TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bring Back John-Paul II
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
@ all the TA Muslims: I urge you to be more vocal here, and on other occasions. It's eighter (potentially) getting caught in the crossfire or a fucking concentration camp (not necessarily you, but possibly your children). Take your pick. If not out of principle, I assume most of you are alteast interested in self-preservation.
EDIT: And no, I'm being asolutely serious here.
heh Islam would not have even caused a tenth of the deaths, suffering, and attrocities that Christianity has been directly and indirectly culpable for throughout history 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tathi heh Islam would not have even caused a tenth of the deaths, suffering, and attrocities that Christianity has been directly and indirectly culpable for throughout history |
For this leg of the race Islams ahead in the killing and bombing people department but they've still got a good 600 years of rape, pillage, and murder to catch up to those good ol' Christians; oh and those sneaky Catholics are sodomising Africa with AIDS which cancells out those who've died in Darfur so they're pretty much neck and neck in that part of the world.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tathi For this leg of the race Islams ahead in the killing and bombing people department but they've still got a good 600 years of rape, pillage, and murder to catch up to those good ol' Christians; oh and those sneaky Catholics are sodomising Africa with AIDS which cancells out those who've died in Darfur so they're pretty much neck and neck in that part of the world. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tathi For this leg of the race Islams ahead in the killing and bombing people department but they've still got a good 600 years of rape, pillage, and murder to catch up to those good ol' Christians; oh and those sneaky Catholics are sodomising Africa with AIDS which cancells out those who've died in Darfur so they're pretty much neck and neck in that part of the world. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh bollocks. you cant compare to the last 600 years. well i suppose you can, but ill just ask which of these two religions do you think has made the transition into modernity more successfully? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z I don't see what a "transition to modernity" necessarily has to do with acting sane and not blowing shit up? |
A good read
| quote: |
| A Sorry Situation It's time to stop apologizing and start defending freedom of speech. By Anne Applebaum Posted Monday, Sept. 18, 2006, at 11:43 PM ET Already, angry Palestinian militants have assaulted at least seven West Bank and Gaza churches, destroying two of them. In Somalia, gunmen shot dead an elderly Italian nun. Radical clerics from Qatar to Qum have called, variously, for a "day of anger" or for worshippers to "hunt down" the pope and his followers. From Turkey to Malaysia, Muslim politicians have condemned the pope and his apology as "insufficient." And all of this because Benedict XVI, speaking at the University of Regensburg, quoted a Byzantine emperor who, more than 600 years ago, called Islam a faith "spread by the sword." We've been here before, of course. Similar protests were sparked last winter by cartoon portrayals of Mohammed in the Danish press. Similar apologies resulted, too, though Benedict's is more surprising than those of the Danish government. No one, apparently, can remember any pope, not even the media-friendly John Paul II, ever apologizing for anything in such specific terms: not for the Inquisition, not for the persecution of Galileo, and certainly not for a single comment made to an academic audience in an unimportant German city. But Western reactions to Muslim "days of anger" have followed a familiar pattern, too. Last winter, some Western newspapers defended their Danish colleagues, even going so far as to reprint the cartoons�but others, including the Vatican, attacked the Danes for causing offense. Some leading Catholics have now defended the pope�but others, no doubt including some Danes, have complained that his sermon should have been better vetted, or never given at all. This isn't surprising: By definition, the West is not monolithic. Left-leaning journalists don't identify with right-leaning colleagues (or right-leaning Catholic colleagues), and vice-versa. Not all Christians, let alone all Catholics�even all German Catholics�identify with the pope, either, and certainly they don't want to defend his every scholarly quotation. Unfortunately, these subtle distinctions are lost on the fanatics who torch embassies and churches. And they may also be preventing all of us from finding a useful response to the waves of anti-Western anger and violence that periodically engulf parts of the Muslim world. Clearly, a handful of apologies and some random public debate�should the pope have said X, should the Danish prime minister have done Y�are ineffective and irrelevant: None of the radical clerics accepts Western apologies, and none of their radical followers reads the Western press. Instead, Western politicians, writers, thinkers, and speakers should stop apologizing�and start uniting. By this, I don't mean that we all need to rush to defend or to analyze this particular sermon: I leave that to experts on Byzantine theology (and to my colleague Christopher Hitchens). But we can all unite in our support for freedom of speech�surely the pope is allowed to quote medieval texts�and of the press. And we can also unite�loudly�in our condemnation of violent, unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies, and elderly nuns. By "we" I mean here the White House, the Vatican, the German Greens, the French Foreign Ministry, NATO, Greenpeace, Le Monde, and Fox News. Western institutions of the left, the right, and everything in between. True, these principles sound pretty elementary�"we're pro-free speech and anti-gratuitous violence"�but in the days since the pope's sermon, I don't feel that I've heard them defended in anything like a unanimous chorus. A lot more time has been spent analyzing what the pontiff meant to say, or should have said, or ought to have said if he had been given better advice. All of which is simply beside the point, since nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism, and hatred that pours out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day of the week all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it's time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews, and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn't