I note the two opposing sides in the Bendigo protests are, one opposing a political / religious system's Mosque in the town; the other claiming, to oppose the belief in Islam a racial slur. One could be telling the truth the other a blatant political lie.

Is Islam a race as we often hear? If it is a race then it cannot be changed as it is genetic, and everyone of that genetic make up is Islamic. Is that the case? If it is a belief system then anyone holding that belief can change their mind.

Clearly we are being fed the RACE CARD because it is is a slur against an unchangeable genetic base. Because persons of the same genetic base hold vast differences of belief it is clearly not Race.
Who is promoting lies to the Australian public?

The very fact Islam is murdering persons of the same genetic base for their differing beliefs is evidence it is a political and not a genetic fact.

I would like to hear from persons on both sides of the protest.

Are there faction in the Media deliberately giving the public a misrepresentation of facts, by calling Islam a race of people? If so are these media outlets that need to be exposed as fraudulent liars?

Question: "What is Islam, and what do Muslims believe?"

Answer: Islam is a religious system begun in the seventh century by Muhammad. Muslims follow the teachings of the Qur’an and strive to keep the Five Pillars.

The Five Pillars of Islam
These five tenets compose the framework of obedience for Muslims:
1. The testimony of faith (shahada): “la ilaha illa allah. Muhammad rasul Allah.” This means, “There is no deity but Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” A person can convert to Islam by stating this creed. The shahada shows that a Muslim believes in Allah alone as deity and believes that Muhammad reveals Allah.
2. Prayer (salat): Five ritual prayers must be performed every day.
3. Giving (zakat): This almsgiving is a certain percentage given once a year.
4. Fasting (sawm): Muslims fast during Ramadan in the ninth month of the Islamic calendar. They must not eat or drink from dawn until sunset.
5. Pilgrimage (hajj): If physically and financially possible, a Muslim must make the pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia at least once. The hajj is performed in the twelfth month of the Islamic calendar.

The Doctrine of Islam
Muslims summarize their doctrine in six articles of faith:
1. Belief in one Allah: Muslims believe Allah is one, eternal, creator, and sovereign.
2. Belief in the angels
3. Belief in the prophets: The prophets include the biblical prophets but end with Muhammad as Allah’s final prophet.
4. Belief in the revelations of Allah: Muslims accept certain portions of the Bible, such as the Torah and the Gospels. They believe the Qur'an is the preexistent, perfect word of Allah.
5. Belief in the last day of judgment and the hereafter: Everyone will be resurrected for judgment into either paradise or hell.
6. Belief in predestination: Muslims believe Allah has decreed everything that will happen. Muslims testify to Allah’s sovereignty with their frequent phrase, inshallah, meaning, “if God wills.”

Because of these essential differences and contradictions, Islam and Christianity cannot both be true. The Bible and Qur’an cannot both be God’s Word. The truth has eternal consequences.

Islam is a religion not a race.

However there are a lot of racists who use opposition to Islam as a cover for their racist policies.

But whether by race or religion, discrimination is wrong.

Aidan,
All roads lead to Jerusalem in this "debate", by law in this country the race question in this context is only to be answered by Muslims, Jews and Zionist helpers.
The Neo-cons and cuckservatives chant "Islam is not a race"so the Socialists and Anarchists have printed placards declaring "No Islam is not a race, but you're still a racist".
The left are fundamentally opposed to nations, traditions and Christianity and use Trotsky's description of the Russian peasantry as the basis of their allegation of "Racism" in non socialists.
So, Islam is a political and religious system and not a race, Judaism is racial and religious and Socialists simply use the term "Racist" to describe anyone who won't accept the word of Leon Trotsky as gospel (pun intended)
Australian Nationalists are tolerant of Christians, dismissive of Zionists, Orthodox Jews and Muslims and have a "wide and shallow" definition of Australian nationality.
The goal of Australian Nationalism in a nutshell is national independance, patriotism as the higher loyalty rather than religion and re focusing the state to serve the continuing development of a unique Australian culture rather than catering exclusively to the needs of foreigners and global multinational companies.

Islam is a religion...consisting of people who believe in an invisible being called Allah, and a book called the Koran, written by humans. It sounds very like Christianity really, except for the names of the God and book. Many different races are made up of people who follow Islam.

Jay of Melbourne, where does your little nationalistic group stand on the original nationals of Australia, our indigenous people? I assume they are leaders in your group?
They were here first after all....

Suse,
Well Islam is often described as Judaism 2.0, it has more in common with Orthodox Judaism than Christianity.
Re the second part of your post.
Nobody living today was here "first", we're all here now, that's all that matters, the UPF include Aboriginals and Aboriginal culture in their foundation mythos, so to speak and I've met several Aboriginal people at their rallies, I won't lie and say there are lots but there are a handful involved.
The accepted position is that Aboriginals are our equals but not our betters, their history is our history and vice versa and they can make up their own minds about who they want to support, some indigenous people are deeply patriotic, others are not.
The vast majority of Aboriginals are integrated into mainstream society, the same issues that affect Whites and which the UPF seek to address affect them, in some circumstances even more so as Aborigines often find themselves losing out to migrants in employment etc.
I've explained the context of the "racist" epithet above, racist just means a non-Trotskyite, very few Aboriginals are interested in Trotsky and get along just fine with White people.

Aidan, How are the demonstrators expressing racist slogans?
How are the supporters of a Mosque identifying their opposition to a religious structure as racists?

It seems every opponent to Islam is considered as racist by supporters of Islam.

Nice little game of semantics, Josephus.

Let's just settle for "bigots"....and a more impressive band of crackpot, roughneck rabble you'd be battling to find...replete with the fold impressions still in their cheap Chinese-made flags.

Although, poor old Pauline Hanson could have done with a little tuition in 2007 - when she famously blathered that she had no truck with Muslims - but Christian Muslims would be just fine.

"There are Christian Muslims - there is no problems about that," she told ABC radio yesterday."

http://www.news.com.au/national/christian-muslims-welcome-says-hanson/story-e6frfkp9-1111113251407

ROFL!

I'm glad to read that you include Aboriginals in your group Jay of Melbourne, as sometimes I am confused re who is in or out with you. As for Trotsky and the now century old Russian revolution, what on earth has he got to do with modern day Australia?

As you are an 'opponent' of Islam Josephus, what would you call yourself then?
I am opposed to violence from any group of people, and am not religious at all, but I don't call myself racist because of my thoughts about other religious people.
I take them as they come, regardless of their religion, or if they don't believe in any God at all.

Poirot,
The only bigots are Daniel Andrews and his rabble of violent Anarchists and Trotskyites, unfortunately the vast majority of working people are not supporters of multiculturalism and immigration because of their overwhelmingly negative impact upon us.
Rich people like you support immigration and multiculturalism because you make money from it and you're insulated from the crime, the ethnic gangs terrorising the suburbs, the bullying and just generally hostile, negative mindset of people from the Third World.
What's more as Daniel Andrew proved on Friday the Bourgeois parties don't even seek to represent working Victorians, they work for the benefit of foreigners and multinational companies.

Suse,
Socialist Alliance, Socialist Equality Party and Socialist Alternative are all Trotskyite groups, along with the ANTIFA street gang they are the main, street level opposition to political activism in the working class.
They see Trotsky's ideals as the model for socialist revolution, they hold lectures and workshops on Trotsky on a regular basis, their advertising posters appear all over Melbourne.
These groups are better described as auxilliaries of the state or volunteer political police, they use violence and intimidation to quash dissent among those they see as "peasants", "bogans" or "yobbos".

Islam is a religion and political organisation intent on world domination. Race has nothing to do with Islam, and the tiresome deadheads who call people who are onto the true meaning and intent of Islam, 'racist', are stupid, and don't even understand their own language. They are raving idiots, who are too ignorant to realise that they would not get the chance to voice their dumb opinions, nor to demonstrate, under Islam.

Please, can we agree to bury this lie that Islam is a race ? Can we stop dragging that stinking red herring across the debate ?

Islam is manifestly a religion, a philosophy, an ethic, a body of ideas, originating in tribal Arabia. And all bodies of ideas, even Islam, can - and should, in a modern society - be open to criticism.

Are there ideas in Islam that can or should be criticised ? is it possible that ISIS and jihadists are adhering to the very letter of Islam - that they can find, chapter and verse, or hadith - support for their ideology. Is that so, members of the Left and Right, or not so ?

Are there verses in the Koran which support beheading, mutilation, slavery, rape and invasion ? Or are there no such verses at all ? Is the book of 'the religion of peace' completely devoid of such injunctions ? Is it full of verses about peace and love, and nothing but ?

And, dear reader, if you hesitate over the answers to those questions and try to find excuses and obfuscations, then you may be playing a lying game, even with yourself. And you know it.

Joe

Again, because people need to be reminded every few hours:
"Racist" means "Peasant", I don't care what the dictionary or encyclopedia says, they are wrong, the word has one context and one context only, Revolutionary Marxist Socialism.
The only Marxian groups still active are followers of the Fourth International, "Trotskyites" in other words and they use Trotsky's definition when he refers to racists as uneducated, backward peasants who deluded by the church and bourgeoisie have come to believe that their societies and institutions are truly democratic and therefore pledge their higher allegiance to nation and god and hold to tradition and routine rather than science and innovation.
This is exactly the tone used by Premier Andrews on Friday last when he smirked and declared that most UPF people "wouldn't even be able to spell Bendigo".

Jay,

Funny, I didn't know the world danced to a Trotskyite tune, that others may have different definitions of what was meant by 'race'. Even in my most rabid Marxist days, I always thought of the Trots as a bunch of immature ratbags. And I think I got that right, at least.

But one thing that most definitions of 'race' would have in common the proviso that one should not confuse 'race' and religion. 'Race' purports to refer to biological characteristics, while religion is associated with beliefs, ideas, philosophies, ideologies.

People from all over the world can be Muslims: in the past year or so, we have seen people charged with terrorism offences from a variety of original backgrounds - Bosnia, Turkey, Kurdistan, Lebanese, and from many other places. So let's leave 'race' at the door, while we analyse - sorry, 'deconstruct' - Islam as a religion: does it condone the most brutal and barbaric behaviour of adherents, or not ?

While we are at it, do other religions foster terrorism ? Have there been any terrorist attacks by Buddhists here in Australia ? Has any Buddhist terrorist blown somebody's head off, while intoning 'Ommm ?' Has anybody taken people hostage, put up a Buddhist terrorist flag, shot some poor bugger while he was on his knees, and died happily thinking he was going straight to Nirvana ? Has any Buddhist youth attacked a couple of coppers at random ? Is any Buddhist religious authority calling for random knifings ? I suppose all of that would be difficult while one was in the 'Pissing Tiger' position.

I'm trying to think when was the last time any overtly Christian terrorist murdered anybody in Australia - Forrest River in 1926 ? No, those weren't overtly Christians. Coniston in 1928 ? No, neither were they.

Broken Hill in late 1915 ? Yes, but let's sweep that 'incident' under the carpet: after all they were Afghans, Muslim murderers.

[TBC]

[continued]

Nope, I can't think of the last time anybody in Australia murdered anybody at random, in the name of their religion, except Muslims. Can you, dear reader ?

Why would they do that ? Because of their 'race' ? Of course not. Because of their beliefs, the notion that they were carrying out the instructions of their god ? That seems likely. You may know better.

