|
|
Post by murphee on Dec 12, 2004 11:33:43 GMT -5
Ethnic Jews hold a wide variety of beliefs about Jesus: some think He was a major prophet, others think He didn't exist, some hate Him and see Him as a blasphemer who did nothing but hurt the Jews, and others believe He is the Son of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by vela on Dec 12, 2004 12:36:25 GMT -5
I fully respect those who chose to be religious and who don't try and shove it down my throat. Also, in a secular state, we have freedom of belief which I in no way want to take away. However, any religious person who wants to merge church and state on the expense of the non-religious ones will receive neither tolerance nor respect from me. You have a good point, anunnaki. My definition of the word "tolerant", does not imply in any way being submissive to other's intolerance. Correct again! State and government should always remain in neutral ground when it comes to the religious beliefs of those it governs. The state should always remain as the guarantor of religious freedom for all. Are there many Muslims in Sweden that really want to impose Sharia law? Is assimilation of Muslims into the mainstream of your society possible at all? |
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Dec 19, 2004 12:32:22 GMT -5
muslim assimilation? impossible! muslim modification of current western cultures by PC.... that is allmoust a certain thing... In 500 years the world would be like Afgahnistan.  the only good thing in the future will be praying, even eating will forbidden. Sexual life for more prayers is also a good thing! learning non koran stuff will be forbidden, the only good thing to learn will be koran. people will starve, they are all learning and praying for allah (not working) and then this muslim world collapse... and back to pre-historic times!  |
|
|
|
Post by vela on Dec 19, 2004 13:33:19 GMT -5
muslim assimilation? impossible! Yeah! unless, like somebody else mentioned in a different thread, we soon witness the appearance of the muslim version of Luther to lead the reformation of Islam. Scary. Sounds like the script from a bad Holywood movie!  |
|
|
|
Post by kynikos on Dec 20, 2004 11:46:33 GMT -5
In 500 years the world would be like Afgahnistan. the only good thing in the future will be praying, even eating will forbidden. Sexual life for more prayers is also a good thing! learning non koran stuff will be forbidden, the only good thing to learn will be koran. people will starve, they are all learning and praying for allah (not working) and then this muslim world collapse... and back to pre-historic times! Sounds GOOD to me..!! Which part of it exactly don't you like? |
|
|
|
Post by mmm on Jan 10, 2005 3:52:22 GMT -5
A friend of mine from Iran(islamic country) told me that they had "Passion of Christ", by Mel Gipson, in iranian cinemas, some people there cried like a Christian, they obviously accept Christ. A film about Mohammed in my country wouldn't ever be shown.
In Spain some people is more devout to other Saints than to Jesus, are Spaniards against Christianity?
|
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on Jan 12, 2005 10:44:35 GMT -5
A friend of mine from Iran(islamic country) told me that they had "Passion of Christ", by Mel Gipson, in iranian cinemas, some people there cried like a Christian, they obviously accept Christ. A film about Mohammed in my country wouldn't ever be shown. In Spain some people is more devout to other Saints than to Jesus, are Spaniards against Christianity? Muslims see Jesus as a lesser prophet. They "accept" him as such. I don't know where you're from, but Mohammed can't be shown on film because it would be "insulting" to Muslim minds. That is also why there are no depictions of Mohammed in Muslim art. Are Spaniards against Christianity because they are devout to a particular saint? I don't think I am going to waste my latin on this one... |
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on Jan 15, 2005 8:35:59 GMT -5
Don't waste your time, It was an ironic question Oh, sorry . I have noticed that I am not very good at detecting sarcasm in posts written in foreign languages. |
|
|
|
Post by Human on Jan 18, 2005 18:53:28 GMT -5
all hold a semitic faith.
historical origins: middle east.
ethnic origins: semitic caucasians.
positiv points about judaism:
the idea of only one God, a God which
could not be seen (most neighbours
simply couldnt believe that inside
the temple there was no idol, or object
at all); an abstract idea of God, opposed
to a concrete idea; monotheism; high
moral principles
negative points: exclusivism; ethnocentrism;
the idea of being chosen by God, and thus
being different from the rest of mankind;
tribalism; some jews may make a point when
they say they chose and not that they were
chosen
christianity:
positive: high moral principles; compassion;
love; open to anyone, not linked to a particular
type of ethnicity; and has incorporated as a legacy
the monotheism of the jews;
islamism:
i cant see any positive aspects here.