the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain's chief rabbi, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them�simultaneously. Equally, I see no reason why Swedish social democrats, British conservatives, and Dutch liberals couldn't occasionally forget their admittedly deep differences and agree unanimously that the practices of female circumcision and forced child marriage are totally unacceptable, whether in Somalia or Stockholm. Surely on this issue they all agree. Maybe it's a pipe dream: The day when the White House and Greenpeace can issue a joint statement is distant indeed. But if stray comments by Western leaders�not to mention Western films, books, cartoons, traditions, ethics, and values�are going to inspire violence on a regular basis, I don't feel that it's asking too much for the West to quit saying sorry and remain united, occasionally, in its own defense. The fanatics attacking the pope already limit the right to free speech among their own followers. I don't see why we should allow them to limit our right to free speech, too. Anne Applebaum, a Washington Post and Slate columnist, is currently a fellow at the American Academy in Berlin. Her most recent book is Gulag: A History. Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2149885/ |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN true, but how are those numbers going in post modernity? |
| quote: |
| The "war on terror" - and by terrorists - has directly killed a minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million refugees and cost the US more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation on earth. If estimates of other, unquantified, deaths - of insurgents, the Iraq military during the 2003 invasion, those not recorded individually by Western media, and those dying from wounds - are included, then the toll could reach as high as 180,000. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN middle-eastern nations (or the citizens within them) that are governed too much by religion are a bit behind in these areas. |
ignorant fools, the pope has apologized but yet they issue statements saying that the Pope and the West will die or convert to Islam. | quote: |
| You infidels and despotic, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," the statement said. The group said Muslims will be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword." source |
| quote: |
| Head of Indonesia's largest Muslim organization: The Pope apologized, so STFU and GBTW. "If the rage continues, perhaps what the pope said is true." SOURCE |
I think what the pope was trying to get across was the way the two religions spread (Christianity and Islam).
On one hand, Christianity was spread passively. Through martyrdom and through the disciples spreading the word of Christ.
On the other hand, Islam, was spread "By the sword" as Mohammed put it. Conquests through north Africa and then through Spain and southern France.
I honestly don't know where the pope was trying to get to from that, but, I know it was definitely not in the context as the protesting Muslims are putting it in.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Temperate I think what the pope was trying to get across was the way the two religions spread (Christianity and Islam). On one hand, Christianity was spread passively. Through martyrdom and through the disciples spreading the word of Christ. On the other hand, Islam, was spread "By the sword" as Mohammed put it. Conquests through north Africa and then through Spain and southern France. I honestly don't know where the pope was trying to get to from that, but, I know it was definitely not in the context as the protesting Muslims are putting it in. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z You obviously have a lot to learn about Islamic History. Here's a good place to start. |
| quote: |
| Surah 9 1. "Ye cannot escape Allah. Allah will confound the disbelievers." 9:2 2. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve. 9:3 3. Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. 9:5 4. Those who submit and convert to Islam will be treated well. (Those who don't submit will be killed. See previous verse.) 9:6 5. Don't make treaties with non-Muslims. They are all evildoers and should not be trusted. 9:7-9 6. Treat converts to Islam well. (Kill those who refuse to convert. See 9:5) 9:11 7. Fight the disbelievers! Allah is on your side; he will give you victory. 9:12-14 8. Don't let idolaters tend the sanctuaries. Their works are in vain and they will be burned in the Fire. 9:17 9. Don't make be friends with with your disbelieving family members. Those who do so are wrong-doers. 9:23 10. Allah punished those who disbelieved. 9:26 11. Only idolaters are unclean. Keep them away from your places of worship. 9:28 12. Fight against Christians and Jews "until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low." 9:29 13. Christians and Jews are perverse. Allah himself fights against them. 9:30 14. The "Religion of Truth" (Islam) must prevail, by force if necessary, over all other religions. 9:33 15. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to the rich and greedy Christian monks and Jewish rabbis. 9:34 16. Allah does not guide the disbelievers. 9:37 17. Fight for Allah with your wealth and whatever weapons are available to you. 9:41 18. Those who refuse to fight for Allah (claiming they are unable) are liars who have destroyed their souls. 9:42 19. Disbelievers go to hell. 9:49 20. Pay your contribution willingly. Allah will not accept a contribution from disbelievers or idlers. 9:53 21. Those who vex the Prophet, for them there is a painful doom. 9:60 22. Allah is only pleased by true believers. 9:62 23. Those who oppose Allah and His messenger will burn in the fire of hell. 9:63 24. Allah promises hypocrites and disbelievers the fire of hell. Allah curses them. They will have a lasting torment. 9:68 25. Fight the disbelievers and hypocrites. Be harsh with them. They are all going to hell anyway. 9:73 26. Allah will afflict disbelievers with a painful doom in this world and the Hereafter. 9:74 27. God will not forgive disbelievers, so don't ask. 9:80 28. Those who refuse to give their wealth and lives to Allah will face the fire of hell. 9:81-83 29. Don't pray for dead disbelievers or attend their funerals. 9:84 30. Those who refuse to fight for Allah will be treated (along with their children) as unbelievers. 9:85 31. For disbelievers there will be a painful doom. 9:90 32. The unbelieving Arabs will be punished by Allah with an evil fortune. 9:97-98, 101 33. Stay away from non-Muslims. They are all liars. 