against tact rather outrageously misapplied.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 2:34 PM

You credit me with ideas; this is a mistake. Still, if I had an idea, it would be to desensitize everyone to everything.

in your hypothetical rational world, I would say something like "The theological structure of Islam makes justifying violence a lot easier than, say, the New Testament or whatever drivel Buddhists read. Let's have a frank discussion about this, and how we can avoid it." I would say this to a sockpuppet over my right hand, who would respond "Perhaps that is true, and perhaps we may, but aren't you stigmatizing innocent people by making blanket assertions about a faith and holding them to task for what their ancestors said and did?" And maybe then we'd have a discussion about the agony of the Reformation, and the awkward adolescence of the enlightenment, and how distressing it is to see a resurgence of pre-enlightenment ideas coming from both Muslims and Christians a like, and how we debase each other. And then we'd hold hands and snuggle.

actual likeness:

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 3:02 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I have often thought that Islam could benefit from a reformation of some kind. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's the sort of thing one can wish into being from the outside. It seems to me it's also the sort of thing that is constantly in danger of collapsing as long as pre-reformation materials are incorporated into the belief system.

Even in the Christian faith, the presense of antiquated practices that make some respond with loathing cause others to respond with yearning. Supposedly, Jesus Christ came to jettison the old way of doing things to a large degree. Despite this, I find many Christians lovingly cleaving to ideas present in the Old Testament that allow them to discriminate against and mistreat their fellow man.

We are probably unable to have a new prophet clear things up due to the book of Revelations (and similar cautions in the Quran) that say, "This is it. Anyone else who surfaces is an evil fraud." Of course, that didn't stop the Mormons, so I may be mistaken on that point.

As much as I hate to say it, the best hope to avoid religious extremism may be for religion to die. But then I wonder if suicide bombers wouldn't explode themselves in shopping malls due to a division on the issue of Global Warming or some non-religious principle.

My hope for a remedy is that secular living will provide a source of comfort so undeniable that religion will lose its grip on the psyche of people everywhere. As to how to MAKE it happen? I have no idea how to flip the mental switch in the human population. Western nations have provided comperably better living conditions to the Muslim nations of the world for several generations, yet that hasn't proved enough of an incentive to stamp out theocracies in the mideast.

I honestly think the best we can do for ourselves is to separate from those awkward regions of the world until they resolve their issues internally. The fewer ties we have to the mideast, the less cause we will have to feel threatened by their extremists. Meanwhile, back home, we can emphatically defend individual freedom as much as is practicable, to continue providing a counterpoint by example.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 3:57 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Mal4 - Ha!, by no means should folk live in fear, and instead of outlawing everything a girl could possibly defend themselves with, forcing dependance on all but useless and often abusive campus cops, most of whom are male, mind you...

I say install a fuckin weapons rack by the door of every female dorm.
Seriously, we vilify self-defense, make people helpless, and then condition them to submit to an aggressor to make it easier for the powers that be to fleece em - and of course criminals and other scum exploit that, why wouldn't they when we hand them pre-loaded victims on a silver platter.

Ever notice that most criminals and predators go into total mental lockup when they get any reaction BUT passive submission ?
And that folks who act immediately generally carry the day, because of this ?

Not that, yanno, violence solves everything, nor do weapons, but that conditioned-submission and vilification of self defense shit has GOT TO GO.
And of course, having a friend or two to back you up with is worth half a dozen weapons, cause it's more will than skill, but skill helps too.

Anyhows, my answer to a threat is never to just roll over, that kinda crap is how these problems got so bad - I might play along in the very rare case some shitheel has the drop on me, but all they gotta do is blink at the wrong moment...

As for Wendy...

She's good, I give her that, but not perfect no, and I did cheat...

Cause of closet-kid syndrome she has to use visual accessability software on her laptop, and it doesn't do caps, or it didn't (I color coded them with an HTML tag for her now) and I figured that'd hang her, lol.

I wound up cooking her dinner, eatin crow (not literally, but, yanno) and having to hear about it for damn near a week straight - it's not often anyone can get over on me so, and she's done it TWICE, meh.

