The Forum > Article Comments > Tolerance > Comments
Tolerance : Comments
By Gary Brown, published 10/3/2006The key is tolerance: let them go to hell, if that’s their destiny in your view, in their own way.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 15
- 16
- 17
-
- All
Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 10 March 2006 8:59:01 AM
| |
Not quite sure what this article was contributing to an already heavily commentated area. Muslim extremists should be more tolerent? Well yeah, of course. But be careful to not defend the ideals of free speech by not letting those who dislike something speak out about it. Both are equally entitled to their right
Posted by jkenno, Friday, 10 March 2006 9:42:25 AM
| |
"let them go to hell" - yeah right - easier said than done.
With all due respect to the author - his lack of personal spiritual or religious belief makes him an outsider to the heart of the issue. To throw comments about religious matters - islamic or christian - is unqualified and out of his league. Tolerence is Hell - but what would you know? Posted by coach, Friday, 10 March 2006 10:15:33 AM
| |
'With due respect to the author', Coach? You have shown none to him or others who do not adhere to a religious faith. You devalue or discount his comments just because he doesn't have a religious faith. Isn't that intolerant of you?
Posted by PK, Friday, 10 March 2006 10:43:55 AM
| |
"To throw comments about religious matters - islamic or christian - is unqualified and out of his league."
The same can be said regarding those who follow a specific religion (say, Christianity) and then set upon and demonize another (for example, Islam) from outside. It doesn't have to just be those who follow "no" religion and comment on religion from an outsiders position. Posted by dawood, Friday, 10 March 2006 11:11:39 AM
| |
Strange one coach.
A belief that there is no god is as valid a spiritual belief as any other. If you are "religious", you have no greater experience of hell, than an atheist does. You may have a belief in it, but that does not give you greater authority on it ... unless you can prove to me that you've been there and come back. Posted by AMSADL, Friday, 10 March 2006 11:24:20 AM
| |
I couldn't read the article after looking at the picture of the author.
Good Lord, is that the best picture he has of himself? gw Posted by gw, Friday, 10 March 2006 11:29:04 AM
| |
I WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS:
Something rotten in Denmark? How about the 200,000 Muslim immigrants trying to dictate their anti-Israel, anti-America and anti-Western values upon 5 million Danes? Even though they represent only 4% of the population, the Muslims consume upwards of 40 percent of welfare spending. They also account for 65-75% of the country's convicted rapists... with almost all victims non-Muslim Danes! Demographers have predicted that in just 40 years, one out of every three Danes will be Muslim. In Italy, 95% of all rapists are Muslims. Eighty-five percent of all murderers are Muslims. Ah, such a wonderful religion of peace! What does the Pope and the rest of the Vatican Church have to say about this? Nothing! And what will the ordinary Italian say when, in ten years, Muslims will be the majority in Italy!! Posted by Thor, Friday, 10 March 2006 12:26:15 PM
| |
NOR WILL I TOLERATE THIS;
France is faring no better. In 1945, there were 100,000 Muslims in France. A fifty fold increase since then now has them numbering 6 million out of a total population of 60 million! Muslims are already 25% of all French under the age of 21. In twenty years, one out of every five Frenchmen will be a Muslim! And if the French-Muslim birth rate continues as projected, France will have a Muslim majority in less than 25 years! Another telling statistic is that although the Muslims are 10% of France's population, 70 percent of a total of 60,775 prisoners in France are Muslims! All of France's urban suburbs are being roamed by Muslim black African or Arabic gangs. One-fifth of all births in France are Muslims! Mohammed is one of the most common names next to Pierre! And Paris has the largest Arab community outside of the Middle East! This is a result of a lenient immigration policy, high Muslim birthrate and conversions. A very high proportion of French Muslims are in the underclass, that segment of the population that relies not so much on education and work as on welfare and predatory activities. In fact, over one thousand Muslim neighborhoods are under monitoring throughout France. Seven hundred of those Muslim neighborhoods are listed as "violent" and nearly 400 hundred are listed as "very violent." Violence ranges from rape (95% of rapists are Muslim), murder (85% of murderers are Muslim), theft and looting of cars (58% committed by Muslims) and street fighting to assault on teachers and civil servants. Periodic outbursts of large-scale unrest or rioting sometimes occur. And, most distressing, are the high numbers of assaults or rebellions against the police. As does England, one thousand mosques are said to operate in France. Posted by Thor, Friday, 10 March 2006 12:31:28 PM
| |
If i was Muslim or Christian i reckon i'd probably have a problem with that statement "let them go to hell".