9:107 34. Believers must fight for Allah. They must kill and be killed , and are bound to do so by the Torah, Gospel, and Quran. But Allah will reward them for it. 9:111 35. Don't pray for idolaters (not even for your family) after it is clear they are people of hell-fire. 9:113 36. Abraham disowned his father for being an enemy of Allah. 9:114 37. Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you. 9:123 38. Disbelievers are wicked and have diseased hearts. 9:125 39. Allah turns away those who misunderstand him. 9:127 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z You obviously have a lot to learn about Islamic History. Here's a good place to start. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Renegade Just doing his bit for Islamo-Christian relations I guess. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tathi heh Islam would not have even caused a tenth of the deaths, suffering, and attrocities that Christianity has been directly and indirectly culpable for throughout history |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tathi For this leg of the race Islams ahead in the killing and bombing people department but they've still got a good 600 years of rape, pillage, and murder to catch up to those good ol' Christians; oh and those sneaky Catholics are sodomising Africa with AIDS which cancells out those who've died in Darfur so they're pretty much neck and neck in that part of the world. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Renegade Not sure if you count the US government as "Christians" (I would), but: |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Temperate I know much about islamic history, and, unfortunately alot of it revolved around conquest, take the holy land for instance. Blame the interpretation of certain leaders, not the religion itself. If you bothered to look at my posts in the book recommendation thread, you will see that I have read quite a few books about islamic history, many of which are partial to the religion. So please, take your disinformation somewhere else. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX Z, can you clarify these, I know that surah 9 was written about certain happenings going on at the time, but is this the kind of passages that are being misconstrued on both sides to point out fears and rights in the current time's mess?? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Renegade Not sure if you count the US government as "Christians" (I would), but: http://news.independent.co.uk/world...icle1433404.ece |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z EDIT: One thing you must keep in mind is that in Islam, a militaristic manifestation of "Jihad" is purely a response to agression or genuine offensive threat and is completey defensive in nature. There are also several conditions and rules or combat you must respect when engaging in Jihad, for instance, you cannot target women, children, the old, property, or any non-combative personal in any shape or form. "Collateral damage" isn't excusible for example. Other forbiden actions are things such as tortue, mistreatement of prisoners of war etc. So every time you heard the word "Jihad" being interchangeably use for terroism is nothing more than a misuse of the term, as the nature of terrorism violates many of the fundamental rules of militaristic Jihad. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z I took a look at it. One book doesn't constitute having an understanding of the history of a region. How many books have you read by Middle Eastern scholars? Have you verified fact from nultiple sources (which are not mainly Western)? Have you considered evaluating multiple analysis and historical view points via comparison. May want to consider referring to more than just one or a few sources to get a more informed and more objective view point. Anyways, I don't see the point in refuting or engaging in an argument with someone who's accusing me of spreading "disinformation" before I even said a thing on the subject. You're in effect calling me a liar before I even said a thing. Thanks for demonstrating your open mindedness, it saved me alot of time. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Temperate Now, having that said, I won't argue with some with who tells me that I spread disinformation, but in a much nicer context. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Temperate On one hand, Christianity was spread passively. Through martyrdom and through the disciples spreading the word of Christ. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by trancaholic Can you really blame the Pope - who is the head of the Christian Catholic Church, and not a politician - for (vaguely) suggesting that Islam is spread by the sword? I'm no fan of Christianity (by far), but I certainly think that it is commendable for a leader to react with concern and aggrevation when his subjects are persecuted. In fact, i even find his reaction a bit too cautious: The proper reaction would be stark condemnation, and direct talks with the rulers of the countries where these attacks take place all too frequently. |
| quote: |
| Pope Benedict's speech was an academic address at a German university on an esoteric theological theme that had nothing to do with affronting Muslims. [...] The trouble with being the Pope is that you are simultaneously a theologian and a politician. Theological discourse is regularly nuanced and esoteric. Political discourse is not. [...] In political terms, his choice was poor. He was naive not to recognise how offensively it would translate into the crudeness of the public conversation, and should at least have made clear that he was not endorsing Manuel II's words. |
| quote: |
| Do you seriously consider these deaths to be deaths for the advancement of Christianity/spurred by Christian teachings? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Just to demonstrate your utter ignorance (this particular comment which I wanted avoid addressing earlier), I guess the plight of the Native American and their forced conversion as well as the Spanish inquisition are perfect examples of that right? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Temperate On one hand, Christianity was spread passively. Through martyrdom and through the disciples spreading the word of Christ. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Temperate Dumbass. I am resorting to calling you that because you fail to understand that I am talking about early christianity. When THEY were the ones being persecuted, and there wasn't corruption in the religion itself. |
| quote: |
Seriously, you're not too bright. Any moron can see that I was talking about the comparison of the early beginnings of the religions. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.