Religous Wars!

[Brendocon]

The two are intertwined, and blaming one or the other is like saying that one snake on the plane is worse than the others.

Unless one's a cobra and the other's a milk snake.

Though they'd both likely cause similar levels of panic amongst those not au fait with the species.

But yes - one snake not worse than the other. We should be looking to apportion blame to the people who put the ************** snakes on the ************** plane.

Did we just turn the movie into a religious allegory?

Aces!

[Kaylee]

But when a person actually reads the words of Jesus or Buddha? Sounds like good stuff to live your life by. The problem is, because it sounds like good stuff to live your life by, people think it can explain everything. Tribes form around the words and decide that they can make the words stretch over the sky and the universe.

I can't think of many wars started in the name of Buddha... about the closest I can think of would be the Japanese conflicts before and during WWII, who were primarily (and still are) Shintoists first, Buddhists second and Confucianists third. Most of the foundation for the Imperialism and war crimes are commonly traced back to Shintoism, which founds the basis for the Emperor to be revered as a God and obeyed without question.

That said however Tibet, one of very few Buddhist theocracies, has a horrificially violent past full of internal struggle- the country being run initially by the Mongols up until about the 7th Century when the Chinese installed the first Lama as a political puppet. The country then continued pretty much under feudalism until the Chinese took it over recently, replete with Medieval punishments and some nasty internal violence between monks of different sects (this happened a couple of times in Thailand also, although some of the Thai monks don't consider murder to be wrong in all circumstances so it's not quite so hypocritical I suppose).

I believe that reinforces the point must be that no philosophy claiming Divine Knowledge is a particularly good basis for anything.

[Metal Vendetta]

Just thought there was a gap in your knowledge, Rob. Should've known better.

There are many, but the swastika isn't one of them Until rrecently there was a bakery in Ireland that had a huge swastika on the side of it. They had adopted it as the symbol of good bread in the 1920s and saw no reason to change it just because Hitler had co-opted it for his own ends. After all, he was copying them.

It sounds like both sides here are missing one point about the basic human motivation for religion: it sounds like it would help. I'm sure any institutionalized philosophy will throw out an equal amount of bullsh*t with the good stuff. But when a person actually reads the words of Jesus or Buddha? Sounds like good stuff to live your life by. The problem is, because it sounds like good stuff to live your life by, people think it can explain everything. Tribes form around the words and decide that they can make the words stretch over the sky and the universe.

Quoted for truth.

Can a religion be judged by its followers? I don't know about this. If you say it can, then how can we throw out the actions of the Rwandans without throwing out the vast number of black American Christians inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr? He was Christian. Most of his followers were Christian. What about Gandhi? He was a student of Hindu philosophy, and he used it to justify religious harmony. Do we throw Gandhi out with the generations of Hindu leaders who have kept the caste system in place?

Gandhi's approach to religion was incredibly atypical though - he did not have a temple, and he dispensed with "dogma, rituals, superstition, and bigotry" (to quote www.thehindu.com). Don't get me wrong, I know Gandhi was deeply religious, and his version of religion is one that I find particularly praiseworthy, but it's a million miles away from everyone else's. When other leading religious figures start getting rid of the dogma and all that then I will see that as a cause for celebration.

I think Yaya and Bouncelot are trying to bypass the tribal bullsh*t and be closer to the "sounds like good stuff" basics. I tried to do that for a long time. Unfortunately, it doesn't work, but it's a noble goal.

It doesn't work because a private in the army has no say in the army's decisions. If you're bottom man on your institution's ladder, then your opinion of what the Great Founder's words really mean is worth nothing. But don't disregard that it's a noble intention.

And the road to hell?