I do kinda range from friendly-snarky, to all biz, to verbal rampages you can practically smell fire and brimstone rising from, but that's more a matter of how rough a week it's been, and adding a shot or two of booze tends to wear down my "play nice" filter, but I'll call that one up front most of the time.

Oh, and Anthony ?

Simple solution to that, simply force acknowledgement of the the plain and simple fact that if those books are in any way true, then "God" is a sick, twisted, evil fuck which gets it's jollies by pitting us against one another so that it can feed on the misery.

It's the only logical explaination that fits the facts.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 4:05 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Simple solution to that, simply force acknowledgement"

Hello Frem,

It sounds nice, but you can't force anything. Not in any way I'd like to explore, anyhow.

My own choice of Christianity is predicated on the belief that much of the source material is faulty and tampered with. So I've decided to 'pick and choose' the good stuff until God sets me straight. (If he is exactly as described in the good book, things look bad all over.) Unfortunately, most priests and preachers will recoil in horror at the idea of folks disregarding whole sections wholesale, or worse, assuming the book as a whole is largely inaccurate and flawed.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 4:28 PM

HKCAVALIER

Hey Anthony,

Have you done much/any delving into the subject of Gnostic Christianity? It largely predates even the Gospels and, I suspect, might very well be completely consistent with your understanding, even adding and amplifying some of your thoughts and beliefs as well.

Of course, there's a "pop" version of Gnosticism that you'd hate and need to wade through to get to the real juicy stuff, but such is the life of a scholar, no?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Monday, September 20, 2010 4:30 PM

BYTEMITE

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

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 6:54 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Uh, Mal, statistically, if you’re a WOMAN, you have a 1 in 4 chance of being sexually assaulted some time in your lifetime, not just college women.

Mincing; it depends on where you live. I’ve never locked my door in my life, and never been robbed. The places I live almost never have such things. If I lived elsewhere, I’d never leave it Unlocked.

In a way, fearing being a victim of a terrorist attack is kind of like fearing being hit by lightning. There are a few things you can do to be safer, but if it’s gonna hit you, it’s gonna hit you. What exactly can any of us individuals DO to ensure our safety from Muslim terrorism? Avoid airplanes, subways, tall government buildings, or what? It’s one of the things that is most useless to take precautions about, in my opinion, because there ARE no viable precautions. I’ll take precautions against the things I CAN protect myself from, thank you. Otherwise, it’s living in fear.
Mal4 said it eloquently:

Quote:
And if you give a shit about the freedoms that make your country great, you won't let pointless paranoia turn you into a sniveling coward, eager to snatch basic rights away from American citizens who represent absolutely no danger to you.

Using a condom or wearing a seat belt doesn't damage anyone else's life. Racism and biased hate does.

THAT is the biggest danger we face today as far as our country is concerned, and I take it very seriously, as should all of us who care about our OWN freedoms, too. The Papers Please law could affect people like me, with olive skin, just as much as a Hispanic citizen OR a Latino drug lord. Take civil rights from one, you up the chances of taking it from others.

Cav, I thought Mincing was teasing. And don’t you mean “anyone whose skin is LESS ORANGE” than Boehners? Tho’ I guess there’s not much racial profiling of orange-skinned people.

Isn’t what you’re talking about “deductive reasoning”? For example:

Quote:
I gave an inferences test to two large samples of students at my university. In both studies high RWAs went down in flames more than others did. They particularly had trouble figuring out that an inference or deduction was wrong. To illustrate, suppose they had gotten the following syllogism:

All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea..
Therefore, sharks are fish.

The conclusion does not follow, but high RWAs would be more likely to say the reasoning is correct than most people would. If you ask them why it seems right, they would likely tell you, “Because sharks are fish.” In other words, they thought the reasoning was sound because they agreed with the last statement. If the conclusion is right, they figure, then the reasoning must have been right. Or to put it another way, they don’t “get it” that the reasoning matters--especially on a reasoning test.