So what do we do about it ?

Joe

Aidan: However there are a lot of racists who use opposition to Islam as a cover for their racist policies.

No they don't. Some, but very few.

Aidan: But whether by race or religion, discrimination is wrong.

Well tell that to the moslems. They have to discriminate against ALL Infidels. They have to they have been instructed to by allah. Let not go through the verse thing again. We've been there.

Poirot: Let's just settle for "bigots"....and a more impressive band of crackpot, roughneck rabble you'd be battling to find...replete with the fold impressions still in their cheap Chinese-made flags.

Poirot: Let's just settle for "bigots"....and a more impressive band of crackpot, roughneck rabble you'd be battling to find...replete with the fold impressions still in their cheap Chinese-made flags.

That's not a nice thing to say about the Mosk supporters. You haven't answered the list of Questions I asked you some time ago. Do you want me to post them again. I'd like to know your truthful answers.

Made it back to Australia eh. No trouble getting in. How's the ME, Things hotting up there I see with the Russians joining in the fun. I like their style & I agree with them. A Terrorist is a Terrorist is a Terrorist.

Loudmouth: I can't think of the last time anybody in Australia murdered anybody at random, in the name of their religion, except Muslims. Can you, dear reader ?

No, I can't. Anybody?

A major irony in all this racist business is that the Jews and the
Arabs are the one race, namely Semites.
The Jews because they have been driven out of Israel two or three times
have a few other genes mixed in.

Someone compared the number of Nobel Prizes the Jews and the Arabs
have been awarded. It was very heavily in favour of the Jews.
I guess that had to be expected when you consider their histories.

Good point, Bazz: so any attack on Jews is, in a sort of convoluted way, perhaps and maybe, a racist attack on Semites ?

And, because Arabs are Semites (mostly), and Islam is their main religion, then - it's amazing how my simple mind works - any attack on Jews is an attack - yet again - on the wrongly-reviled religion of peace ? God, it's so often wrongly reviled :(

Pretty much every religion is a 'religion of peace'. Usually they are, or have been, also religions of war, force, etc., in favour (or at least not opposed to) garden gnomes, salad dressings, strolls, going to bed at night and getting up early in the day, etc., etc. Yes, they are all these things.

And they can be all those other terrible things as well. And what might be the evidence that a religion can be used to justify the most vile acts ? If adherents praise those acts, or obfuscate and apologise and trivialise them, or find infinite ways to side-track any discussion.

Watching Q & A last night, for the first few minutes, with everybody gushing about how that poor boy who accidentally blew that Chinese bloke's head off (stop me if you think this is racist) was misunderstood and Islam is a religion of peace, I thought the Muslim guy looked a little like a cat who was strolling through a flock of innocent, dopey pigeons: just a quiet smile that said 'Yes! I've got these dumb-arse pigeons where I want them. No rush.'

Let's get something straight: Islamo-fascism is fascism, it is a vile, right-wing movement, despite the left-wing pigeons flocking to appease it. It is about as right-wing as you could get and watching Bandt somehow justify an ideology whose adherents would gladly throw him off a high roof, I wonder how far apologetics could go.

Disgusting, Tony Jones. And the ABC. You should be ashamed.

Loudmouth,
It seems these days you can never hear mention of Islam unless
it is tagged with "the religion of peace".
It is similar to the addendum "illshallah" moslems say after everything.

When people keep saying something like the religion of peace you have
to wonder why they feel it necessary.
Wasn't it Goebbels that said tell a lie often enough and people will
believe it.

Oh yes Q&A, I nearly gave up when I saw the cast, but I persisted
for at least ten minutes until the gushing got too much.
When Tony Jones leaned over once I thought he was going to give him a big kiss.

I just do not see how anyone can believe that the arrival of
muslims into this country has been anything but a disaster unless
they have been and are still in a coma.

You only have to look at all the TV & radio coverage, all the extra
police time, all the extra security expenditure etc etc to realise
that there has been a monumental failure of immigration.

Bazz
No one is saying allowing Muslim’s to come here is good, People are saying they are here so how are we going to help them to become Australian’s. There is no trap door to let them into another world. They have been here for 50-60 years.
You are talking about nothing that can add to anything. That is a far right Conservative view. That you have.

Thanks Bazz,

The useful idiots are quiet today :)

Of course, one could pick over the Koran and find somewhere surahs that sound peaceful - ergo, 'Islam is a religion of peace.'

But, probably more often - give it a go, dear reader - one can find the most violent, brutal passages as well: 'therefore, Islam is a religion of brutality and war'.

And on this Google site, which takes all those verses chronologically,

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Chronological_Order_of_the_Qur'an

one may not realise that LATER verses over-ride, or 'abrogate', al those EARLIER verses. If there is a later verse which countermands an earlier one, then the later verse is the one which stands: Mecca verses thus countermand earlier Medina verses:

This listing goes from the most recent to the earliest. Some of the early ones are quite peaceful. I particularly like verse 32 of Surah V: clearly, according to the Koran, for that little tyrd who blew that bloke's head off 'it shall be as if he has killed all of mankind.... '

ABC, take note.

Just dip into it, it's really very instructive.

Joe

Actually doog, I know what I would like to see happen, but I know
short of civil war it won't happen.
What to actually do about the problem I am at a loss.
All I can see is to try damage limitation by stopping further arrivals.

If Geert Wilders becomes Prime Minister of the Netherlands it would be
interesting to see what his government would introduce.
His party, I gather, could become the largest party in their parliament.
They seem to have some positive policies and those that want to return
to their previous countries would get financial assistance.

Perhaps Neu Holland could emulate Olde Holland.

In the Muslim mind a Mosque is a cultural center not a place of worship, that is what they want us to believe. Their worship happens seven times each day. Mosques are facilities that are funded from sales of Halel certified food. However their religion and worship are the things they practice in daily life.

We must make it clear that protests to Islam are not protesting about race but about uncivilized behaviour that emanate from lectures given at Mosques. Protests about incitement given in their cultural centers to violate Australian law.

Their race is not the problem, their theology is the problem, and it is taught at Mosques. They know not to use their Theology in protests as it is weak, so they use the RACE CARD because infidels laws respect race. Those infidels that support the race protests are blind to their theological agenda.

On the Religion of PEACE.
It is important to understand that "PEACE" in the Muslim mind means NO OPPOSITION. The way to have no opposition is to destroy all opposition. This is the agenda recently announced in Saudi Arabia where infidels are considered terrorists, the infidels do not need to be violent they just have to oppose the theology.

Hi Josephus,

Some Muslims are Semitic, and most Jews are Semitic. Islam msyhave gtaken its lead from Judaism, and in thr earliestdays of Muhammad, in his Medina days, the populations of towns across the Middle East was heavily Jewish - and Christians, by the say: Christians have been around a bit longer than Muslims, for example, about four hundred years earlier in Iraq and Syria. Cairo, according to Goitein & Lassner (1999), was almost totally a mixture of Copts and Jews, with Berber, Sudanese and Bedu tribesmen visiting. Mecca (p. 206) was a Jewish holy site. Oh well, that was then.

You mentioned Halal: somebody may be able to help me - I have a question: is much of the meat in our shops now being killed by means which observed 'halal' - i.e. that a Muslim priest is paid to oversee that all meat is killed 'halal' and is duly paid for this 'service'. And are we all duly paying for this 'service', whether we are Muslim or not ? And why ?

My understanding about 'kosher' food requirements of observant Jewish people is that meat is killed in the proper kosher way actually on the premises of butchers' shops - we don't have to pay anything for this, and neither should we.

Is this so ? Or am I deluded ?

Joe

doog: No one is saying allowing Muslim’s to come here is good, People are saying they are here so how are we going to help them to become Australian’s.

Unfortunately they will never assimilate into Australian Culture. They want to change it to Islamic Culture. That is their ultimate aim.

poirot: but Christian Muslims would be just fine. "There are Christian Muslims - there is no problems about that," she told ABC radio yesterday."

She does get a bit tongue tied doesn't she. But we all know that she meant there were Christians in the Middle East & their coming to Australia would be fine. I have no problem with that either. moslims though? Ooooooooooh! I shudder at the thought.

Any thoughts on my questions yet poirot?

Loudmouth,
Read http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-14/fact-check-does-halal-certification-fund-terrorism/6383238

It is about 2% of the cost of the retail on certified food. A lot of food that does not need the halel stamp carry's the stamp to appeal to Muslims.

Loudmouth, it is a moslem requirement that animals have their throats
cut when facing Mecca. It must always be a moslem slaughterman.
To enable this the employment discrimination laws were changed to that
all non moslem slaughtermen were sacked and moslems appointed.

Halel, applies to more foods than meat, even dairy and any products containing meat or dairy e.g short bread biscuits, yoghurt.

Hi Bazz,

Yes, I worked forty five years or so ago in a meat-works in NZ. I watched the slaughtermen on one occasion when I was free (I was in the fellmongery), and marvelled at how quick and clean they cut. The poor bloody sheep sticks his head through a flap, he is grabbed and - zip - and is done before he even knows what is going on. The knives were kept so sharp that they often took off the whole head in that one cut.

Is the Muslim method as humane ? Or are animals left to bleed slowly to death ? Is that yet another aspect of Islam that our useful idiots prefer to ignore ?

Joe

Japan doesn't seem to have a Muslim problem, I wonder why?

IS Mise, they do not allow immigration.
Even Koreans can't get in except there was prewar because Korea was
a colony.

//Let's get something straight: Islamo-fascism is fascism, it is a vile, right-wing movement, despite the left-wing pigeons flocking to appease it. It is about as right-wing as you could get and watching Bandt somehow justify an ideology whose adherents would gladly throw him off a high roof, I wonder how far apologetics could go.//

Yes, Islamo-fascism is a vile, extreme right-wing movement that should be opposed rather than appeased. However, arguing that all Muslims adhere to these far-right beliefs is like arguing that Christianity is right-wing: there might be some real areshole tory Christian scumbags out there like Fred Nile, but there are also plenty of lefty Christians out there like Father Bob. Christianity and Islam are both very big churches and thus necessarily very broad churches, with room for a plurality of views. Muslims are not all drones who share some sort of hive-mind, and I've never seen any evidence to support such a wild fancy: just the likes of Josephus asserting that this is the case. If I believed everything Josephus told me I'd be in a very sorry way indeed.

//is much of the meat in our shops now being killed by means which observed 'halal'//

It seems unlikely, unless your shop is a halal butchery. Speaking of which, the best name for a shop I have ever heard was a halal butchery called 'Halal... Is It Meat You're Looking For?' (if you don't get it go and listen to some Lionel Richie). Genius. Anyway, a quick survey of Coles online shopping service reveals that they stock 327 meat products, of which a whopping 9 are halal certified. They are all poultry, so steer clear of duck and chicken in supermarkets and you should be right. Pork is haraam (i.e. forbidden) by definition, and because of the way kangaroo is harvested it would be haraam as well. It's always clearly labelled anyway. If you prefer your local butcher's shop (I do) just ask the butcher about what you're buying. Once again, you're always safe with pig. Unless you're David Cameron.
...