No, I see where you're coming from, and religion can sound like a good idea, but the problem is that you have to look at a religion as a whole - Hinduism as you said ranges from Gandhi to nuclear build-up in Kashmir. Christianity ranges from huge acts of charity to burning gays. I'd imagine that most of the posters here are either a little left or right of centre on most issues, and I seriously doubt that any of the religious posters here joined up to a religion with the intention of spreading bigotry and hate, but the fact remains that there are other members of that religion (and not just a few, and quite often those in positions of power) who do use it for that purpose. And people don't want to hear that their religion (well-intentioned or not) can have a detrimental effect on society, but viewed objectively that is the only conclusion that can be drawn. Religion unites people, it also creates divisions. Religion inspires people to great kindness and great evil. I'm just trying to point out that for all of Christianity's good intentions in sending missionaries to Rwanda, for example, they ****ed up the entire country. If those missionaries had been, say Coke and Pepsi salesmen instead of Catholic and Protestant priests, what do you think we would be saying on here? That Coke and Pepsi ****ed up a country for their own profit, and everyone would agree. Unless they worked for Coke or Pepsi of course. I'm stretching the analogy here, I think, but what I'm talking about is a kind of blindness to the fact that there might be anything wrong with the religion that a person follows. And a kind of blindness to the fact that they have that blindness in the first place. It's like faith swoops in and takes away the power of logical reasoning or something.*

*Which is another whole topic to itself.

[sprunkner]

It's like faith swoops in and takes away the power of logical reasoning or something.

You just explained the first twenty-five years of my life. It was okay for Joseph Smith to marry other men's wives. God wanted him to do it.

[Metal Vendetta]

It's like faith swoops in and takes away the power of logical reasoning or something.

You just explained the first twenty-five years of my life. It was okay for Joseph Smith to marry other men's wives. God wanted him to do it.

Join me and we can rule the galaxy as father and son.

[Brendocon]

... which will be the father?

[Metal Vendetta]

Actually I'd rather be a slightly suspect uncle, now I come to think about it.

[Kaylee]

Actually I'd rather be a slightly suspect uncle, now I come to think about it.

I think the EU trade descriptions act may have something to say about 'slightly'

[Yaya]

Join me and we can rule the galaxy as father and son.

My kind of humor...

Anway, regarding this:

Hinduism as you said ranges from Gandhi to nuclear build-up in Kashmir. Christianity ranges from huge acts of charity to burning gays

Again, I disagree wholeheartedly. A religion should not change with the times, should not change according to what its followers do with it. Hinduism is neither Ghandhi nor nuclear build-up. What is it? Its an age old religion that has doctrines taught long before either of these, Ghandhi or nuclear build-up, existed. And regarding Christianity, the burning of gays surely cannot be a tenet of the faith. But it surely can be the extremist misinterpretation by those of its followers who lack knowledge of their own faith.

[Best First]

but surely you believe all other faiths aart from yours are not in fact the truth an dtherefore not subject to the same rules/delusions?

[Kaylee]

Again, I disagree wholeheartedly. A religion should not change with the times, should not change according to what its followers do with it. Hinduism is neither Ghandhi nor nuclear build-up. What is it? Its an age old religion that has doctrines taught long before either of these, Ghandhi or nuclear build-up, existed. And regarding Christianity, the burning of gays surely cannot be a tenet of the faith. But it surely can be the extremist misinterpretation by those of its followers who lack knowledge of their own faith.

As a man 'close to Commander Shockwav' (sic)*, I was given to understand your disposition towards homosexuality was rather clearcut? Given that God seems to have a fiery demise in mind for homosexuals, and given I'd imagine that you go along with this as a good idea, it seems a bit odd to call the persecution of homosexuals an 'extremist misinterpretation'? Unless you've had cause to modify your beliefs since you went rather off the deep-end with me over the issue some while back, naturally, which would be nice.

*I shouldn't be too concerned, afaics the mods seem reasonably happy for you to be around.

[Yaya]

but surely you believe all other faiths aart from yours are not in fact the truth an dtherefore not subject to the same rules/delusions?

I do believe my religion is truth and all others are falsehood. Yes, that I do.

However, my faith like any other, can be misinterpreted to dangerous and evil ends, can be abused to further others selfish tendencies, and to incite violence throughout the world.