This is quite dangerous, because it shows that if authoritarian followers like the conclusion, the logic involved is pretty irrelevant. The reasoning should justify the conclusion, but for a lot of high RWAs, the conclusion validates the reasoning. Such is the basis of many a prejudice, and many a Big Lie that comes to be accepted. Now one can easily overstate this finding. A lot of people have trouble with syllogistic reasoning, and high RWAs are only slightly more likely to make such mistakes than low RWAs are. But in general high RWAs seem to have more trouble than most people do realizing that a conclusion is false.

Isn’t that exactly what we’re seeing? Ergo:

Muslims commit terrorism
Joe Schmoe is a Muslim
Joe Schmoe is a terrorist

Byte, you definitely don’t fit the description of a troll. What you left out is that part of being a troll is to be NASTY, in my opinion; and to post in order to get a rise, nothing else. That definitely doesn’t describe you. And you’ve made MANY contributions to discussions, so it doesn’t hold water. Me, I DO consider Kane (and Whozit) trolls...not always, but the vast majority of the time. They deliberately write in an ugly fashion, and definitely are intending to push buttons and get attention, far more than to make a valid point. The same might be said of Mike, to a lesser degree.

Neither do I find your posts “instructing” others; I think I’m far more guilty of that. I find them to be “discussing” some concept, not as a personal insult or put-down, and I haven’t seen you do it to any particular person, it’s just part of your style, to me. I’m not sure where the vehemence comes in—I might have missed something, but I get the feeling Cav is taking it a bit personally. JMHO.

In general, going back to the very first post Mincing made, it seems to me he was only doing his usual teasing/satire, which we’re all familiar with, not arguing the kinds of points people seem to be attributing to him. I don’t get why everyone jumped to the conclusion he was being serious...but maybe I’m just dense

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 3:57 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
After discussing and acknowledging the threat of Islamic Terror, what is your next step? Is there any Islamic specific action you wish to take to counter the threat?

Good question, there are no real practicable + stomach-able solutions to counter this threat 'specifically' (doesn't stop Auraptor and others feverishly banging on about this issue without proposing any solutions). Well done to Klesst at least for suggesting a specific action: Muslims should be targeted for extra searching (although I think if you're a Muslim planning to board a plane you pretty much assume you'll get searched - I personally feel that's enough). Kaneman, interesting to hear you agreeing - I think Thomas Jefferson might have something to say about that.

One Islamic specific policy we Europeans are considering: whether to let Turkey join the EU (or whether to place certain special conditions of entry, like on Turkish migration to the rest of Europe). Before the war on terror Turkey was on course to join, now it's very up-in-the-air. There are quite a few pros: Turkey is a populous country, a growing economy, a secular democracy and a bridge between East and West. But a muslim majority nation...

Should we seek to preserve Europe as a continent of christian heritage, and limit demographic change that threatens or clashes with that?

I'm personally swayed by both arguments, but probably the latter more.

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:25 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

It's interesting to hear that maintaining a Christian Heritage may be a goal of the EU. I hadn't heard that before.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

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

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:45 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I have often thought that Islam could benefit from a reformation of some kind. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's the sort of thing one can wish into being from the outside. It seems to me it's also the sort of thing that is constantly in danger of collapsing as long as pre-reformation materials are incorporated into the belief system.

Even in the Christian faith, the presense of antiquated practices that make some respond with loathing cause others to respond with yearning. Supposedly, Jesus Christ came to jettison the old way of doing things to a large degree. Despite this, I find many Christians lovingly cleaving to ideas present in the Old Testament that allow them to discriminate against and mistreat their fellow man.

Here's the thing, to my view the reformation didn't modernise, tame or castrate christianity - it moved the faith closer to the essence of its holy texts, challenging the corruption and heresy (at that time) of the Catholic church, and its authority in general (encouraging the scripturally correct principle that every christian can relate to God without the mediation of a priest - 1 Peter 2:9).

So with regards to an Islamic reformation: it would arguably be a movement back towards the sacred Islamic texts. I'm not completely sure what that would look like but I'm not positive it'd be good. Some might even argue that Islam's current resurgence along more radical lines is its 'reformation'.