...
All vegetables are halal, as are eggs, fish and most dairy (if the dairy contains animal rennet from an incorrectly slaughtered animal it is haraam). Foods that contain alcohol, pork, or blood are automatically haraam; otherwise if a food contains products from a dead animal it may be haraam or halal depending on how the animal was slaughtered.

Dhabihah, the method of slaughter is remarkably similar to shechita, the method of slaughter used for kosher meat. Obviously the prayers are different, but the inhumane aspects - the lack of stunning and method of exsanguination are the same in both. It should be noted, however, that schechita must be performed by a Jew whereas dhabihah can be performed by any sane adult Muslim, Jew or Christian. Oddly enough, nobody ever objects to schechita. What's up with that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhabihah

Toni,

Muslims, by definition, follow and believe in the Qur'an, that's the problem.

//Muslims, by definition, follow and believe in the Qur'an//

Christians, by definition, follow and believe in the Bible. But they aren't all alike. Why does a holy book in one religion produce a hive-mind but a holy book in a different religion produce a plurality of views? How does that work?

You do not have to be Muslim to slaughter halal style. You have to be Muslim by faith. At Shepparton the slaughterman was Aboriginal. In Australia the animal is stunned, at the point of slaughter the animals are facing East, There was an Iranian flag on the wall to signify east.

There is no true Halal or Cosha slaughter done in Australia, as all animals are stunned before slaughter.

True Halal is done without Stunning. And so is cosha.
There is also a muslim supervisor at the slaughter.

Cosha kill is the animal is inverted with throat up and a sword is dragged across the throat.

A Sheep is stunned, then the head is pulled around a bollard with the animal facing east, the throat is then sliced.

The Shepparton works were killing sheep, pigs or goats, and beef. When the company got an export contract for Halal, the pig chain was closed down and converted to a Vealer chain.

26,000 sheep / day on two chains and 450 Cattle / day. on one chain.

Tony I once heard it expressed like this;
It is not possible to be a moslem and an Australian.

One of the major tennents of Islam appears to be an invocation to not
mix with non moslems, not make friends with infidels and if a moslem
leaves the faith his family will disown him/her.

To be more direct the the Koran instruction is to kill him/her.
I suspect that last bit is not enforced much at all, but in the
Middle East I suspect that it is enforced.

Would you believe there is an organisation that advises, protects and
hides those that defect here in Australia.

The Muslim supervisor at the abattoirs, was pretty straight up and down for a while then he found the engineers workshop. The muslim convert come aborigional and the supervisor found out they both were into Greyhound racing.

Besides the Muslim supervisor was allowed his oversized lunch box come esky to take what meat from the boning room every day that he wanted with a blessing from management.

The engineers workshop became his playground, with instructions from the Chief engineer that he was to have done what he wanted. A dog carrier was his first request, For 6 greyhounds, with ventilation spinners and painted white. Fully supervised by the muslim supervisor.

The engineers workshop had the key for the petrol bowser, which he made daily use out of. The chief was informed of this and he passed it on to management, which came back positive. When the workshop was deserted with personnel out on jobs, items would go missing.

So our chief employed a roustabout to tidy and sweep up to maintain a presence, we had a few goes at getting a roustabout to stay. The first one caught sight of bloody coloured water coming down the drain from a blocked pipe, he did not return. The second one was being escorted from the guard house to the workshop when he noticed a milk vat that was used for blood collection, which was overflowing. He did not start. The third one was a proper a-hole and we were stuck with him, no matter what we tried he stuck with the job.

At least he was brash enough to take care of the workshop, when engineers were out. His nick name was bolt neck. He resembled leargs from the Munsters.

Hi Tni,

' .... arguing that all Muslims adhere to these far-right beliefs ....'

A bit of red herring ? 'All' ? Who on this site has been arguing that ?

On the whole, my bet is that most Muslims adhere to moderately-right beliefs and that some, admittedly a tiny proportion, might even adhere to moderate-centre and even slightly-left beliefs. I would respectfully suggest that they are not much more right-wing than Australians as a whole: perhaps the Muslim mean is only 10-20 % to the right of an Australian mean.

After all, there is very little in any of Muslim ideas, even from the 'moderates', which could remotely be called left-of-centre since that's the nature of Islam: conservative, doctrinaire, dogmatic. Almost by definition, a good Muslim has to be as conservative, but not necessarily 'far-right'. Isn't that so ?

What am I talking about ? Okay: what sort of issues are seen to be 'left-wing' ?

* Homosexuality and gay marriage, for example [not that I think that they are particularly 'left].

* Doing something about climate change.

* Equality of women [the big one: now, there's something genuinely 'left', which even the 'left' have trouble with these days].

Do Muslims, on the whole, support them ?

doog, "There is no true Halal or Cosha(sic) slaughter done in Australia, as all animals are stunned before slaughter"

That is NOT correct. There is slaughter in meatworks without prior stunning. There is a lot of private ritual slaughter too, but the RSPCA and police do not act on reports. The RSPCA is far too busy bothering grannies who put their cat rescue ahead of their own wellbeing and living arrangements. The RSPCA and PETA are indistinguishable where policy is concerned, some say.

The Rudd and Gillard plus Greens sidekicks governments actively avoided any discussion of Jewish and Muslim ritual killing, while always turning a blind eye to what the Commonwealth veterinarians and meat inspectors in the federal DPI were telling them was occurring.

Similarly the State DPIs, veterinary departments in ALL Australian universities, animals welfare bodies and the 'fact-finding' (they are joking!) ABC were fully aware of ritual killing, even while ABC journalists and talk fests like Q&A were criticising alleged ritual slaughter (some video reports were proved false, but never retracted) performed in Indonesia on Australian export cattle.

Farmers, beef producers and everyone down the supply side do NOT support ritual slaughter in Australia. Federal law and federal regulations that mandated humane stunning to unconsciousness and resultant death were eased to allow for ritual stunning to marginal unconsciousness for Muslims. But even so, ritual slaughter in complete contravention of even the eased regulations is still performed in some works and mainly affecting sheep.

The truth is that political parties, particularly Labor and Greens as proved time and time again by their actions, value the few percent of ethnic vote in marginal seats more than they value the will of the Australian people and Australian law. It is called creeping Sharia Law. Why hide that fact?

I was in 1973.
There are a number of small abattoirs in Australia that have an exemption to slaughter animals without stunning them first. This means that animals are fully conscious and experience pain and distress when their throats are cut.

Write to your state or territory Primary Industries Minister and demand they remove exemptions for un-stunned slaughter.

Australian law dictates that all animals must be stunned so that they are insensible to pain prior to slaughter. However, there are exemptions given to a number of abattoirs to meet a small demand in Australia for religious slaughter (all kosher and some halal products).

Fortunately, the vast majority of halal slaughter involves stunning prior to the throat cut. But, some halal and all kosher slaughter is carried out without prior stunning. Cattle must be stunned immediately after the throat cut but other animals, like sheep, goats and chickens, are left to bleed out until they die.

Doog, if the Iranian flag was on an eastern wall then the slaughterman's
backside was mostly facing Mecca !
The bearing of Mecca is approximately 280 deg.
If anyone wants to argue about it I will obtain the exact Great Circle Route bearing.

Apart from clearly being a religion and a vicious, tyrannical blue print for life for Muslims, most of whom had no say in the expectation that they would carry on the absurdities and horrors handed down through generations, Islam is the biggest threat to the West since Communism and National Socialism, neither of which were as dangerous as Islam is.

On the matter of danger to the West of religious/all things to Muslims doctrine of Islam, I forgot to mention a recent 'prayer' from one of my favourite commentators. I don't remember the exact words, so I am not quoting him, but it went: Lord, deliver us from Islam, and give our guns back, or words to that effect.

I know and respect the fact that many people are very leery about guns. I gave all of my guns up about 20 years ago because I had reached a stage where I couldn't honestly say I needed them and didn't want them stolen and used in crime. I am not advocating gun ownership, nor will I ever say that people of good character should not be able to purchase guns legally when a 15 year old Islamic terrorist can obtain a handgun ILLEGALLY and kill an innocent person in the name of a made-up god. Add bikies and organized crime figures for whom gun acquisition is much eaier than doing it the legal way.

The Islamic threat is going to increase, and anyone of us could find ourselves having to defend ourselves; the latest slaughter of an innocent man was random, and terrorists talk about random acts all the time. How can the goons we have playing at politics handicap AUStRALIANSwith draconian gun laws much tougher than other countries threatened by Islam?

Hi ttbn,

As an ex-Communist, I would have to agree with you, about all 'Utopian' philosophies: those which purport to have a blueprint, an unchangeable blueprint, of the Future, by which, regrettably perhaps, non-members - those who do not fit in - must be 'subtracted'.

In other words, I've come to understand that all 'Utopias', no matter how beautifully they are painted, become fascist. They require that anybody who questions, or does not fit in, must be exterminated - for the good of the whole, of course.

Maybe most variations or interpretations of all religions and ideologies can be stretched to that fascist point.

But, in line with Voltaire's dictum about the perfect being the enemy of the good, and Popper's (and Schopenhauer's?) principle that our goal should be, not to increase happiness but to eliminate misery, we should abandon any Glorious and Lofty Philosophies of the Distant, PPPerfect Future and focus on incrementally improving life for the most vulnerable, needy and downtrodden.

There can be a better world. But there can never be a Utopia.

Discuss.

Joe
Adelaide

Toni,

"....Why does a holy book in one religion produce a hive-mind but a holy book in a different religion produce a plurality of views? How does that work?"
Every word of the Qur'an is binding on Muslims but the whole of the Bible is not binding on Christians.
Basically the majority of Christians (the Catholic and the Orthodox) follow the New Testament and such parts of the Old Testament as are seen to be in accord with natural law or which were specifically mentioned by Christ, such as the Commandments.
The plurality of views also owes a lot to the fact that Christians generally stopped killing each other a few centuries ago; we don't have the time to allow the Muslims to catch up.

//Hi Tni,

' .... arguing that all Muslims adhere to these far-right beliefs ....'

A bit of red herring ? 'All' ? Who on this site has been arguing that ?//

That's Toni, with an 'o'. I'll settle for Antonio, Ant-Man, Toni: Guardian of the Eastern Dark, New Bruce, and Tony.

I know you don't argue that way, Joe. But ttbn, Bazz, Banjo, Josephus et.al. consistently argue that all muslims are inherently fascist, and I don't buy it any more than I do the idea that all Germans are inherently fascist.

//On the whole, my bet is that most Muslims adhere to moderately-right beliefs and that some, admittedly a tiny proportion, might even adhere to moderate-centre and even slightly-left beliefs. I would respectfully suggest that they are not much more right-wing than Australians as a whole: perhaps the Muslim mean is only 10-20 % to the right of an Australian mean.//

Your estimates seem fairly sound. I think it's likely that Hindus, Muslims, Jews and some denominations of Christians, are on average more conservative than the Australian mean. I wish they weren't because I swing to the left and have no love of tories. But conservatism isn't fascism, and to equate the two - as so many of of the posters around these parts are keen to do - is the sort of lazy thinking you'd expect of hippies. Fascism is a vile ideology which should put back in its box whenever it rears its ugly head, with ruthless force if necessary. Conservatism is an unappealing ideology which can be debated in a peaceful manner.