Seems to me it would be a sin not to at least try and help your fellow man to "see the light" and set them on the "right" road to heaven. It's the foreceful methods used to fulfill this purpose that the author seems to dislike, ie violence and duress, and I agree with him there. You shouldn't have to tolerate what you believe to be false ideas and opinions but at least use non-violent and non-forceful means to get your "truth" across. Posted by Donnie, Friday, 10 March 2006 12:32:18 PM
| |
We barbarians from over the Alps as we were in the Roman writer Tacitus' time, are now full of beans, brought out of the Dark Ages
by Islam, who under Mahomet, was not only accepted by uneducated Arabic peoples, but by peoples of the world's Western seat of knowledge at the time - peoples of Egypt, Persia and of the Euphrates, now Iraq and near neighbours. These more intellectual peoples, in question, seeing the need, sent Islamic scholars to the barbarian far West, not only to conquer but also to spread the message of reason which they had for hundreds of years acquired from ancient Greek philosophy. Most of our Christian churches still refuse to teach it, as do our primary and seconary high schools, but the facts are that those travelling Muslim scholars with their Aristotelian Message of Enquiry, not only lifted Christianity out of 800 years of Dark Ages, but also set the sceme for the wisdom and understanding that we are close to finding now. Yet the way things are now in the Middle East with characters like Cheney and Rumsfeld calling the tune, and tiny Israel allowed so much atomic power, makes good scholars really wonder whether we have really escaped from our barbarian pasts. Posted by bushbred, Friday, 10 March 2006 12:58:47 PM
| |
Very passionate Thor,
Sources Please! Posted by Narcissist, Friday, 10 March 2006 2:57:46 PM
| |
"Let them go to hell" , that is Ok but let them do it in their own time. Do not throw bombs, do not decapitate, do not use wars as an excuse for expansionism. Do not pass Go unless it is for the good of all people.
And do not use religion based on old books written in old days by old blokes long dead as an excuse for killing. Posted by mickijo, Friday, 10 March 2006 3:01:27 PM
| |
Thor
To paraphrase "The Castle": "You're dreamin", or maybe it should be "nightmareing". I'd love to know (no I wouldn't) the lunatic fringe web site you got those statistics from. They certainly don't apply here in good old Oz, where white Anglo-Celts make up a very large percentage of murderers, rapists, muggers etc. Does this mean all white Anglo-Celts are serial murderers and rapists? By your logic, yes. But the difference is that your logic is based on faulty data. However, that's probably not a concern for you. Posted by AMSADL, Friday, 10 March 2006 3:50:35 PM
| |
Donnie, you wrote that it "Seems to me it would be a sin not to at least try and help your fellow man to "see the light" and set them on the "right" road to heaven."
I think that the Buddha, on this as on many other issues, got it right. He instructed his monks to teach the Dhamms (truth) only to those who asked them to, and only to those who were in a fit state to receive it (eg., not tired, distracted or drunk). I can appreciate that anyone who believes that they have knowledge that can help their fellow man is keen to share it, but it's counter-productive to preach to those who cannot hear. Be an example of love, compassion, tolerance and wisdom, and let people who note that there is merit in your life that is missing from theirs enquire from you. Bushbred, yes Western ignorance of the past glories of Islam detracts from our understanding, but you can't blame the western world for all of the current travails of Muslim countries. Posted by Faustino, Friday, 10 March 2006 3:56:44 PM
| |
Muslims will abide by sharia law except where it contradicts Australian law
http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=20308&st=0 "It is interesting to read how some of the barbarians living in Australia have reacted to this also. http://forums.muslimvillage.net/inde...pic=20308&st=0 Obviously Costello (the smug git, regardless) is catering to the Aussie redneck racists kuffar, trying to whip up more 'islamophobia' and trying to force the muslims to become foul mouthed, gamblers, alcoholics, child molestors who consider man above allah, divorce all the time and breed ignorant youth who commit suicide en masse, and all sorts of other 'typical Australian cultural traits'. They think that as migrants they have no obligation to respect the law of the land or our culture (which they state time and time again in that thread, does not exist) nor should they have to feel in any way inclined to entertain the idea of becoming Australian. Who the hell are we to force them to become Australian, oh noes... They see us - White Australians or kuffar as they put it - as inferior and that whilst 'no one has called for sharia law' it wouldnt be that bad and it would resolve all of our wicked western cultural failings. They seem to think that we would indeed be better off with them in power. *sigh* All of this was posted today also... I was sickened to read it, knowing how many Australians support this mob of ignorant, backwards, bigotted wretched creatures. But then again, the best source of knoweldge on this is from where they feel free to speak it. Strangely the post I left in reply to all of their hypocritical hate, has yet to appear..." http://www.stormfront.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=38 Dont judge a forum by it's cover. This is a great forum btw with regular posters with ethnic crime reports , stats , laws to back up arguments. Posted by hoppa, Friday, 10 March 2006 4:10:47 PM
| |
Tolerance by religeously inclined people usually means, to them, that I'm entitled to hear and adopt their opinion.