FANATICISM; IGNORANCE; VIOLENCE;
History has proven that where Islam prevails art,
science, and all secular cultural benefits of
civilization disappear...
i cant imagine the renaissance with italy being
muslim.
nor can i imagine Picasso, Dalí, Goya with a Muslim
Spain.
?
future:
Islam seems to get stronger.
Christianity in Europe looks weaker.
judaism may face difficult times if islam prevail.
by the way, im agnostic, without any religious
background.
|
|
|
|
Post by visigodo on Jan 18, 2005 19:11:37 GMT -5
A while back I think the Danish expressed their feeling about letting Turkey into the E.U. the best. Even the French are starting to see the light of day. COPENHAGEN (AFP) - Denmark's national symbol, the Little Mermaid sculpture perched on a rock at a Copenhagen pier, was draped in a burka and a sash reading "Turkey in the EU?" overnight, Copenhagen media reported.   We certainly don’t need Turkey or more Islam in Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Jan 18, 2005 23:14:20 GMT -5
Is Islam an insult to humanity? |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Jan 19, 2005 0:27:39 GMT -5
I have much respect for Islam, but the actions of some Muslims is disgusting. Like that Coptic Christian family in New Jersey who were bound and gagges and stabbed to death (ages 8-48). One of the alleged motivations is Islamist reprisals for what the father wrote in a religious message board. Who would bind, gag, and stab an eight-year old girl? The perpetrators must be lower than dirt. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144749,00.html |
|
|
|
Post by visigodo on Jan 19, 2005 17:06:03 GMT -5
I’m not sure that Islam is an insult to Christianity. I’m more inclined to think that some of the more radical Islam is an insult to humanity itself. Especially when talking about some basic human rights, not to mention the backwardness of women’s role in this form of a secular society.
Although I do have to say that Islam is fine with me, if these other societies feel that they must live this way. Who am I to impose how I see the world on to others.
But in Europe they are mystaken if they expect to live the way they do, and treat their women or any other women in Europe the way their culture or religious beliefs have taught them.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Jan 19, 2005 19:39:10 GMT -5
I have much respect for Islam, but the actions of some Muslims is disgusting. Like that Coptic Christian family in New Jersey who were bound and gagges and stabbed to death (ages 8-48). One of the alleged motivations is Islamist reprisals for what the father wrote in a religious message board. Who would bind, gag, and stab an eight-year old girl? The perpetrators must be lower than dirt. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144749,00.html Why are only conservative outlets covering this? Where is ABC? Where is CNN? Where is MSNBC? |
|
Adam
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by Adam on Jan 25, 2005 7:06:27 GMT -5
JUNK HISTORY part 1 of 2
By Mark Glenn - June 21, 2003
Next to "junk science," the one thing that I hate most about the age in which we live, an age that renders little to no critical thinking as pertains important issues, is the area of "junk history." There are, more so today than at any other time I think, a few things that invariably pop up in discussions that demonstrate how easy it is to sway a society's thinking on a given topic with just a few well placed and misleading items repeated over and over again.