Joe,

All the the promised utopias generally turn out to be worse than the system they replaced. We know that from experience and history. Utopia lives in the minds of the immature: immaturity is now scientifically accepted as extending to 25 years of age in the 'average' person. Some people never seem to mature. It also used to be accepted that the older people got the more conservative they became. I believe that was true; it used to be called 'growing up'. This thought-to-be natural occurrence seems to be a thing of the past, if the behavior of many of our middle-aged politicians and many of the posters here are any indication. If it didn't occur in their lifetimes, it can't be any good. Get rid of it for something new. They know so little about history that what they think is 'new' is really old hat, tried at least once, and found wanting. I heard someone say recently that young people think that life started the day they were born. We were probably the same, but all the institutions we had to guide us have been undermined and erased as being too 'old-fashioned.

Hi Tooni,

Just slipping in the extra 'o' in case of typos in future :)

No, I don't think the people you mentioned, or their pseuds, believe that 'all muslims are inherently fascist', merely that Islam is potential fascist - which, going by ISIS, is pretty spot-on, although their leftist pigeons would grovellingly disagree. They are pretty quiet, by the say, aren't they ? Even the Dying Swan.

But thanks too for refuting the non-issue of conservatism not equating with fascism. I think it's important that we should sometimes discuss non-issues, and straw men, as well as issues :)

Hi Ttbn,

In my case, immaturity stretched out to about fifty, around the time of the Tienanmen massacre. Of course now, that's way before most of the young 'left' were even born, so maybe they need to revise the curriculum in Cultural Studies every five years or so. For the lecturers too.

Your point about young people thinking that everything started with them (is modern culture potentially psychotic, or at least egocentric ?) is surely fertile grounds for all manner of horror and science-fiction books, don't you think ? If George Orwell had lived longer than 44, perhaps he would have done it. My god, what he achieved, what he learnt, in just those 44 years.

Cheers,

Joe

//No, I don't think the people you mentioned, or their pseuds, believe that 'all muslims are inherently fascist'//

Are you taking the piss? A lot of those characters have expressly stated that ALL Muslims necessarily subscribe to fascist beliefs, and ridiculed the view that only some can be persuaded to fascism as a left-wing fantasy.

//merely that Islam is potential fascist//

Well, yeah, but apparently so is Christianity. I'm pretty sure most blackshirts were either Catholic or Anglican, depending on their nationality. I think the development of fascist views transcends (descends?) the question of religion entirely: all colours and creeds can, and do, breed fascism, oppression. The question is, how do we stop it?

I think it might help if we all try being excellent to each other. And, uh, partying on. Some of the hill folk around these parts will probably dismiss that as a left-wing fantasy. But that's because they're cantankerous old hillbillies, and not because being excellent to each other is bogus.

I agree not all moslems are fanatics. They are Islamists however and
when push comes to shove they go with the teaching they had from childhood.
Islam is Fascist, but not National Socialist.
Islam is adamant that democracy is against Allah and that democrats are evil.
By being very opposed to Islam's fascism, democrats must be killed.
Moslems cannot be democrats.

Strictly speaking a moslem cannot be a naturalised Australian.
To swear an oath of allegiance on the Koran when that book contains
a part that permits lieing to infidels if it benefits moslems.
The same when giving evidence in court.

This sort of thing is why Geert Wilders MP wants to ban the Koran in Holland.

I don't think I've seen any criticism of Islam or the Koran on this thread today that couldn't be applied to Christianity or the Bible. The only difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity has been dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages and into modernity by secularism.

The Bible and the Koran are equally horrid books that are just as insular and condemning of outsiders as each other.

It sounds like some of you need to try actually reading the Bible (I mean beyond the four Gospels) instead of simply taking for granted this standard line, that gets passed around so often it’s just assumed now to be true, about Christianity and the Bible being centred on a guy who was all about peace, love, and mung beans.

Speaking of which...

Is Mise,

I had already discredited that silly bit of apologetics you served up earlier at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6865#209004.

AJ Philips,
You have not defined the law Jesus had in mind in the sermon. He demonstrated what law he had in mind by healing on the Sabbath day, by gathering grain on the Sabbath, by allowing a prostitute no to be stoned but to be forgiven. The Law he had in mind was the good relationship between people and with God. Secularism had very little influence on the changes in English Parliament, e.g slavery. Wilberforce a devout Christian understood the scripture taught, "all men are equal". The secularist wanted to trade in slaves because it was an economic advantage. Examine what influences has changed the head hunter tribes of Asia from head hunters to peaceful communities.

AJ

The New Testament overrides the Old. Christianity did reform; Islam has not been reformed and cannot be reformed. Christians are not urged to kill non-believers. You are entitled to your views on religion, but you should give credence to the vast differences between Christianity and Islam. We are hardly threatened by Christianity, or other religions, but we are threatened by Islam, continually.

Josephus,

You need to read what I said in my link to Is Mise again, or be more specific as to why you think I'm wrong.

ttbn,

You need to read what I said in my link to Is Mise, full stop. The New Testament does not override the Old Testament. The New Testament is not even much better than the Old Testament, even if it did.

Josephus,

"... Wilberforce a devout Christian understood the scripture taught, "all men are equal". The secularist wanted to trade in slaves because it was an economic advantage..."

You might like to note that while slavery was being abolished - and citing Christian principles as the catalyst - that a hoard of industrialists, factory, mill and mine owners were at the time busily exploiting the workforce of the British Isles - incarcerating men, women and children during their work day - for up to 14 hours in hot unventilated buildings, procuring orphans from orphanages and abusing them, working them sometimes to death...all this for a pittance and the promise of squalor.

You might also take note that these new-monied industrialists usually plonked their behinds on the front pews in the churches on Sunday - and ponced around judgmentally the rest of week while they presided over the most depraved cruelties of their fellow countrymen.

Don't give me "the Christians stopped all the nasty stuff" guff. It was principled men who wrote reports and a few good and influential souls who moved to have British Factory Acts installed to stop the cruelties.

Read "Human Documents of the Industrial Revolution in Britain" by E. Royston Pike for some hackle-raising info - especially on child labour at the time.

That should be "horde"...

(Grrrr - typos...)

AJ,

What silly bit of apologetics?

I was merely giving Toni an answer to his question; have you got anything to say about my opening sentence, "Every word of the Qur'an is binding on Muslims but the whole of the Bible is not binding on Christians."?

"Every word of the Qur'an is binding on Muslims but the whole of the Bible is not binding on Christians."

For that to be true, Is Mise, you would need to ignore Matthew 5:17-18 which is one of those pesky bits of the New Testament wherein Jesus is quoted as saying it.

Unless you think Jesus is wrong?

[For the Pauline scholars/apologists note that Jesus could not have been referring to any New Testament writings or ascriptions 'cause they hadn't happened; so lots of jots and tittle fiddling to be found there!]

Josephus, I think the easiest way to start to sort the True Aussie sheep from the Islamist goats would be to enable same-sex marriage in order to show how there is no support for sharia-type laws and its fellow travelers.

Is Mise: "Every word of the Qur'an is binding on Muslims but the whole of the Bible is not binding on Christians."?

Or Christians just do their own thing anyway & ignore any parts that aren't Politically Correct nowadays. That's something moslems are forbidden to do, or else. Peer pressure & bullying at it's absolute worst.

AJP: The New Testament does not override the Old Testament. The New Testament.

I was taught at a good Catholic School that that's exactly what Jesus is supposed to have done & that the New Testament was the Replacement to the Old Testament. The Old Testament could be referred to as a guide only, as is the Apocrypha & the Apocalypse.

poirot: You might like to note that while slavery was being abolished - and citing Christian principles as the catalyst - that a hoard of industrialists, factory, mill and mine owners were at the time busily exploiting the workforce of the British Isles.

Deflection.

How did you get on with your dinner, poirot? Answer any of my questions?

Is Mise,

I thought you were hinting at what I had addressed in my comment that I linked to. Like the Koran, however, every word of the Bible (contradictions and all) is binding on Christians. Secularism has simply forced Christianity to behave otherwise and be more and more creative with their interpretations in order to survive.

Jayb,

Of course you were taught that. So was I. That's because most Christians haven't actually read the Bible beyond the odd verse here and there. I even remember believing that myself. But I made the mistake of reading and studying the Bible when I became a Youth Group leader.

Jayb,

I read the bottom of your post..."Deflection"

Which, of course, is BS...

I was replying to Josephus and his fatuous comment implying that the "Christians" in Britain were sweetness and light - when they were presiding over degrading and cruel practices concerning the domestic population.

So mind yer own beeswax....

As for discussing your claptrap at our dinner...you've got to be joking...I'm not even cognizant of the content of those posts...(coz I didn't read them:)

AJ,

Every word of the Bible is not binding on Christians for in the New Testament Jesus gives Peter and his successors the power to change things.

I doubt that any Christians have ever felt a divinely ordained obligation to get the childless widow of their brother pregnant.

Is Mise,

I'd like to know the verse(s) you're referring to. Either way, that's a clear contradiction of Jesus' words and inconsistent with a perfect and unchanging god.

As a general comment, the irony of conservatives touting Jesus' lefty credentials when they ordinarily cannot stand anyone left-of-centre, has never escaped me.

Hi A.J.,

As a lefty, I've never really thought of Jesus as being a left-winger, but I am very strongly drawn to the story of the Good Samaritan, somebody helping somebody else NOT from his own group.

That sort of universalism is surely the antithesis of the tribal, backward parables of the Old Testament, and also of the current activities of ISIS and other Islamist-fascist groups in the Middle East, and north Africa, and central Asia.

On the other hand, I'm greatly encouraged by the spirit of the PKK and YPG and the amazingly brave women of the YPJ, who risk their lives to rescue and defend Yazidis and Christians, people from groups other than 'their own'. They are the real progressives in the Middle East and I think it is scandalous that they are still considered to be 'terrorists' by the West, just to please a dictator like Erdogan.

There might even be some other 'lefties' on this thread who would agree. But no, wash my mouth out !They don't have the courage to ever criticise ISIS.

Now wait for the apologetics :)

Joe

poirot: read the bottom of your post..."Deflection"

Never-the-less, Deflection.

poirot: I'm not even cognizant of the content of those posts...(coz I didn't read them:)

That's because you know the truth of those questions & are afraid to answer them publicly. Ay mate.

AJP: But I made the mistake of reading and studying the Bible when I became a Youth Group leader.

I actually read the whole thing while I was a t school. I was in trouble with the Brothers, Priests & even the Bishop for asking questions they didn't want to answer.

Errr, so don't feel I'm picking on just you, poirot.

I question everything. I always have. Wow, that's very left wing, isn't it. What the old saying, "believe none of what you hear & only half of what you see."

I also believe that people that refuse to give you a straight answer have something to hide.

AJ,

Your lack of knowledge of Christianity is astounding; you want a reference to the most basic of the beliefs on which Christianity is built?
Mathew 16-18, as I remember.
I've never read the whole Bible, I find it rather heavy going.

Where to start?

Dear JayB,

You wrote;

“I was taught at a good Catholic School that that's exactly what Jesus is supposed to have done & that the New Testament was the Replacement to the Old Testament. The Old Testament could be referred to as a guide only, as is the Apocrypha & the Apocalypse.”

So we are to dismiss the laws of the Old Testament and follow Jesus' teachings instead? Here is your problem, the words of Jesus from Matthew 5;

“17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

He was not about dismissing or disregarding instead he sought to extend the laws and their reach;

“21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”

Cont..