The article states what many posters on this forum have been saying over and over. Finally OLO has found balance. A great article. Posted by keith, Friday, 10 March 2006 4:17:26 PM
| |
Faustino, thanks an excellent post which summed it up very well.
R0bert Posted by R0bert, Friday, 10 March 2006 5:22:41 PM
| |
Well written Gary, you have expressed well how most no believers see life. Its a pity that the monotheistic religious can't handle others being more rational and open about how they approach life. In the history of humanity in the last 2000 years, except for one or two, non believers of the world have accepted and put up with the violence of religion in its desperation.
One thing that always amazes me is that on the death of a religious person, there is great agony, pain and suffering by the those left behind or bereaved. Yet they preach the glory and joy of meeting their maker and the pleasures of heaven. Could the outpouring of grief and loss, be a subconscious expression of the depth of fear they hold after death, and the reality that faces them at that time. AMSADL, “If you are "religious", you have no greater experience of hell, than an atheist does.” Must disagree, they go through hell everyday, you can see that in their uncontrollable urge to assault people, psychologically, verbally and as we see everywhere, violently. You may be a bit surprised at what the true figures are regarding those incarcerated for violence. In the 80's it would have been about 84% Anglo Celt, now its below 50% and dropping each year. In some jails, its very low and the number that can't speak English, is also growing. Donnie You shouldn't have to tolerate what you believe to be false ideas and opinions but at least use non-violent and non-forceful means to get your "truth" across. You don't class forceful conversion or denial of the right of those that feel constantly assaulted by religious verbal rubbish, in all facets of life as forceful. Sorry but most people I know and deal with, don't see it your way. Posted by The alchemist, Friday, 10 March 2006 5:22:48 PM
| |
Well finally even the do gooding left is beginning to see the light.
This is just facism dressed up in the credibility of religion.They are no different from the Stalinists Communists who believed theirs was the only way.Still,there is a lot wrong with Globalisation and the power of multi-nationals.Will we ever get it right? Our humanity seems to be on an eternal power trip,driven by our own insecurity. Posted by Arjay, Friday, 10 March 2006 6:19:09 PM
| |
From the "enlightened" Muslim Village
"The fact that he bundles law and culture in one bag, and infers that Australia has a culture distinct to itself, presumably nurtured over a mere 200 odd years of colonial settlement, indicates that the speech is at best confused and at worst misleading." So, Australia has no culture ? Curious statement indeed. It might also be described as 'attempted cultural genocide' by first declaring something does not exist, therefore it won't matter if what does not exist is completely quenched and removed eh. If anyone wonders why I have continually claimed we DO have a culture, and that we need to enhance and strengthen Australian Identity, the above post from a Muslim is a good guide as to why Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 10 March 2006 7:44:08 PM
| |
GW “I couldn't read the article after looking at the picture of the author. “
I admit to having similar reservations but then persevered and read anyway. Tolerance is about not judging other people. I guess that should apply to their appearance as well as their beliefs. I would agree with the content of Gary’s article. The Islamists do lack the tolerance which we have come to expect as part of our culture. All immigrants to Australia need to acquire the attribute as sure as they need to understand that just as we respect other peoples right to find their God in their own way they need to demonstrate or agree to an understanding of English, compliance with the Australian legal and political systems and a willingness to assimilate The above are just essential and non-negotiable prerequisites to coming here. Muslims cannot reasonably expect to benefit from a culture of religious tolerance which supports their (minority) right to freedom of religious expression and then demand the non-Muslims be denied that same right of expression. Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 11 March 2006 7:42:04 AM
| |
Excellent item Gary. As a fellow atheist I must applaud every time someone writes what they believe in. Heaven forbid we should really say what we think of followers of religion, but we won't do that as they are entitled to their own beliefs.