E.g. on the subject of the practice of women wearing headscarves:

See this video of Nasser's funeral in Cairo in 1967; when you can make out the women few (if any?) are wearing headscarves:

Compare it to this modern video, a walk down a Cairo street where most women are wearing them:

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:55 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Perhaps we should be wishing for a deformation, then? ;-)

While we share the opinion of what the reformation was for Christianity, its significance to us varies.

In my opinion, by removing the unique position that the Church had in standing between man and God, it cut the proverbial balls off of the church and allowed government to take shape without as much religious interference.

THAT was critical in forming truly secular governance. Overthrowing and diminishing monarchies was the next step in advancing the cause of the individual.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

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

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 5:17 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
It's interesting to hear that maintaining a Christian Heritage may be a goal of the EU. I hadn't heard that before.

Yeah, I suppose it needn't necessarily be described in those terms (and not that many Europeans would choose to). 'Christian' heritage is more how I personally see it: in that Christianity has undoubtedly shaped Western society and values. Also it's a neat/easy way to outline Europe's eastern borders.

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 5:53 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
In my opinion, by removing the unique position that the Church had in standing between man and God, it cut the proverbial balls off of the church and allowed government to take shape without as much religious interference.

No, I agree: but I think a centralised, politically powerful religious institution (ie. the papacy) was never what Christianity was meant to be about. Of course it did happen, and was the only practiced Christianity for hundreds of years - I just view that as a natural human trend of people in power viewing religion as a potential tool to control populations, or whatever. So yes it cut the balls off the Catholic church of the time, and ensured a healthy distance between church and state - all the while going back to the essence of christianity.

Quote:
Perhaps we should be wishing for a deformation, then? ;-)

Hmm, I've just been looking into it more (head scarves), and I think it's pretty open to interpretation actually. From this Muslim site advocating head scarves - http://en.rafed.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1126:
quranic-verses-about-hijab&catid=143:hijab&Itemid=996 - the verses it cites are:

Quote:
So what do the Quran and Sunna have to say about women’s dress ?

“O you Children of Adam! We have bestowed on you raiment to cover your shame as well as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness, that is the best. Such are among the Signs of Allah, that they may receive admonition.” (Quran 7:26)

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear therof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, or their brothers’ sons or their sisters’ sons, or their women or the servants whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex, and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers, turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.” (Quran 24:31).

“O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.” (Quran 33:59)

Which is pretty non-specific to me; I'm inclined to see it as firstly a (obvious) command to cover up sexual parts to all except relatives, and secondly, a general call to modesty. But apparently it depends on interpretation of the word 'ornaments' - which some interpret as referring to everything including eyes. The line that does it for me however:

"...that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear therof..."

"ordinarily appear therof" seems to mean ordinary, practical, non-sexual parts of the body: hands, face, arms, legs even...(if a woman wants to wear modest skirts)? It's hard to view a burqa being 'ordinary' in any way...

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:38 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I think a return to original Muslim beliefs would be a good thing...it's been prostituted for the agenda of the mullahs and political terrorists, which actual act in ways directly opposite to Mohmmed's teachings. They "preach" something distinctly different from what Islam was in the beginning and was intended to be...just as Christianity has done at times and I'm sure other religions as well.

Quote:
I think a centralised, politically powerful religious institution (ie. the papacy) was never what Christianity was meant to be about.

Nor was Islam intended to be ruled the way it is and was by mullahs, but power will out, in any religion.

If people abided by true Islam, it would be a whole different story. And yes, the full chadri in particular actually BEGAN I believe in Afghanistan, as a way for shah's to keep their women from being coveted...then became fashion among the upper classes, as away you go. The mullahs have always used it as a way to control women.

As to the burka/chacri/purdah, its interpretation has been polluted over time:

Quote:
Many Muslims believe that the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an, and the collected traditions of the life of Muhammed, or hadith, require both men and women to dress and behave modestly in public. However, this requirement, called hijab, has been interpreted in many different ways by Islamic scholars (ulema) and Muslim communities.