As to those who think the teachings of Jesus were not to the Left;

“If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.”

From Acts;

“32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.”

Sounds pretty damn Bolshie to me.

Dear Josephus,

You wrote;

“Secularism had very little influence on the changes in English Parliament, e.g slavery. Wilberforce a devout Christian understood the scripture taught, "all men are equal". The secularist wanted to trade in slaves because it was an economic advantage.”

What tosh. After John Newton's 'Amazing Grace' moment where he committed himself to the Lord he continued slaving for another six years. Well why not, he was quite good at it and well rewarded.

It was fringe Christians called the Quakers who drove so hard to abolish slavery presenting a petition of 300 signatures from prominent members to the British Parliament 5 years before Wilberforce took up the cause. They needed Wilberforce's influence and the fact that he was a mainstream Christian to push the campaign and he stepped up to the mark admirably. All the while The Church of England was branding their own slaves with CofE in the West Indies.

Hey Suseonline,

It sounds like you're having a dig at Jay of Melbourne for his comments on nationalism and my curiosity has gotten the better of me.
If you were bothered by his comments, I'm curious to know exactly which part bothered you?

Umm.. scratch that last comment..
I replied after only reading the first page of comments and I just realised there was another 7 pages on the thread.. Oops sorry.

Steelie old mate. I asked you these Questions & you never got back to me with your answers. Here they are again, just in case you forgot.

"Yes" or "No."

1) Do you consider a Secularphile to be an extremist who spreads hate against non-moslem unbelievers? 2) Do you agree that;
Australia must become the Great Southern Caliphate,
All Australians must become moslems,
Sharia Law must be implemented in Australia,
Homosexuals & Adulterers must be whipped & stoned in Australia,
All Women in Australia must wear the face Burka or similar covering.

Do you agree that you want these thing or not?

3) Persecution & Oppression does that mean anything that moslems declare as Persecution or Oppression, is, to Islam. E.g.:

Refusal to allow a moslem to marry & consummate that marriage with a child under the age of 16,
Refusal to be allowed to build a Mosque,
Refusal to move a Pig farm after a Mosque is build on the neighbouring land,
Refusing to grant a special day for moslems & screen off an area for moslem women at the Local Swimming Pool,
Refusal to put a screen around the Local Pool because the sight of so many naked bodies is offensive to moslems.
Refusing to pay to have a food declared Halal.
Refusing to let women wear the Burka, or other such women's clothing.
Refusing to recognize Sharia Law in Australia.
Refusing a moslem more than one wife.

Does Refusing any of the above list mean that moslems are being Persecuted, Oppressed, or that a “State of War” exists?
Equal rights.

A Moslem male is allowed to have a temporary wife while he is away from home.

Is a moslem wife allowed to have a temporary husband while her husband is away? Or, would she be committing Adultery?

Science question
Is the World flat or round like a ball?
Does the Sun travel around the Earth or the Earth travel around the Sun?

Medical question
Is illness caused by bad Jinns?

steelie: So we are to dismiss the laws of the Old Testament and follow Jesus' teachings instead?

Yair, I know. It's all crap anyway. The bible, old & new, torah & koran. All BS. Most of us know that.

There are bigger questions;

1. Are ununiformed civilians fighting as an army ethical?
2. Are ununiformed civilians sneaking into crowded areas & blowing themselves up ethical?
3.Are ununiformed civilians fighting as an Army & using their wives & children as human shields ethical?
4. is it ethical for a civilian suicide bomber to go into a crowded religious building & kill the people inside the building?
5. Is it ethical for an ununiformed civilian fighting as a soldier to shoot & kill uniformed soldiers?
6. Is it ethical for an ununiformed Civilian fighting as a soldier to claim that they were just an innocent civilian not doing any harm when they were wounded?

I note several here are not willing to accept that many call themselves christian but do not follow Christ. So they conclude their opinion on evil behaviour being Christian not on the teaching of Christ. There have been many falsely claim to be Christian but serve themselves in lust and power - this is not taught by Christ.

Christ came to fulfill the law of God not the National laws given to Israel, His principle being; one is to love God [desire right behaviour] and love ones neighbors as oneself [eauality], and pray for and bless ones enemies. He that is greatest in my kingdom will be a servant of others.

According to the Christian theologians (predominantly Catholic) I've read on the subject, the Old Testament is just as important as the New Testament. It's kind of obvious when you think about it: if Christians really thought that the Old Testament had been superseded, they'd have ditched it and Answers in Genesis would have had to call themselves Answers in Matthew. The fact they didn't indicates that it was still considered important - even the proddies stuck with it after they split off.

The whole of the Bible may or not be binding, but I think it's fairly safe to say that the Ten Commandments are considered binding. Including not only the Commandments about murder, theft and honoring the Sabbath, but also the ones about not making idols (have you seen that giant frigging statue they have in Rio?), adultery and not coveting your neighbours luxury yacht. So in a way it could be argued that there are precious few actual Christians out there. But I think an argument like that is premised on the no true scotsman fallacy and therefore unsound.

Which just goes to show that some religious people have a more relaxed attitude than others about supposedly binding religious strictures. I've had a beer with a Muslim, so obviously they're not all worried about the rules against drinking. I suspect more than a few of them snack during Ramadan. I would. Fasting is a mug's game.

With some who oppose Islam they believe that doing things that offend them, like: having booze parties, approving same sex sex as marriage and wearing bikini's in public, is the way to change their religion. This just makes those listening to Imams radical. For them Western society is decadent and must be destroyed. They believe this is virtuous and has reward in the afterlife. For them one must convert or be killed.

We have to enter their mind's view and develop strategies that convert them to reason. The Koran mentions Jesus and his mother Mary, but never mentions Mohamed or his mother; so it is a strategy to have them learn the teaching of Jesus. To have them accept atheistic secularism is not a strategy, it is an ingrained anathema to them.

Josephus,

"We have to enter their mind's view and develop strategies that convert them to reason.,,,"

Erm....that is somewhat hypocritical.

All "Sky God" religions rest on the foundation, not of "reason", but of "faith"

How is believing that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth rational - or employing reason?

How is believing that Jesus rose from the dead days after he was crucified using reason?

How is believing Jesus ascended bodily to "Heaven" using reason?

The fact is that one has to suppress one's powers of reason and rational thought to believe the foundational premises of "Sky God" religions.

And that's the reason I've never been able to "believe"...my rational mind will not permit it.

AJ.

Well, the New Testament is VERY different from the Old Testament. As Is Mise said, you don't know much about it. As I said before, you are entitled to think as you will about religion or anything else, but you need to get the facts straight, or stick to something you know. However, if you did stick to something you know, you could say nothing. But, like the Great Pretender, you are certain to carry on singing. There is, rightly, no censoring of ignorance here.

Hi Poirot,

So many red herrings ! My fridge is full of the bloody things. Maybe I'll have to get a cat.

Thanks anyway,

Joe

Dear Josephus,

You wrote;

“I note several here are not willing to accept that many call themselves christian but do not follow Christ. So they conclude their opinion on evil behaviour being Christian not on the teaching of Christ. There have been many falsely claim to be Christian but serve themselves in lust and power - this is not taught by Christ.”

What you are saying is that we shouldn't use the actions of a certain section of a faith to tar the rest of it.

Could not agree more.

So when the moderates of the Islamic faith, who make up the vast majority, condemn the violence of Islamic extremists as un-Islamic and contrary to the doctrines of Islam we should agree? Or would you have us only exercise that prerogative for those of the Christian denomination?

It is a big ask to have us acquiesce to the notion that highly Christianised nations in Europe who took to the task of slaughtering over 6 million Jews with such relish should not be regarded as Christian, but okay.

You wrote;

“Christ came to fulfill the law of God not the National laws given to Israel”

When Jesus first came it was for the chosen people, the Jews. He would only talk to a gentile when pressed and even then referred to them as dogs. If they deigned to show great humility and subservience then they might be permitted to eat 'crumbs from the table'.

Sounds like the very model of an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi.

Dear JayB,

I find large parts of the Old Testament to be incredibly powerful and insightful. Job is my favorite book by far and you should do your self a favor and have a read.

As to your questions I'm sure we have been through this before and I'm certainly not going to take the time to respond to them all so if you would like to offer me a couple that are important to you I will agree to give fulsome answers.

anyone who can't see that secularist consistently ignore what is obvious (a Creator, a Designer, the corruption of man) simply remain willfully ignorant. They criticise the ressurection and then have the audacity to say the order of this universe came from nothing or even worse chaos. The hopeless lack of evidence from fossils or anything else to support evolution despite their rhetoric exposes the fairytales they hide behind. The ideogoly of feminist/humanist is every bit as much a death cult as Isis. The only difference is they use pathetically flawed pseuso science to cover their gross corruption unlike Isis who claim its Allah. Secularist often use pathetic parallels when trying to paint followers of Christ with followers of Mohammed. The truth is they are far more like Mohammed with his stinking pride and immorality than anyone else.

Joe,

Yes, I did acknowledge earlier that the New Testament is slightly better. But it’s still pretty awful.

Is Mise,

I don’t think you really mean the first half of that sentence.

<<Your lack of knowledge of Christianity is astounding; you want a reference to the most basic of the beliefs on which Christianity is built?>>

I think I’ve demonstrated over my years on OLO that my knowledge of the Bible and Christian theology is more than adequate. ttbn has the excuse of being relatively new here.

And no. I wanted to know what you were referring to. And what you originally said was not “one of the most basic of the beliefs on which Christianity is built.”

If your knowledge of Christian theology is so good, then could you tell me what the two main schools of thought are with regards to the glaring moral inconsistencies between the two Testaments?

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)

That’s just Jesus telling Paul to build the Church upon Him (i.e. the “rock”). Jesus isn’t undoing anything or going back on his words in the Matthew verse that has been quoted so many times on this thread now. Nor did Peter have greater authority over Jesus, as you suggest.

By the way, I don’t think that Christians not feeling obliged to get the childless widow of their brother pregnant has anything to do with an obligation to improve the Church that Matthew 16:18 has left them feeling. More do to do with secularism and a shifting moral zeitgeist.

ttbn,

If you can say that the New Testament overrides the Old Testament, then I can assure you that I know a lot more about the Old Testament than you do.

poirot: The fact is that one has to suppress one's powers of reason and rational thought to believe the foundational premises of "Sky God" religions. And that's the reason I've never been able to "believe"...my rational mind will not permit it.

Amen to that poirot. So now you're an Atheist? Better keep quite because, as an Apostate, you're gonner mate.

Steelie: It is a big ask to have us acquiesce to the notion that highly Christianised nations in Europe who took to the task of slaughtering over 6 million Jews with such relish should not be regarded as Christian.

Not to mention 13 million Christians, Gypsies & Disabled. etc. But you are right. The bibles full of some pretty garish things.

Did you know that you are compelled to eat your children if you run out of food. Deut. 28:53-60. Young girls first. Yumm!

Did you know that if you have a child that won't behave you have to take them to the edge of town & kill them. Deut. 21:18-21. I know a few kids that s/could apply to.

& Marrying girl babies. 3 years & 1 day. Numbers. 31: 17-18, 35-40.