This is why I do not take my faith lightly, nor should any other Muslim. If I looked at my faith without taking into account what was intended for it to mean or teach, then it is not Islam. It's the Religion of Yaya. The very purpose of Muhammad (PBUH) was to prevent this. The Koran is a book of "what", but to interpret it from oneself is no less evil, if not more so, than not following what's actually in it.


[quote="Karl Lynch] As a man 'close to Commander Shockwav' (sic)*, I was given to understand your disposition towards homosexuality was rather clearcut? [/quote]

I spoke with CS regarding his dialogue with you, and he apologizes for his childish outbreak. Though he disagrees with you on the issue in question and harbors no illwill toward you, his behavior was still uncalled for and better should have been expected of him.

As a Muslim, I believe that regardless of what my own personal preferences or likings might be, I am not the Definer of what is right and wrong. It is true that in Islam, homosexuality is forbidden. But so is premarital intercourse, so is immodest dress, so are open displays of sensual expression, so is alcohol, etc. Some this I am guilty of myself, but I maintain that I am guilty and seek God's forgiveness for them. In Islam, this is the key, not that the act was actually committed.

God's Mercy far surpasses His wrath according to the Koran. Prostitutes in Islam will go to heaven for slaking the thirst of hungry dogs (a Hadith). Drunks have gone to heaven for taking good care of their parents (another Hadith).

Whom am I to say you, Karl, will burn in Hell? Whom am I to say that I won't? Am I the weigher of deeds, or is God? God is the Judge, and He knows His creation, and the hearts of all people, better than we know ourselves. We are all human, and by my own faith, I am far more guilty of things than you likely are (should you use my faith as criteria.) I have disrespected my parents. I have missed one of my five time daily prayers. Both of these things are considered in Islam worse acts than homosexuality or adultery. Yet I stand guilty, and I have hope that God forgives me for them.

I will never say to you that all homosexuals are hellbound.

And I will never say you are hellbound, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual.

But I will not say that homosexual behavior is okay. That, I can not say to you. If you choose to dislike me for this belief, well, that is your prerogative.

When it comes to sensuality, be it hetero- or homo-, Islam restricts that behavior. Even heterosexual activity can be sinful if openly done, or done outside of defined circumstances. On the flip side, celebecy is also considered sinful, as it belies what God has Defined as right.

[Kaylee]

That's a distinction it would be nice if many major religious groups could get over- God, in theory, is the judge not you.

I appreciate I almost certainly provoked the individual in question, although I do find the... depths of some of his views rather distressing. Other than that I have no negative thoughts relating to him. Good to know it's peace.

[Best First]

conversely i'd find it had not to point out that any faith that endorses prejudice based on what two consenting adults get up to isn't worth the time of day...

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Religion, if you study history, was designed to controll the masses - what two ppl of the same sex got up to in thier homes couldnt be controlled as it happened behind closed doors - so they banned it down to hell or whatever.

[Dead Head]

When Dead Head makes an unfounded generalization, should all members of Transfans.net be labelled vitriolic hatemongers?

Nice spiteful jab there Yaya. I got something just for you: Fcuk right off.

you will never find me blaming Islam.

You're an analytical lost cause so.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Id also like to add - if your religion can be so easily mis-interpreted to cause violence, its a bit **** isnt it?

I mean if your god was all powerfull (being a god and all) then surely he can make sure his 'message' gets across correctly, no?

Essentially whats the point - I can be a good person without religion, all religion adds to the pot is death on a masive scale - where as me just minding my own biz doesnt harm anyone, or make ppl feel the need to kill others 'who dont belive'

The reason the message can be taken the wrong way is because the message was written by humans, not god/s and therefore is open to falsehoods - its all writen by man to control other men.

Its BS when u think about it.

[Shanti418]

Id also like to add - if your religion can be so easily mis-interpreted to cause violence, its a bit **** isnt it?

Its BS when u think about it.

I don't think that's really fair. Organized religion is by definition a social grouping, and ANY social grouping will produce bad apples which dehumanize those outside of the group.

Look at sports. Not very violent, but how many fights has it caused over the years?

You can put "militant" in the front of virtually anything.

[Kaylee]

Militant Ms. Pacman?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

But sports dont preach a way of life - what I said is fair as there is no comparison.