Tolerance? From Muslims? Where and when please everyone? From Christians, the same questions really although today they mainly keep it to themselves, except for the infommercials on TV, the door to door converters, the outrage every time someone suggests that the multitiude of different religions exposes the flaw in all religion. That is, they can't all be right, or are there many Gods, sharing a heaven somewhere. Do they have teams or a union? How do they get on with each other? I guess each religion just deems everyone else's God as fictitious right? On the go to hell issue I think most beleivers of religions will definitely go to a heaven when they die. After all being forced to obey rules and morals that have no meaning must be hell itself. Posted by pegasus, Saturday, 11 March 2006 8:18:30 AM
| |
There is a wonderful letter of apology written by a Retired US Major General here Thanks to Peter Faris QC.: http://www.farisqc.observationdeck.org/?p=245#comments
Anomie: You are excluded. Posted by All-, Saturday, 11 March 2006 9:43:33 AM
| |
The problem is, Gary, that tolerance is not always a two way street. Should we be tolerant of the intolerant? No!
In the West, including Australia, tolerance has become a synonym for weakness; weakness, which is being exploited by the intolerant groups we have allowed among us and have even fostered in their intolerance. Today, “tolerance” means giving in to loud and aggressive minorities and feeling ashamed of our own heritage, history and social mores. The majority has allowed itself to be cowered by the minority. Christianity in the west has become so tolerant of other religions, mainly Islam, that it has become irrelevant. The law has become so tolerant of ethnic gangs that these gangs rule the streets in their ghettos. A Mardi Gras of perverts is hailed as something ‘good’. We even tolerate the burning of our flag. Our culture has been too tolerant already, for too long. We might still have enough time left to toughen up and be proud of who we are and what we have. Our easygoing tolerance has been used and abused for too long. If we don’t lift our game and stiffen our backbones, we will eventually be subjects of people whose dictionary doesn’t have the word tolerance in it Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 11 March 2006 10:50:28 AM
| |
That is a Good point Leigh. It launches into the fabricated language of nothingness, such as Meaningless word : Diversity and Tolerance as you so well explained.
Frank Furedi is the Author of: “The Politics of Fear”. And an excerpt is located here. http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/86/ A must read. Posted by All-, Saturday, 11 March 2006 11:23:24 AM
| |
Hey Amsadl,
Good to see you questioning the "statistics" provided re crime in Italy. Of course they are rubbish. But so are your sweeping statements about white making up the majority of rapes, murders and muggings etc. Any chance of a source? Such a statement is ridiculous as the majority of our population is white. It is only logical that the numbers fall in that area. If you care to research it I think you will find rapes are most frequent in Aboriginal communities and may represent a higher % than the rest of the country. Posted by pegasus, Saturday, 11 March 2006 2:56:44 PM
| |
Great article Gary! The only way to deal with the intolerant, is to be intolerant of their intolerance!
Mind you, whilst Islam is in general an intolerant religion which has yet to undergo a reformation and enlightenment period, lets not kid ourselves about Xtianity. There are plenty of Xtian types, even on this website, ie Coach and others, who would love to enforce their religious dogma on the rest of us, given half a chance. If we look at the fundie movement in the US and now increasingly here, if we look at the worldwide political influence and agenda of the Vatican etc, these types would soon take us back to religious barbarism, given an inch. Religion should be a lifestyle choice and no more. Until that happens, our tolerant society will be continually threatened by those intolerant forces with an agenda which they claim floated down from the heavens. Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 11 March 2006 3:04:44 PM
| |
Dear Leigh (and all)
Can I recommend you look into the following: Second Evangelical Awakening. There are some very well researched Real Audio talks by J Edwin Orr, a noted historian, (and theologically ok) Here http://www.jedwinorr.com/ Click to the 'teaching of..' section, and then click on one of the Welsh Revival of 1904 and similar talks. http://ctlibrary.com/4546 <= is a good one on the beginnings of Methodism The striking aspect of a study of the historical conditions preceeding the revivals, was the similarity to NOW.. especially the cultural and social decadence and immorality. I applaud your continued defense of our values, and way of life, yet at the same time, we are sliding ever downward, as the 'merchants in the temple' of commerce continue to push the boundaries of acceptability, in the name of artistic freedom, yet the reality