But, unlike, even Moderate moslems, no one takes any notice of those bits. &, We certainly wouldn't kill anyone that didn't comply with those Laws. ;-)

Any answers to my questions, mate?

Loudmouth: So many red herrings ! My fridge is full of the bloody things. Maybe I'll have to get a cat.

Reooowwww! spittt! kussssss! ;-)

Most Atheist know much about the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Theravada, Mahayana. That's why they don't believe in Gods. For some reason Religionist seem to think that Atheists are totally ignorant of the many & varied beliefs that pervade the lives of believers.

Runner is a fervent believer. I have no problem with that. He is entitled to believe, but not to "Demand" that I believe what he believe or he will kill me. Which is what Islam does.

runner,

"They criticise the ressurection and then have the audacity to say the order of this universe came from nothing or even worse chaos...."

I'm not "criticising" the resurrection...I'm saying it's not rational for me to believe that someone died, came back to life and then ascended bodily into "Heaven"....(what's Heaven?)

"...The hopeless lack of evidence from fossils or anything else to support evolution despite their rhetoric exposes the fairytales they hide behind...."

Who are you to spout about "evidence"? (of which there is far more to support the theory of evolution than there is to support someone dying and coming back to life days later:)

"anyone who can't see that secularist consistently ignore what is obvious (a Creator, a Designer, the corruption of man) simply remain willfully ignorant..."

Ho hum...and now the obvious question - where did "God" come from?

"The truth is they are far more like Mohammed with his stinking pride and immorality than anyone else...."

We always have to include runner's charming asides...it wouldn't be a runner post without at least one such reference to "stinking", "hate", etc.

.....

Why if, as some here claim, the New Testament overrides the Old Testament - is the Old Testament still tacked onto the New?

Pascal reckoned Jesus is what he said he was because it was written in Old Testament prophecy - and that the Jewish people would not recognise him as such...is that why the "superseded" scriptures are still relevant to the New Testament?

Thanks Jayb :)

Hi A. J. Phillips,

Here's a thought, perhaps irrelevant: people whose thought patterns are embedded in religion may have a different sense of cause-and-effect from normal people (go for it, Runner!): because their god or gods or ancestors or spirit trees or whatever control the universe and what happens in it, and because only they know what they are doing, then, to believing humans, things just happen - no observable cause. And because the say the world works is so capricious, then any consequences of something are equally inscrutable.

So, from a basically sophisticated point of view, say, Poirot's, there is:

* cause - event - consequence, [hence more 'events', hence more consequences, ad infinitum ]

but from a religious or superstitious person's viewpoint there is:

* event

or perhaps

* event and (surprise) another event and maybe later another event and later still another event

I've been trying to apply this hypothesis to hunter-gatherer family-cultures, and their descendants, such as welfare-oriented family-cultures. [Culture, after all, is passed down, perhaps little modified, within families.] It seems to answer a lot of questions. Still working on it.

I suppose the basic premise is that 'pre-scientific' philosophies tend to see phenomena as isolated incidents, while a 'scientific' philosophy will involve trying to understand the antecedent factors of an incident and its likely consequences. Does this make any sense ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Poirot,

You ask, quite rightly: ' ..... where did "God" come from?'

The obvious but probably misleading answer is that she was created by HER god, out there in the kitchen of the restaurant at the end of the universe.

But surely, surely, it's far more likely, if you think about it, that god was created out of nothingness by a unicorn standing on the back of a turtle ?

But, you may ask, what is the turtle standing on ?

And the obvious answer is: on the back of another turtle.

And yes, since you are about to ask - wait for it - it's turtles all the way down.

Glad to help,

Joe

Loudmouth,

My point being is that we don't know.

And how we on this little blue dot we came to be cognizant of ourselves in the vastness of the universe and our ignorance.

runner and other believers fill the void of knowledge with their faith...so in the end they become "sure" that they know how it all began....based not on their rationality, but resting on their faith.

That of course is fine...except that people who approach the subject as runner does, feel their assuredness gives them carte blanche to abuse anyone who doesn't garner their comfort and assuredness from a faith-based perception of a metaphysical entity.

Hi poirot,

I suppose the point is that some of us TRY to know, a never-ending quest. Karl Popper resolves it all somewhat by suggesting that we all have both a practical, 'scientific' sense of how things work, but we - all of us - have faith in something, and the two never meet - and shouldn't be expected to: one is searching for answers to the observable, the other is content with wallowing in the magic of the unobservable [my gloss].

Here's a brilliant suggestion from Huntington for all of us to think about:

'The great political ideologies of the twentieth century include liberalism socialism, anarchism, corporatism, Marxism, communism, social democracy, conservatism, nationalism, fascism, and Christian democracy.

'They all share one thing in common: they are products of western civilization. No other civilization has generated significant political ideology. The West, however, has never generated a major religion.

'The great religions of the world are all products of non-Western civilizations and, in most cases, pre-date Western civilization. As the world moves out of its Western phase, the ideologies which typified late Western civilization decline, and their place is taken by religions and other culturally based forms of identity and commitment.' [Clash of Civilizations, pp. 53-54]

Of course, that was twenty years ago. He was no fool.

Cheers,

Joe

' runner and other believers fill the void of knowledge with their faith...so in the end they become "sure" that they know how it all began....based not on their rationality, but resting on their faith.'

You are right Poirot. At the end of the day it is faith based on reasoning (ie Creation = Creator , Design = Designer etc). Obviously by faith we (believers) believe God is self existant just like by faith the evolutionist crew believe order came from chaos, laws come from nature rather than a Lawgiver). Evolutionist who think must walk around all day saying to themselves, what I see can't be true, can't be true. No wonder they swallow the gw religion which demands faith in unseen and then called 'science'.

AJ,

"“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)

That’s just Jesus telling Paul to build the Church upon Him (i.e. the “rock”). Jesus isn’t undoing anything or going back on his words in the Matthew verse that has been quoted so many times on this thread now. Nor did Peter have greater authority over Jesus, as you suggest."

It was Simon whose name was changed, not Paul. (sorry, couldn't resist)!

Oh no! I've been exposed!

runner,

"' runner and other believers fill the void of knowledge with their faith...so in the end they become "sure" that they know how it all began....based not on their rationality, but resting on their faith.'

You are right Poirot. At the end of the day it is faith based on reasoning..."

To tell you the truth, I kind of envy your faith.

Haven't been able to manage it myself....

' To tell you the truth, I kind of envy your faith.

Haven't been able to manage it myself....'

at the end of the day Poirot it boils down to who you believe. Either Christ was a lunatic, a deceiver, a fraudster or He was who He said He was. Unfortunately or fortunately He leaves us with no other options. Evidence abounds for those who truly look into it.

Nice try with C.S. Lewis's 'Lier, Lunatic or Lord' fallacy there, runner. But the silly nong left out the most likely 'L': Legend.

' Nice try with C.S. Lewis's 'Lier, Lunatic or Lord' fallacy there, runner. But the silly nong left out the most likely 'L' Legend.'

When you anywhere approach the intellect of Lewis AJ you might have something to say. Also when you display a fraction of a percentage of the character of Jesus Christ you may be able to be taken seriously. One day you will wake up to your own distortion and corruption.

I'd be quite happy to go up against C.S. Lewis in a battle of wits, runner. The guy was an idiot.

I note, too, with interest that you don't bother to excuse his glaring oversight but instead try to distract with an ad hominem regarding my supposed inferior intellect. Nor do you point to a single instance of "distortion" on my behalf.

Do your usual trick, runner. Scamper away. Scamper away before it's... well, before it's any later than it already is anyway.

Thanks for confirming my post AJ. You are truly delusional. Then again no doubt your heroes have influenced you.

//But, you may ask, what is the turtle standing on ?//

She doesn't need to stand on anything: turtles swim. Cosmos Turtles (Chelys cosmologica) swim through the void, supporting existence on their backs. They are very closely related to Star Turtles, which can be seen in their natural habitat here:

http://static.tumblr.com/85162f4de9b1f1e4e4422a476a6601ba/rzr0htk/rqHmjz6fg/tumblr_static_url.jpg

Note the lack of 'turtles all the way down'. Did I mention they could swim? Any species which needs to stand on the backs of an infinite regress of its own kind in order to survive is going to learn Darwinism the hard way, in very short order.

//It was Simon whose name was changed, not Paul.//

It's recorded in the New Testament - that bit of the Bible some posters are suddenly so keen on - that St. Paul was the artist previously known as Saul. If that doesn't count as a name change I don't know what does.

//I'd be quite happy to go up against C.S. Lewis in a battle of wits, runner. The guy was an idiot.//

Whoah, whoah, whoah: I've never had cause to disagree with anything you've said before, AJ, but C.S. Lewis wrote some of my favourite books. Obviously the false trilemma is nonsense on stilts, and 'The Last Battle' is compleat pile of crap, but the the other six Narnia books are still a good read and compare favourably with a lot of the tripe on the shelves these days.

runner,

I'm not going to sit here and waste posts on short 'n' sharp responses to a person on OLO who has never once fulfilled a request for evidence for any of their claims. Cough up now or I'll continue to ignore you and save my post count for people who at least attempt to respond adequately to what I say.

Incidentally, you don't know what the two schools of thought are that I've asked Is Mise about either, do you? No, you've just grown up believing the same old crap that ttbn has while serious theologians waste their entire lives trying to reconcile the irreconcilable problems I've raised within the schools of thought that you don't even know exist because you were taught something as a kid and that's all you really need to know, as far as you're concerned anyway.

In fact, I'm willing to bet that no-one here who has posted on this thread, and is so certain of the Bible's superiority over the Koran's, has the vaguest clue as to what the two school of thought are that I'm talking about (one breaks up into multiple schools of thought too, but we won't delve that far into the mess for now).

No, that's because we've all just comfortably cruised through our (essentially racist) lives believing that our (or the Jew's (who we like to claim as our own as a way of making up for the Holocaust - resulting in the meaningless term Judeo-Christian)) religion is the superior one.

Speaking of which, and for those who may be confused, 'Judeo-Christian' does not refer to a system of ethics based on the 'Golden Rule' (that has been around so for much longer than either religion). No, it was a term first used in the 1800s that was revived after the Holocaust to patch the horrific gap that the Holocaust had formed between Jews and Christians (or at least the Catholic christians) after the Christian support for the holocaust.

Toni Lavis,

I enjoyed to Narnia books as a child. C.S. Lewis has a lot of talent in the form of expression. But he was still an idiot. In fact, one thing that has permanently wrecked the Narnia books for me is that they were just re-writes of the Biblical stories with Aslan as Jesus. To that extent. the guy has little imagination.

Remember, too, that this was a guy who read the entire Bible with the intention of debunking it line by line and then ended up a Christian at the end of his journey.

Good writer or not, that's the mark of a complete idiot.

If it is not dispensing with the rules [of going off thread topic], runner it will be a covenant between the two of us, here is a suggestion to help you refute your claims of AJ Philips' delusions:

Watch this talk by Dr. Robert Price, pick any several of his claims and demonstrate how they are incorrect. As an ex-evangelical Christian and now mythicist his thoughts will address the 'Legend' question for your responses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NLXTGesqxA

I would have suggested any of the videos on Ken Humphreys' JesusNeverExistd channel which I find infinitely more entertaining but I don't know if your blood pressure could cope.