Religion is about a way of life, generally supposed to be a peacefull way of life - yet Islam produces thousands of 'belivers' who claim that killing in Allahs name is the right thing to do.

Fights in sports take place between hooligans, there are no miss-conceptions about why these fights take place - thier religion if you will is to kick the crap out of each other.

Islam is a **** religion because it fails to get its basic principles across, Like dont kill... its that simple really.

[Shanti418]

But sports dont preach a way of life - what I said is fair as there is no comparison.

Religion is about a way of life, generally supposed to be a peacefull way of life - yet Islam produces thousands of 'belivers' who claim that killing in Allahs name is the right thing to do.

Fights in sports take place between hooligans, there are no miss-conceptions about why these fights take place - thier religion if you will is to kick the crap out of each other.

Religion is a SOCIAL AFFILIATION. Yes, it's a way of life as well, but that's neither here nor there. And like I said, any social group has a potential to use violence and/or hate.

Islam is a **** religion because it fails to get its basic principles across, Like dont kill... its that simple really.

See, WHY do you bother to even say things like that, when you know you could put Christianity in there instead of Islam and it would still hold true? I understand you don't like religion in general, but to make a pointed statement like that towards Islam is just silly.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I dont understand your first quote.

See, WHY do you bother to even say things like that, when you know you could put Christianity in there instead of Islam and it would still hold true? I understand you don't like religion in general, but to make a pointed statement like that towards Islam is just silly.

No its not - its simply is not at all, and it doesnt take much to understand why.

Care to find me some chrisitans who belive that the bible points towards the same thing as Jihad and are currently blowing stuff up?
Find me any other religion on earth that is currently fueling men and women to kill in the name of thier god?

0 - there are none, my point stands valid unless you can disprove it.

Islam is a bollox religion because it fails to get across its basic principles.

[Shanti418]

No its not - its simply is not at all, and it doesnt take much to understand why.

Care to find me some chrisitans who belive that the bible points towards the same thing as Jihad and are currently blowing stuff up?
Find me any other religion on earth that is currently fueling men and women to kill in the name of thier god?

0 - there are none, my point stands valid unless you can disprove it.

Islam is a bollox religion because it fails to get across its basic principles.

I don't HAVE to disprove it. Basic history does that for me.

We've debated religion SO endlessly lately, are you really going to make me show instances throughout the years of violence used by non Islamic religions? Understand, the word "currently" means nothing to me. People getting killed by suicide bombers today are just as dead as people getting killed by inquisitions/witch trials/crusades 500 years ago.

According to what you actually WROTE as opposed to what you thought,

Islam is a **** religion because it fails to get its basic principles across, Like dont kill... its that simple really.

FACT 1: Most people in the world belong to some sort of religion
FACT 2: Most world religions, including Islam, include teachings preaching against violence
FACT 3: Violence happnes anyway.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

that doesnt make any sense in relation to what im saying.

Islam is a BS religion because it does not get its basic message across - think about what your saying in relation to that.

If I make up a game, and some of the rules can be miss-interpreted to meen 2 different things. then you would say the rules dont work if it allowed me to cheat etc...

Its the same thing with modern Islam (and the past doesnt matter, we dont live there) some of the rules are be taken by some muslims to mean the wrong thing in relation to Islam.

The fundemental problem is that the basic rules of the game dont work.

[Shanti418]

Islam is a BS religion because it does not get its basic message across - think about what your saying in relation to that.
Its the same thing with modern Islam; some of the rules are be taken by some muslims to mean the wrong thing in relation to Islam.
The fundemental problem is that the basic rules of the game dont work.

I AM thinking about that, and I AM thinking that if you want to talk about religions that have extremists, or religions where followers change or interpret the meanings to suit their own ends, or where you, a noted theologian, think the message "doesn't get across," to say that the discussion begins and ends with Islam is idiocy.

(and the past doesnt matter, we dont live there)

Then you are blind, deaf, and dumb when it comes to looking at the present.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

No

and

No

Islam has a major problem right now because not just a few but tens of thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands are 'miss-interpreting' the basic txt.
Islam doesnt get the basic message across, its that simple.