As someone who taught history for many years, I cannot describe how irritating it is to hear that Abraham Lincoln fought the "American Civil War" in order to free the slaves, that FDR saved this country from the Great Depression, that the first amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to publish pornography, and that "assault weapons" have been the greatest source of crime and violence in the US during the last century. And yet, it is easy to see how well-intentioned people, who have not yet grasped the extent to which they have surrendered to media and government types the ability to think for themselves, can buy into these notions. They are packaged very cleverly, with bits and pieces of information that are verifiably true. And let's not forget to consider those mouthpieces doing the convincing-very impressive. All kinds of advanced degrees from this school or another, a book tour, a radio or TV show, you name it.
Although a little late in the debate, nothing exemplifies the topic of junk history better than the made-for-mass consumption notions concerning Islam and its relationship to the "Judeo-Christian West", and the fact that since September 11, we in the US have been treated to a daily dose of propaganda surrounding this topic that has obviously led to momentous policies, in particular, the perpetual war in the Middle East.
From the beginning that "they," the architects and authors of this junk history, decided that the Muslims were going to take the fall for the events on that day, (justly or not) we have been served a buffet of lies surrounding the religion of Islam and its history with the West. Not just out of government mouthpieces, but virtually the entire "conservative" talk show parade as well as almost every big-name Christian evangelist. Their message has been common and crude: The religion of Islam teaches hatred for all other faiths, most notably the Christian and Judaic. They point to history as proof of this, citing the "fury" with which the Muslims swept across the Mediterranean lands, forcing the conversion of Christians and Jews at the point of a sword. And now, these sirens maintain, they are attempting it again.
This is a theme over which I am constantly battling with the peoples in my circle. For the purposes of posterity I must reveal here that I am not a Muslim, but a conservative Catholic. By a conservative Catholic, I hold to the notion that there is only one faith, and therefore one would assume that it would be in my interest, given these leanings, to jump on that same religion bashing bandwagon that many of my co-religionists have. The problem is that it would be a lie for me to maintain such a notion, as much as it would be a lie for me to maintain that it is illegal to possess a bible in public school, due to the restraints placed on religion by the first amendment, a notion, like those presently spewed against Islam, that has been illicitly conceived and perpetrated for the purposes of misinforming the public in pursuit of another agenda.
According to the readings I have done, (and I have done more than a few) the facts concerning the Muslims are these.
1. Within the religion of Islam, Christians and Jews are not considered "infidels" as we have been led to believe. In fact, a cursory study of the Quran will reveal that Christians and Jews are referred to as "peoples of the book," since we are all monotheistic and trace our roots back to Abraham. The term "infidels" is reserved for pagans, or those who do not believe in the One God.
2. Christians and Jews were not "converted by the sword" as is commonly taught and believed. Christians and Jews were allowed to keep and practice their religion within those areas where the Muslims had gained hegemony. Indeed, it was in the interest of the various Muslim leaders and other secular authorities to keep it this way, since non-Muslims were taxed at a higher rate than Muslims. Obvious proof of this tolerance exists today in the fact that in many Islamic countries, including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, there are millions of Christians, and who knows how many churches.
3. The conquest of Islam was not a conquest of religion, but, rather, was done in the same vein as many of the Crusades, i.e., a conquest initiated for the acquisition of territory and political power. In fact, many of the Arabs that fought within the Muslim armies in these wars of conquest were Christians and Jews.
4. The conquest of lands that had been Christian was not the blood-soaked struggle it has been taught to have been. Due to dynastic infighting within the Christian lands over who would rule, as well as problems involving the incompetence, high taxes and corruption within many of the Christian governments, the Christian subjects themselves many times welcomed the Muslim invaders who promised them lower and fairer taxes, more efficiency, and more stability.
5. Those particular passages of the Quran that deal negatively with the Christian religion deal specifically with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It is due to the complete devotion to monotheism that the Muslims view the idea of 3 persons to be contradictory and unacceptable.
These items are not difficult to find. Get yourself a history book on the subject, and irrespective of the religious affiliation of the writer, (excepting those authors with the last names of Falwell, Swaggert, Graham, Wolfowitz, Perle, Limbaugh, Savage, or Sharon) the information will be about the same.
|
|