[Also look for an easter egg in this post to answer two schools of thought]

AJ Philips, there is nothing against you personally in my trying to help runner but, you are wrong... Aslan is a lion! I know that for a fact because I have seen the recent Chronicles of Narnia feature films. It is only coincidence they are a trilogy.

runner: a fraudster or He was who He said He was.

There is nowhere in the New Testament that Joshua ben Nasura/Miriam/Pentara (his real names) declares, "I am God, worship me." There are some cryptic saying attributed to Joshua by the writers of the Gospels from hearsay. None of the people who wrote the Gospels had even met him.

Christ, from the Greek, Christ = Lord. or Indo/Aryan Krishna = Lord.
Jesus, there is no J in Greek or Latin. From Hesus, a British Sun God. The Title "Jesus Christ" was suggested by Constantine at the first Nicene Conference.(born & raised in York)

AJ,

If you say so, but your knowledge is not apparent to me.

All,

Which Paul is being talked about. Not the Paul who started off as Saul of Tarsus? That's a name change to me

runner,

Yes, even a non-Biblical scholar like myself picked up the C.S. Lewis reference.

I always thought that phrase, although being a good one-liner, was pretty light on persuasive argument.

In my travels to understand why revered folk became believers, I read some of their writings thinking perhaps there's something I'm missing...but I never came across anything to persuade my mind to believe.

C.S. Lewis, after he undertook much delving, told the story of how he eventually became a Christian....

I thought, okay here goes something!....maybe this will give me a clue to the tectonic shift one undergoes when finally one's psyche capitulates and is able to jettison reason and believe the irrational.

Here's the gist of what he said:....One day he was going to the zoo. When he got on the bus for the journey, he wasn't a Christian believer - and when he got off the bus he was.

That's it. Now I realise it was part of a process, but in the end that was how he explained it.

Like G.K. Chesterton telling us that not realising that Christianity is true is a bit like walking around in the dark, coming upon a street lamp and not looking up to see from whence the light radiates.

Parables like that are all very nice, but certainly not powerful enough to convince someone like me.

Poirot

appreciate your honesty however believe it or not I was not quoting or trying to quote CS Lewis. The 'omniscience' AJ thought he was so smart he caught me out. Again at the end of the day there are people who are lot smarter than me that believe and a lot smarter who don't believe. Turning the arguement as to how credible/smart/gullible CS Lewis was just conveniently takes people away from having to examine the claims of Christ and look at their own natures. If AJ is half as smart as he thinks he is (which I doubt) he would know that.

Poirot,

It is quite possible to believe in virgin birth in humans and for the belief to be rational; see the Russell case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_case
and also consider artificial insemination.

If a female is pregnant and the hymen is intact then the mother to be is a virgin.

1; God of Christianity is not a "sky god", that is paganism. God is Holy character, able to create, change and destroy matter, actions that bless others and living wisdom revealed, all to build community and righteous society.
2. Jesus came to enlighten us on the fact we have failed but forgiveness and restoration are available and the price has been paid for those that recognize their need a new life.

Christianity is living together in community and restoring those that have failed.

Is Mise, Exactly; "If a female is pregnant and the hymen is intact then the mother to be is a virgin". Mary mother of Jesus was conceived by artificial insemination so was a virgin "not having lain with a man"

Josephus: Mary mother of Jesus was conceived by artificial insemination so was a virgin "not having lain with a man"

Mary was betrothed to Herod Antipas, one of King Herods sons, He was friends with the Man who would eventually become Augustus Caesar. Antipas went to Augustus inauguration in Rome where Mary was raped by Augustus. Antipas came home in disgust & Herod thought he was going to take over the throne & had Antipas killed. Leaving Mary pregnant. She was living with her Aunt at the Temple as Cleopas was one of the Chief Temple Priests. Mary was married off to an old man (Joseph) who had just lost his wife & had a couple of kids to look after. Joseph was retired to Nazareth. (Out of the way.) Herod went looking for the child, to kill him, as he thought that the child would claim his Kingship.

Other names Joshua was know by, Yeshua na (bastard in Hebrew). Yeshua ben Strada. Strada was a Roman Soldier, another contender for Yeshua illegitimate father. Yeshua na Notzri. All found in historical writings of the time.

Another problem. The Angel told Mary to name the Child Immanuel, She named him Yeshua & everyone calls him Jesus. ;-)

So endeth the lesson.

Jayb,

There were several persons called Jesus during the time of Herod and the Jesus of Christianity was not the one of whom you write. Where are the earliest historical sources of your material

Okay, it seems we've all agreed that the issue of Islamist terrorism, of blowing the heads off random people and stabbing random old ladies in the back, has nothing to do with race.

I don't like repeating myself but

Here's a brilliant suggestion from Huntington for all of us to think about:

'The great political ideologies of the twentieth century include liberalism socialism, anarchism, corporatism, Marxism, communism, social democracy, conservatism, nationalism, fascism, and Christian democracy.

'They all share one thing in common: they are products of western civilization. No other civilization has generated significant political ideology. The West, however, has never generated a major religion.

'The great religions of the world are all products of non-Western civilizations and, in most cases, pre-date Western civilization. As the world moves out of its Western phase, the ideologies which typified late Western civilization decline, and their place is taken by religions and other culturally based forms of identity and commitment.' [Clash of Civilizations, pp. 53-54]

Really, this dilemma does seem to be one of progressive ideologies (of all sorts, and 'progressive' in varying degrees) versus dogmatic religions, between the quest for knowledge versus the acceptance of [surrender to] what somebody's 'holy books' tell them to think.

Between freedom of thought and expression in other words, versus the pre-human, or pre-civilized, surrender to the Word As Written.

Huntington's question won't go away: why did ideologies of all sorts arise in the west, but only unthinking, unquestioned, religions in the non-west ?

And no, we are not back in the realm of 'race' either. That is surely buried forever.

But what are the implications of Huntington's suggestion that ideologies and thinking is in decline while religion and surrender to dogmatism and non-thinking is on the rise ? Was he right ?

Thinking caps on :)

Joe

Dear Loudmoth,

You quoted;

“'They all share one thing in common: they are products of western civilization. No other civilization has generated significant political ideology. The West, however, has never generated a major religion.”

This is incorrect and just plain silly.

Just look at that powerhouse of religious creativity, the US. There is a case to be made that the Mormon Church and Seventh Day Adventist numbers are each comparable, some claim have surpassed, the number of those practising Judaism world wide. Scientology also has adherents into the many millions and the Jehovahs Witnesses are far enough removed from mainstream Christianity to be regarded as a separate religion.

These are all relatively new, American created, additions to the religious lists (within the last 150 years) and allowed enough time (especially given Mormon family sizes) may well feature quite high in future rankings.

I invite you to read Harold Bloom's American Religion. Here are some quotes from a NYT review;

“Bloom's attention is directed in particular toward the Mormons and the Southern Baptists, because he judges that their emphasis on the individual makes them the most American of the nation's religions. He is especially sympathetic toward Joseph Smith, whom he calls an "authentic religious genius," a person whose "religion-making imagination" is, in Bloom's opinion, unsurpassed in American history ... The other American-made phenomena he analyzes are Seventh-day Adventism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostalism, the New Age movement and African-American religion.”

“Bloom is least sympathetic toward the New Age high priests, whose prose, he believes, is not much more than "blissful vacuity." Jehovah's Witnesses scare him because of what he calls their "theocratic fascism," and his analysis of the Adventists and the Christian Scientists is the weakest part of the book. As for African-American religion, he believes that its emphasis on the search for individual freedom offers a paradigm for all Americans as they seek to find freedom for the self in the midst of community.”
https://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/01/specials/bloom-religion.html

A great read.

With the exception of Scientology, Mormans, 7DA's, JW, Brethren, Southern Baptists & all the other Protestant sects all Come under the Christian umbrella, Not a "New Religion". & Scientology isn't really a religion, it's a scam.

A bit like Sunni's, Bahia, Sufi's Shiite's, Alawali, etc are all offshoots of Islam. Except that for the most part Christians don't go around killing each other if you belong to the other one. Well not lately anyway.

Jayb,

How about a reference or two?

Hi Steele,

7th-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons would call themselves Christians: the observation that they are unthinking religionists still stands. But I did think that somebody might bring up Scientologists :)

Try to stick to the main issue, Steele: that the West has devised all manner of ideologies, which can be discussed and criticised and analysed and 'deconstructed' up hill and down dale - while the non-western world has relied on religions, which usually cannot be controverted, discussed, criticised, only believed in and their injunctions followed.

Yes, you may say, Judaism has a long and healthy history of disputation - as the old proverb goes, get ten Jews in a room and you'll have eleven opinions. But on the whole, religious people are inclined to simply have faith, and are not inclined to pull their religious beliefs apart, isn't that so ?

Why is that ? As an atheist, and as an ex-Communist and ex-Maoist, I have to suggest that, indirectly, and for all manner of non-religious, non-ideological, reasons, perhaps geography, perhaps conflicting political systems, perhaps the influence of different pre-Christian foundations, but for all that, all manner of Christian-originated and semi-christian and barely-christian ideologies did originate - or at least were elaborated - in different parts of Europe, mainly France and the Netherlands and England and Germany and Scotland.

And the translated works of Greek writers, and the work of Jewish philosophers across Europe, such as Mendelssohn and Spinoza - helped to sort of de-Christianise much of the philosophies of, say, the eighteenth century, those of Diderot, Rousseau, Mongtesquieu, which painfully and slowly opened up thorny paths towards Enlightenment thinking.

Maybe that's it: monolithic control, total control, the control by one religion, by one state/empire with one religion, cripples that development of alternative thinking, and stomps on any frail shoots of independent thought.

The printing press was popularised in Europe in the fifteenth century, and by 1500, a billion books had been printed.

Expression versus religion: The first printing press in the Moslem world was set up in 1824, which says what? (Jack Goody, somewhere).

Joe

Is Mise,

"It is quite possible to believe in virgin birth in humans and for the belief to be rational..."

Perhaps I should have referred to it as "immaculate conception"...because it is quite "impossible" to believe a human was inseminated by a non-human/deity.

Josephus,

The term "Sky God" that I employed was a reference to religions which employ a Heaven/Paradise beyond the realms of reason and Earthly reality as the reward.

Paganism is more akin to Earth worship.

"God is Holy character, able to create, change and destroy matter, actions that bless others and living wisdom revealed, all to build community and righteous society...'

Can you enlighten me as to why God thinks it's useful to make his human creation go through tests before its members can join him?

I mean...why bother with all the torment - if he's so fond of us and so all-powerful "....able to create, change and destroy matter..." why does he get his jollies making humans jump through hoops and worship "Him" to get some nebulous reward in a realm that doesn't exist in reality?

Is Mise "If a female is pregnant and the hymen is intact then the mother to be is a virgin." Not true at all.
Not all acts of intercourse break the hymen, and some women are born without a hymen.

In any case, where is it written/proved that someone 'checked' if Mary was a virgin after becoming pregnant with Jesus? Or did they all just take her word for it?

I'll just leave this here....

"Christian evangelists are teaching students they should “die for their faith if necessary’’ and to “thank God for the gift of cancer’’.

A workbook listed for religious education lessons in Year 9 in NSW government schools tells teenagers they have “sinned and deserve God’s punishment” and that the world is in “deep trouble’’.