Untill you can tell me that no one is killing in the name of allah - or can show me another religon where members die in the name of thier chosen god by the thousands then you cannot win the argument.

The past is relevent here - calling me blind deaf and dumb proves nothing - tell me why past effects why Islam doesnt get the basic points correct?

There is no correlation between points - Explain why the past matters to the rules of Islam and then what your saying might stand but you have dug yourself a hole, the two things cannot be argued in any fashion because both can be taken literaly.

Like I say, show me no one is dying in the name of Allah (uttelry and totaly impposible) and that, lets say, Christianity has members dying it its name by the same number and ill listen to your argument but both these things cannot be shown.

my point stands completely.
I designed my statement knowing it would anyhows, I always do.

I agree that in the past many religions have had bloody pasts but they have evolved and times have changed and we can only deal with whats in front of us now, but I did speak about the past and present.

[Shanti418]

Impy, stop making me into a broken record. I don't see what's so hard about this, and I don't see how you think I'm going to let scapegoating of one world religion based on current world events fly.

Islam has a major problem right now because not just a few but tens of thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands are 'miss-interpreting' the basic txt.
Islam doesnt get the basic message across, its that simple.
Untill you can tell me that no one is killing in the name of allah - or can show me another religon where members die in the name of thier chosen god by the thousands then you cannot win the argument.

I can and am winning the arguement, because my point is not to disprove that people are killing in the name of Allah, but to prove that people have killed in the name of Jesus/Zeus/Ra/Krishna, etc. You want to live in some world where all of these things are somehow lesser because they happened in the past, and because you're here to see it, the killings of people under the name of Allah is somehow graver than anything that has come before it.

The past is relevent here - calling me blind deaf and dumb proves nothing - tell me why past effects why Islam doesnt get the basic points correct?

Well, if you want me to connect these points, even though connecting these two things was in no way what I was trying to do, I would say that centuries of colonialism and imperialism combined with forcing tribal religious groups into nation states that can be easily exploited through the free market system is the gunpowder on which radical Islam is the spark.
To me, it's like Nazi Germany: Most Germans were not fascist. But they were going through a severe economic, national, and emotional depression due to the outcome of WWI and the treaties therin. When you're Germany or Iran, for example, and you have a proud history, and all of a sudden, you're getting trampled on, or being passed by, you're going to be pissed off. And for a lot of Islamic people in the Middle East who feel that way, the fundamentalists are the ones who are stoking their anger and giving them a voice in the sound of a gunshot or bomb.

Like I say, show me no one is dying in the name of Allah (uttelry and totaly impposible) and that, lets say, Christianity has members dying it its name by the same number and ill listen to your argument but both these things cannot be shown.

Well, you want to set me up to fail, because you have decided that anything not happening RIGHT NOW THIS SECOND is completly inadmissable as evidence.

I designed my statement knowing it would anyhows, I always do.

See? You LOVE saying things like this. Broad, sweeping generalizations which sound excellent but hold less water than a thimble. Even if you DID designed this statement to be foolproof as the Titanic, you can't say that you ALWAYS do. You're always the one making broad statements from which you must retract or restate. I'm not saying it's bad or good, I'm just saying it's part of your literary style. Don't pretend like it's not.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I can and am winning the arguement, because my point is not to disprove that people are killing in the name of Allah, but to prove that people have killed in the name of Jesus/Zeus/Ra/Krishna, etc. You want to live in some world where all of these things are somehow lesser because they happened in the past, and because you're here to see it, the killings of people under the name of Allah is somehow graver than anything that has come before it.

Your not winning anything yet as your yet to prove anything wrong.

It doesnt matter that ppl have killed in the name of X,Y,Z - So is Islam - it get its basic message wrong.
Maybe the other religions did aswell but they have adapated and ive said this elsewhere, untill Islam adapts like other religions have its rules are flawed.

The past is relevent here - calling me blind deaf and dumb proves nothing - tell me why past effects why Islam doesnt get the basic points correct?