The idea of the veil actually predates Islam:

Quote:
There is evidence that this type of dress was worn by some Arab and Persian women long before Islam. For example, the Roman African Christian Tertullian, writing in Chapter 17 of The Veiling of Virgins around 200 AD, praises the modesty of those "pagan women of Arabia" who "not only cover their head, but their whole face...preferring to enjoy half the light with one eye rather than prostituting their whole face." Strabo, writing in the first century AD, also refers to covering the face as a practice of some Persian women.

Best of all, as far as I'm concerned, would be doing away with religions entirely, or at the very least, minimizing their control of the population as much as humanly possible. I'm not sure whether more deaths have resulted from nationalism of religion, but I'd put my money on the latter. And it's not the religion's fault, it's how it's interpreted, used and abused by those who want to gain power, or in some cases, interpret it subjectively to match what THEY believe.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:49 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Some good historical perspective.

Quote:
I think a return to original Muslim beliefs would be a good thing...it's been prostituted for the agenda of the mullahs and political terrorists, which actual act in ways directly opposite to Mohmmed's teachings. They "preach" something distinctly different from what Islam was in the beginning and was intended to be...

If that's true then there is some hope - and I think it's been largely the Saudi oil money that has propagated the more extreme strain of Islam. That's the bad thing about oil: it bestows success and influence on a culture that hasn't necessarily earned it. I think the best hope for the future is a Muslim country becoming successful and influential in its own right, through economic growth etc. Probably Turkey is the best candidate for this... so even if we don't let them into the EU I think we should help them, and promote strong business ties. A Muslim nation success story is in everyone's interests.

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I think a return to original Muslim beliefs would be a good thing...it's been prostituted for the agenda of the mullahs and political terrorists, which actual act in ways directly opposite to Mohmmed's teachings.

I recognzie I have very little credibility on this subject, because I am a mean-spirited Islamophobe, but I would suggest that

1) who's to say that our our interpretations of "original" Muslim beliefs are more accurate than those of the mullahs (who are getting their own religion wrong) and

2)who is to say that "original" Muslim beliefs are a good thing? They are a product of the 7th century when slave taking and slaughter were socially acceptable, and granted a theological gloss by Islam. Lots of Mohammed's teachings, and the sayings attributed to him, might be benign by the standards of his day, but are ugly to modern sensibilities.

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

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 1:04 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
as far as I'm concerned, would be doing away with religions entirely

If you'd asked me 30 years ago, I would have said that organized religion would have fallen away by now, like a giant scab no longer needed.
Sad to see that I was wrong. It keeps getting picked at. Looks like it will never heal.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 2:08 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
1) who's to say that our our interpretations of "original" Muslim beliefs are more accurate than those of the mullahs (who are getting their own religion wrong)

A fair point. Just so long as you keep that attitude when you come across articles by Islamophobic polemicists and non-Islamic scholars titled something like "The TRUTH about Islam - What the Qu'uran really says".

Quote:
2)who is to say that "original" Muslim beliefs are a good thing?

Not necessarily a good thing, maybe an improvement :-/

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 2:27 PM

Well, I'm not inclined to grant anti-islamic fanatics with the authority to define the scope of Islam. But some scholars are so...seductive. Like Raymond Ibrahim. He's dreamy and buff. And Egyptian.

I'm inclined to argue that the "original" meaning of any text, let alone one that was written almost a millenia and a half ago, is impossible to reconstruct and actually meaningless. What matters is practice--they way people related to and use the text. Of course, when the text in question is presented as the infallible word of god and the end of history, original meaning becomes extra problematic. Note that this is why I loathe strict constructionists of the US constitution.

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

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 5:44 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"in some cases, interpret it subjectively to match what THEY believe."

Hello,

This reminds me of an incident from my early youth. One of my younger, bratty Cousins hit me, and I hit him back. This was at my grandmother's house, and he went crying to my grandmother to complain about this mistreatment.

My grandmother, who was very religious, asked me, "What does Jesus say to do when someone hits you?"

I said, "Turn the other cheek," with a triumphant tone.

And she said, disapprovingly, "Well, then?!"

And I was genuinely confused, and tried to explain, "He turned my cheek, and I turned his!"