The accompanying teachers’ manual, titled You: An Introduction, says students should be taught to “submit our bodies to God’s will … even by dying for our faith if necessary’’.

The lesson plan says students should think about their “lies, ­deceit, manipulation, anger, lust, jealousy, hatred and worship of ourselves’’: “It’s a heavy weight we cannot bear, and one day we will be held accountable for it and will pay for it with our death.’’

The student workbook includes a letter with the headline “Thank God for the gift of cancer!’’ written by Bronwyn Chin, who died of pancreatic cancer in 2013. “I would like to grow old with my husband and see my kids grow up. But God appears to have a better plan,’’ the letter says.

Another worksheet features a girl who wonders why her mother has cancer and concludes “my mum’s cancer was the result of a mucked-up and broken world caused by sin’’.

The teaching guide links menstruation and sickness to sin. “Now, being sick or having your period isn’t a sin — but it reminds us that the body and therefore all of humanity now live with the curse of sin,’’ it says."

etc...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/be-prepared-to-die-for-god-kids-told-in-state-school-classes/story-fn59nlz9-1227572155005

Dearie me...Australia, 2015

Suse,

There may be some teenie weenies that could do it without rupture but as a general statement what I said is true; what percentage of girls are born without a hymen?
Virginity is the state of a person who has never engaged in sexual intercourse, such intercourse being usually thought of as penetrative.

"Christianity is living together in community and restoring those that have failed."

Here is one such example, Josephus...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-church-fatal-beating-20151017-story.html

Responsibility lies where? The Christians involved, all Christians, Christianity, their race, the culture in which they were raised?

And if they had been Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, etc?

I chose to blame anyone who is so hypocritical that the god they claim is all powerful requires them to act in its stead.

History shows that god is impotent which is also a gotcha for presumed immaculate conceptions.

I have to agree with poirot here. There are some Christian sicko out there. My mate daughter had a brain cancer & the number of religious loonies that lined up to wave coloured piecers of paper & cloth over her, dance around her hospital bed shouting Jesus's name & other Shamanistic New Age Charismatic BS was sickening.

Having that stuff pushed on you at school at a young impressionable age is just plain wrong. Just like the Islamic Madrassas teach the kids to kill all the infidels. It's all nonsense brainwashing & dangerous.

Is Mise: How about a reference or two?

I've give references before, but here's some more. "Joshua, The Man they Called Jesus," Ian Jones.(Lothian). Hasmonean Dynasty & their relationships (family Tree). Google that. There are also references in Whiston's Josephus. Ist. Origen is a good source too. Nicene Council, Google that too, Various references there. Also Tiberius Iulius Abdes Penthera & Yeshua bar Stada. Oh, I remembered, Yeshua ben Hamzer (Bastard)

A good read.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_7.htm

Titus Flavius Josephus (Roman Historian) was originally Joseph ben Matthias a Jew that was given Roman Citizenship & wrote the record of the Roman Empire at that time.

Wm Trevor,

"I chose to blame anyone who is so hypocritical that the god they claim is all powerful requires them to act in its stead."

indeed....

Talking of hypocrisy, I wonder what the likes of Josephus would say if he came across literature in an Islamic school pushing this kind of thing:

"The accompanying teachers’ manual, titled You: An Introduction, says students should be taught to “submit our bodies to God’s will … even by dying for our faith if necessary’’."

I imagine, he and a few others here would be fizzing an a popping and having a good fulsome rant

//Mary mother of Jesus was conceived by artificial insemination so was a virgin//

WTF? I don't think the Bible records whether Jesus' maternal grandparents used artificial insemination technology to conceive St. Mary, but it seems unlikely given that they were living in Galilee around the 1st century BC and there probably wasn't much in the way of artificial insemination technology. Also, why would they bother when non-artificial insemination is so much more enjoyable?

Furthermore, having being conceived by artificial insemination doesn't make somebody a virgin. Playing D&D and watching too much Dr. Who are what makes people virgins.

Hi Poirot,

" .... anyone who is so hypocritical that the god they claim is all powerful requires them to act in its stead."

Maybe I'm slow this morning, but how is the requirement to act in the name of a god that someone claims to believe in, hypocritical ? Wouldn't it be hypocritical NOT to act in that way ? Crazy maybe, brutal and fascist maybe, but 'hypocritical' ? I don't see the connection.

As for your quote that .... 'You: An Introduction, says students should be taught to “submit our bodies to God’s will … even by dying for our faith if necessary’’."

It sounds like how most religions define women, i.e. the 'submit our bodies to God's will' etc., but the second bit, 'dying for our faith if necessary' is unremarkable - unless there is a proviso attached which says '.... and to kill any unbeliever at random in Her name in the process', or perhaps '.... and to kill any unbeliever in order to get my thing into 72 ever-renewable virgins as quick as possible.'

Is that what you meant ?

I'm still bugged by that observation of Huntington's, that the West has produced ideologies, while religions have originated in the non-West (with the obvious comment that ideology and religion can overlap). And of course, some ideologies are completely reactionary while some versions of some religions can be relatively benign.

But what is the implication that most of the ideologies in the West are in decline, while religions are resurging in the non-West: Islam, Hinduism, perhaps Buddhism, and usually in their most right-wing forms ? What are the implications for the freedom of speech and of expression, and to think and say what one likes ? How much harder will we have to struggle for, and be vigilant in protecting, these vital freedoms ?

I'm not so sure now that I would like to still be around in fifty years. It just seems like so much hard work, and just to stay on the same spot.

Joe

Yeah...Loudmouth,

"Maybe I'm slow this morning, but how is the requirement to act in the name of a god that someone claims to believe in, hypocritical ?"

Wasn't actually my quote - WmTrevors, I think....I posted it and put it in quote marks because I agreed with the crux of it.

Point being if, as Josephus claims, God is "....able to create, change and destroy matter..." - then why does he require a bunch of mere mortals to run around doing his bidding?

Why doesn't God cut out the middle man and do it Itself?

My question remains...why go to all the trouble to create beings that have to jump through hoops to get to the Promised Land if you're so "all powerful" you could have funnelled them straight there in the first place..and made them good and pure...and...and...

No...we have a being that "was good" - and then they were "bad"...so...etc, etc

Just like a childhood narrative.....

Why are you babbling on to me about Islamic belief?

I give that as much credence as I do Christian belief - and a whole lot of other beliefs...which boils down to "not much at all".

"....What are the implications for the freedom of speech and of expression, and to think and say what one likes ?..."

I'm afraid we're stuck with it - that's what humans do. You see we're so intelligent, we have an inner life (as opposed to other creatures) - we ponder it all - and we can't handle it.

We also can't handle that we don't know and we can't explain...or even the fact that there may be no explanation - so we construct our own comforts, rewards, explanations etc.

"Crazy maybe, brutal and fascist maybe, but 'hypocritical' ? I don't see the connection."

I should address this, Joe, as ""I chose to blame anyone who is so hypocritical that the god they claim is all powerful requires them to act in its stead." was my sentence.

Crazy, brutal, fascistic? Sure, no question. Insert 'presumptuous' and synonyms such as arrogant, brazen or impertinent instead of 'hypocritical' if you prefer. They all emphasize slightly different aspects of my point.

But, note that I wasn't specifically addressing any "'requirement' to act in the name of a god that someone claims to believe in..."

This is a subtly separate claim of a person's religiosity and hermeneutics. What I was trying to address was the question of any omnipotent, omniscient god-being so obviously lacking in power and/or knowledge as to need some self-selected human to do something god could do magically if he wanted to.

I'd say to such a delusional believer, "If god is all powerful he doesn't need you. And if you think he does need you, he is not all powerful."

[The excuse that god is still totally shagged out after creating the entire universe is not supported by theological studies.]

That people who profess belief in an omnipotent, omniscient entity don't believe this sufficiently to let the god/allah/yahweh act for himself and feel motivated instead to 'do it themselves' I find hypocritical - it demonstrates to me that they don't believe god/etc. could. Maybe they are so hypocritical that it demonstrates they don't really believe 'he' exists?

It is somewhat like the hypocrisy of an Islamic sect terrorist leader thinking it is so allah-commanded and correct to suicide bomb/murder other Islamic sect worshippers at a mosque, that they order and organize for someone else to do it.

Dear Loudmouth,

Listen mate, you made a contention which was simplistic and in a very provable sense quite wrong. I pulled you up on it and you replied with;

“Try to stick to the main issue, Steele”.

May I politely suggest that is a tad churlish.

Let me be frank. I have long regarded Islam and Christianity as the bastard children of Judaism. They are in a very real sense death cults, where unlike Judaism the afterlife is often held as of greater value earth bound existence.

Just as both are obviously derivative, incorporating whole slabs of Judaism, the fact that Mormonism has Christian roots hardly disqualifies it as a new religion.

Your following point is around the flowering of enlightenment values only flowing from Western thought is also fraught. You spoke of “the translated works of Greek writers”. There were lost to the west through the the Christian cleansing of 'pagan thought and ideas' and thankfully studied and held in trust in Islamic libraries.

I can quote Jewish historians who speak of the 'Golden Age' of Jewish intellectual thought and art being under Muslim rule in southern Spain.

Perhaps being a little less prideful might be in order.

Toni,

In the first century BC there was very effective artificial insemination, exactly the same as is still used privately, and sometimes professionally, today, the only difference is that these days we have strong drinking straws and plastic tubing.
Both of which are a vast improvement over the natural straw of yore; the suck, insert and blow is still the same as the BC mode, the methods of collection of the sperm are also still the same.

It is worth noting that it has never been necessary to get the donor's permission with this model.

Is Mise: In the first century BC there was very effective artificial insemination. the suck, insert and blow is still the same as the BC mode.

How about a reference or two? ;-)

Thank you Steele,

That's an interesting point: if one believes in an afterlife (and wouldn't we all like to ?), unlike those in the Jewish faith (for whom this one life must be all the more precious), is one more likely to think of this life as trivial, replaceable, if one simply follows the injunctions of what is required ? Murder a few non-believers at random and off you go - that must seem attractive to quite a few psychotics.

But I love Schopenhauer's remark that, if he could convince a believer that there was no heaven or afterlife, they would become atheist in twenty minutes. I don't know why twenty minutes, but I suppose it takes that long to work through the major implications for one's future - which raises the question: are true believers utterly selfish when it comes down to it ?

I suppose all one needs is a smooth-talking imam and more dopey kids are off on their killing sprees, thinking of those 72 virgins up there gagging for it.

Joe

Armed, when you blow yourself up you'll go to heaven & get 72 virgins.

OK. Bang!

OK Allah, where are my 72 virgins?

Arrrh, Armed, you ARE one of the virgins, bend over mate. :-0

Jayb,

There are no references that I can find to folk AI but the modern history dates from the late 1600s
http://www.fvvo.be/assets/97/13-Ombelet_et_al.pdf

There is a ref. to its use by ancient Arabs
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=MkUrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=artificial+insemination+in+ancient+times&source=bl&ots=AATwuFPdkr&sig=6Dd6LM-rYLF290nMZTGCPzUXy2s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBWoVChMI95ykt-zLyAIVh8amCh2p_Qgn#v=onepage&q=artificial%20insemination%20in%20ancient%20times&f=false