When you're Germany or Iran, for example, and you have a proud history, and all of a sudden, you're getting trampled on, or being passed by, you're going to be pissed off. And for a lot of Islamic people in the Middle East who feel that way, the fundamentalists are the ones who are stoking their anger and giving them a voice in the sound of a gunshot or bomb.

The Germens were not Islamic, they didnt have a religion to live by - most of the middle east does and regardless of how pissed off you migh be the basic rules are not being portrayed correctly they are being miss-read by some groups.

Well, you want to set me up to fail, because you have decided that anything not happening RIGHT NOW THIS SECOND is completly inadmissable as evidence.

because it doesnt matter to my point - time doesn not change the whats written.

If we go back and look at christians killing in the crusades the words of the Koran dont suddenyl change by magic, and they dont change if we look at any other religion either.
The words remain the same - my point is, i say it again, Islam is a BS religion because it doesnt get its basic points across correctly.
The youngest religions are always the most violent, and Islam needs to get its rule book in order.

See? You LOVE saying things like this. Broad, sweeping generalizations which sound excellent but hold less water than a thimble. Even if you DID designed this statement to be foolproof as the Titanic, you can't say that you ALWAYS do. You're always the one making broad statements from which you must retract or restate. I'm not saying it's bad or good, I'm just saying it's part of your literary style. Don't pretend like it's not.

Untill proven wrong I can make them as broard as I like - untill that day.

Id rather get my point across in a few words, in a statement, the broarder it is only make it more complex to get correct but unless it can be shown to be incorrect ill stand by it.

The beat speakers in history didnt need a 1000 words to make a point, they get it across as concise as possible.

Now right now u have a young religion, like the others once were, I dont deny other religions have violent pasts, my statement doesnt have anything to do with that. Islam is young, it has flaws, like other religions once had and its up to the Muslim community right now to set the record straight.
Because right now its a BS religion that doesnt get its basic messages correct - for example, not killing.

right now in the world we live in there isnt another comparison - yes there were comparisons in the past but they only serve to show history repeating itself, thats it. it doesnt change the facts - Islam has issues with its rulebook.

Important: if you want to talk about how other religions in history have been just as bloodied and have put across messages that seem completely stupid in the context of most basic religions, then cool, im happy to talk earths history but im talking about current events and the past only serves as a reminder.

It also serves me with the ammo that shows God makes mistakes, even thos gods cannot. only humans make mistakes. and it underlines how religions are just a human invention for controll but thats another debate.

[Yaya]

Islam has a major problem right now because not just a few but tens of thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands are 'miss-interpreting' the basic txt.
Islam doesnt get the basic message across, its that simple.

I'm sorry, I have to laugh at this hypocrisy.

What about that religion where people worship this black liquid energy source we harvest from the ground?

When hundreds of thousands of people get bombed and killed for oil, its just business, right? When U.S. soldiers rape and kill innocent Iraqi families, its not Christian fundamentalism. Not Biblical extremism.

When there is a retaliatory effort, though, its "Oh look! It's Muslim violence, the hand of Islam has struck again! "

Give me a ******* break.

Money and power. That is the main reason for war, for violence in this world.

Not religion.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Your side-stepping the issue because:

worship of oil is finacial greed and does not base itself in anyway on peace keeping, loveing life or any other such terms that most religions use as a basis.

Your analogy is flawed beyond reason.

Its like saying sport has violent ppl - yes they do, they call themselves hooligans, thier purpose is to be violent! know false profits there.
Oil companies are dirty gits who want to make money, what did u expect.

The causes that allow certain muslims to get angry might be the way global companies behave - but the retaliation sort out by these indivduals gos against everything most religions preachs as thier basic fundemental rules.
Violence isnt justified by any means, and this should be more relevent to a religious follower then anyone else no?

Islams rulebook is flawed as it allows thousands of muslims to find violent judication through the Koran. the Islamic community needs to get its house in check.

Anyhows ive gone over this, and various other points in other posts, and this is just going over the same thing others have gone over already.
I stand by what ive said.