I had, up until this point, misinterpreted the whole pacifist angle of Jesus Christ. The whole adage about turning the other cheek suddenly lost a lot of its allure to my young mind. :-)

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

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

Thursday, September 23, 2010 6:31 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Surely you're not saying the bible was all sweetness and light compared to the qu'ran?? All that violence and incest and angry, judgmental god...? The qu'ran is actually far less violent and viciously judgmental, in its original form.

But yes, I, too, had hoped we could move past religion; it's original purpose was to appeal to the better nature of man (as well as give them an instruction booklet to live by and a god to look to for judgment); it's interpretation, just like any religion, has been to appeal to the worst nature of man, and, given I don't see us as having evolved much past our original mentality, I don't expect it will go away...maybe ever.

Your original point was a good one, KPO, in my opinion.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Thursday, September 23, 2010 6:47 AM

There's quite a bit of violence in the Tanakh; one of its functions was a history, and as such it was full of the ugly things that men did to each other. I don't find many theological imperatives to do violence in it, but then again, its been ages since I touched a bible and being as that I just washed my hands...

But anyway, I defy you to support the following assertion:

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
The qu'ran is actually far less violent and viciously judgmental, in its original form.

I reiterate my discomfort with making pronouncements about a text's "original form," from a different cultural context, a millenia and a half after the fact. Are you talking about the split between Mecca/Medina (both are original I'd argue), or do you not find a religion that aims to be universal and damns the unbeliever to be viciously judgmental or violent?

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

Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:07 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Arguing the comparative merits or the Quran vs. the Bible is like arguing about the number of blaster bolts in A New Hope versus Empire Strikes Back.

I promise that they both have a lot of blaster bolts.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

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

Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:15 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Well, I'm not inclined to grant anti-islamic fanatics with the authority to define the scope of Islam.

No, I didn't think you would be.

Quote:
I'm inclined to argue that the "original" meaning of any text, let alone one that was written almost a millenia and a half ago, is impossible to reconstruct and actually meaningless. What matters is practice--they way people related to and use the text.

Hmm. I'm an atheist but I was brought up a christian, and was taught to read the bible not asking the question "What does it mean to me?" but rather "What did it mean to them (whoever Jesus/St Paul etc was talking to)?" I find it hard to believe honest Muslims would not be influenced by Mohammed's original meaning, if it was put to them and they had deviated from it. For example some people have suggested that Mohammed's wife didn't wear a headscarf... But of course entrenched tradition is always hard to shift...

Quote:
Of course, when the text in question is presented as the infallible word of god and the end of history, original meaning becomes extra problematic.

That's religion - what can you do?

Quote:
Note that this is why I loathe strict constructionists of the US constitution.

Is it so hard to accept that parts of the constitution might be bad/lacking? That it was good for its time but the founding fathers didn't know everything and we shouldn't use it as a blueprint for the country for eternity?

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:31 AM

Reconstructing original meaning is impossible. We may make educated guesses about what Mohammed's exhortation to "kill all infidels" meant to his first followers, or what the framers meant, so long as we acknowledge we're guessing--which is a difficult thing to do when we conflate original meaning and truth. Short of necromancy, we can't know. Moreover, necromancy ought only be used to raise the living dead--not settle arguments about what some asshole author really meant.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Is it so hard to accept that parts of the constitution might be bad/lacking? That it was good for its time but the founding fathers didn't know everything and we shouldn't use it as a blueprint for the country for eternity?

Not hard for me, but hard for some, and certainly no harder than suggesting that a purported holy text is not the end of history and without flaw. Contrary to what some folks may say, flexibility is built into the US constitution--the same can't be said of the Bible or Koran.

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

Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:00 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Anthony's right, and of course there are no "religions" which don't damn the "unbelievers"--except buddhism as far as I know, which, again, is more a philosophy than a religion. We respect all religions and, given we have no "god", don't have any "nonbelievers" to condemn.

I respect the INTENT of all religions, but I'm not buddhist enough to respect what the religions became and how they are/were used.

I understand the use of “defy”, Mincing, but I’d rather “discuss”. I could be wrong, because I follow neither religion, but from what my research has gleaned, there’s more compassion in the Qu’ran than the Bible. This took forever, and I'm sure there are fallacies in either religion. I looked to find passages on several subjects to compare how they were dealt with; you might be able to see a pattern:

Both Qu’ran and Bible are difficult to translate. For the Qu'ran, owing to the fact that the kufic script in which the Koran was originally written contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points. Parts of it have been interpreted different ways by different people, some unintentionally, some deliberately. There are also inconsistencies (which any devoute Muslim will dispute until their dying breath), but there are inconsistencies in the Bible as well.

What most Americans/devout Christians don’t recognize is that “Allah” means “God”, and the followers of Mohammed considered themselves following the same God as Christians (and to an extent Jews). They had bad feelings for the Jews, given that the Jews crucified Christ, but even there, had compassion for them.

Quote:
5.82. Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

Regarding Jews and Christians:

Quote:
5.69. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

By the way, Christ exists in the Qu’ran, and was considered holy and a prophet by Muchammed, but not the “son of God”, and the holy trinity is rejected, in that only God stands above all. Thus

Quote:
Sura 3:45 (Al-Imran) - "The angels said to Mariam (Mary): 'Allah bids you rejoice in a Word from Him. His name is al-Masih (Messiah), Isa the son of Mariam. He shall be noble in this world and in the next, and shall be favored by Allah.'"

When the angel appeared to Mary to announce the birth of Jesus, he said in Sura 19:19 (Mariam) - "'I am the messenger of your Lord,' he replied, 'and have come to give you a holy son.'"

Sura 3:49 (AI-Imran) - (Jesus is speaking) "I bring you a sign from your Lord. From clay, I will make for you the likeness of a bird. I shall breathe into it and, by Allah's leave, it shall become a living bird. By Allah's leave, I shall give sight to the blind man, heal the leper and raise the dead to life." It is only the Lord Jesus Christ who can do such things and by the Quran's own standard this identifies Jesus as the one with divine power and authority.

Sura 4:171 (Al-Nisa) - "Al-Masih (Messiah), Isa (Jesus) the son of Mariam, was no more than Allah's apostle and His Word which He bestowed on Mariam, and a spirit proceeding from Him." Jesus is the Spirit of God (Ruhull-llah) and the Word of God. Moses is called God's spokesman in the Quran, and Abraham is called the friend of God while Muhammed is called the messenger of God

9.30. The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

The Qu’ran considered “pagans” as the worst offenders of Allah’ unbelievers, but even there, there is compassion:

Quote:
8.67. It is not fitting for an apostle that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise.

9.6. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. And then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

Regarding hypocrisy:

Quote:
9.60. Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time:

9.61. They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).

9.62. (Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.

9.64. Verily Allah has cursed the Unbelievers and prepared for them a Blazing Fire,-

9.65. To dwell therein for ever: no protector will they find, nor helper.

47.4. Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah.s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

Note that it doesn’t admonish Muslims to seek out and destroy unbelievers, but to deal with them forcefully in a fight or if they attack. That’s been corrupted. [quote\]2.190. Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

2.191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

2.192. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. But if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

Regarding lewdnss:

Quote:
4.15. If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.

4.16. If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

On women:

Quote:
4.34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

5.82. Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant..

That’s just a start and only covers a few topics. The Bible also has difficulty in translation, so there are disagreements among scholars. However, as to the Bible on the same subjects, I’ll provide some quotes. I think most of us already know the story of Christ’s birth, and that he was considered the son of God and part of the Holy Trinity, so I won’t give direct quotes.

Mohammed is foretold in the Bible, according to many. the Arabic word "Muhammad" is an expression which means "The honorable one" or "The glorified one" or "The admirable". Prophet Muhammad was the first in the Middle East to be named "Muhammad". Below, you will see how Jesus in today's Gospel of John had called this human Prophet which he predicted his comming "The honorable one".

Jesus in the Greek Bible used the Greek word "Periklytos" which means the admirable or glorified one. He called that predicted human prophet "Periklytos". This word corresponds exactly to the Arabic word "Muhammad" which also means the "admired one" or "glorified one." In other words, "Periklytos" is "Muhammad" in Greek. References to him are many in the Bible:

In the following four verses, the word "comforter" is translated from the word "Paraclete" ("Ho Parakletos" in Greek). Parakletos in Greek is interpreted as "an advocate", one who pleads the cause of another, one who councils or advises another from deep concern for the other's welfare (Beacon Bible commentary volume VII, p.168). In these verses we are told that once Jesus (peace be upon him) departs, a Paraclete will come. He will glorify Jesus (peace be upon him), and he will guide mankind into all truth. This "Paraclete" is identified in John 14:26 as the Holy Ghost:

John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever"

John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me"

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

It must be pointed out that the original Greek manuscripts speak of a "Holy pneuma." The word pneuma {pnyoo'-mah} is the Greek root word for "spirit." There is no separate word for "Ghost" in the Greek manuscripts, of which there are claimed to be over 24,000 today. The translators of the King James Version of the Bible translate this word as "Ghost" to convey their own personal understanding of the text. However, a more accurate translation is "Holy Spirit." More faithful and recent translations of the Bible, such as the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), do indeed now translate it as "Holy Spirit." This is significant

All Bibles in existence today are compiled from "ancient manuscripts," the most ancient of which being those of the fourth century C.E. Any scholar of the Bible will tell us that no two ancient manuscripts are exactly identical. All Bibles in our possession today are the result of extensive cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no single one being the definitive reference.
What the translators of the Bible have done when presented with such discrepancies is to do their best to choose the correct version. In other words, since they can not know which "ancient manuscript" is the correct one, they must do a little detective work on the text in order to decide which "version" of a given verse to accept. John 14:26 is just such an example of such selection techniques.
John 14:26 is the only verse of the Bible which associates the Parakletos with the Holy Spirit. But if we were to go back to the "ancient manuscripts" themselves, we would find that they are not all in agreement that the "Parakletos" is the Holy Spirit. For instance, in the famous the Codex Syriacus, written around the fifth century C.E., and discovered in 1812 on Mount Sinai by Mrs.Agnes S. Lewis (and Mrs. Bensley), the text of 14:26 reads; "Paraclete, the Spirit"; and not "Paraclete, the Holy Spirit.".

There’s a lot of other stuff in the Bible about Islam, too, but I won’t go into that here.

Regarding Judiasm and Jews. Remember, first came the Jews, then the Christians, then the Muslims. Most of us know that the Jews were originally considered the “chosen people”, and Jesus was “King of the Jews”. They turned on him when he and later quotes aren’t so kindly toward the Jews::

Quote:
2 Kings 25:25 :But in the seventh month, Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, son of Elishama, of the royal family, came with ten men and struck down Gedaliah and put him to death along with the Jews and the Chaldeans who were with him at Mizpah.

Malachai 2-4 later showed that God chose Jacob over Esau because Jacob followed him, and said to the followers of Esau:

Quote:
I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye (Israel) say, Wherein has thou loved us? saith the Lord; yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and rebuild the desolate place; Thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they (Israel) shall call them the border of wickedness, and the people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever.

So:

Quote:
Obadiah 1:18: And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be [any] remaining of the house of Esau

On hypocrisy:

Quote:
Job 15:34 For the congregation of hypocrites shall be desolate, and fire shall consume the tabernacles of bribery.

Isaah 10:6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

Matthew 24: 51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth

Lewdness:

Quote:
Thus will I cause to cease lewdness out of the land,.... There being no opportunity for it, nor any to commit it; what were not destroyed by famine, sword, and pestilence, during the siege, were carried captive; and, when they returned, were never more given to idolatry; see Ezekiel 23:27

It's an argument you can have all day and all night, but I remember what I read of the bible, and it was pretty violent; I haven't found an equal amount of violence in the Qu'ran. So I guess it's my OPINION, I can't prove "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Thursday, September 23, 2010 6:03 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Is Klesst new? Cool, another chew toy.

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

Friday, September 24, 2010 4:47 PM