is they are selling our souls for 30 pieces of silver. When men and woman humble themselves before Almighty God, as per II Chronicles 7.13 "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, then....will I hear from heaven and heal their land." on that day, nothing will be able to resist the unleashing of the Holy Spirit, as it was in Whales.. where the miners were so tranformed the Mine Donkeys would not respond because they did not understand the language without profanity. The Spirit of God, does not force Himself on us, God waits... for open hearts and willing minds.. on that day, our greatest regret will be that we wasted so much of our lives in carnality, our cry will be that we have lost so much of what could have been... Are we open ? Do we hear His voice ? will we bend our wills to His voice ? or will we continue striving for ever deeper depths of depravity ? The choice is ours Thailand, spiritually dead for years and years, closed minds, deaf ears, blind eyes to the gospel. We prayed.. and prayed.. and then prayed more and now 1000s are coming to Christ. Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 11 March 2006 3:12:48 PM
| |
Gary
Thank you for a well written and very well balanced argument. Definitely one of the best I have read on the subject. coach Your intolerance of others is mind boggling. gw And so is yours. Cheers Kay Posted by kalweb, Saturday, 11 March 2006 4:42:54 PM
| |
Boaz, you wrote that "Thailand, spiritually dead for years and years, closed minds, deaf ears, blind eyes to the gospel. We prayed.. and prayed.. and then prayed more and now 1000s are coming to Christ."
Unbelievable. My understanding is that prior to becoming the location for American R&R during the Vietnam war, Thailand was a peaceful Buddhist country. I've heard audio tapes of correspondents in the country pre-war which support that. An American friend of mine was CIA head of station in Thailand during the war. He was very taken by the peaceful, calm nature of the Thais, which he attributed to them being practising Buddhists. This led him to a spiritual search. He spent time with Krishnamurti, Suzuki and Sayagi U Ba Khin, and was authorised by U Ba Kin to teach Vipassana (which is the practice taught by the Buddha, not Buddhism). I met a very saintly Thai monk, Achaan Cha and his American disciple, Achaan Sumedho, when they visited England, and subsequently visited Achaan Cha in his monastery in NE Thailand in 1979, and spent time with him as a novice in 1980. I found the locals very devout, as regards following pancasila (the moral code taught by the Buddha and in other eastern religions) and in giving dana, alms, to the monks. I can't recognise your description at all. Achana Cha was the epitomy of non-attachment. He pointed out to me, however, that the lay people who came to the monastery, devout as they were, failed to grasp the essential teachings of the Buddha. One day when 300 lay people were chanting in a hall at the monastery, he said that while he taught impermenance, non-attachment, the people didn't understand, they were chantng "Let me not be separated from my loved ones," etc, not understanding that such separation is inevitable. The problem arises in many religions that most people do not in fact follow the true teachings of the founder, hence the problems which arise within and between religions. Posted by Faustino, Saturday, 11 March 2006 5:35:14 PM
| |
Well said, Faustino.
Thailand (the name is Thai for "Free Land") is the only south-east Asian country that has never been under occupation by a Western power. It has had a long, sometimes troubled journey towards democracy but has never had to throw off the corrosive legacy of Western gunboat imperialism that damaged every one of its neighbours. Boaz clearly inhabits a different universe from the rest of us. Posted by MikeM, Saturday, 11 March 2006 7:08:03 PM
| |
Coach: Do U really think U are entitled to force yr religious views on others? Such strategies have never worked (cf. USSR, Roman Empire, both tried this against Christians; English tried against RCs, etc etc).
GW: never judge a book by its cover. Brown cd have 3 eyes & 6 tentacles but so what? What someone looks like is surely immaterial in relation to what they say. Leigh: U have a point. Clearly from his piece G. Brown wd agree with U. I guess the message is: we shd tolerate everything except intolerance. Those not prepared to tolerate the West's religious & other freedoms can hardly complain if in turn they are not tolerated by the West. Actually the piece under discussion prob. belongs in "Law & Liberties" rather than "Religion & Spirituality". It's not about religion but about democratic freedoms & those who fear and reject it. I once read a novel where an accidental timetraveller finds himself in 6th Century CE Rome - a hotchpotch of Christian religious factions. A member of one of these complains about persecution. Questioned, it turns out he defines "persecution" as allowing freedom of worship to factions other than his own. Some Muslims (Brown's targets) and Christians seem to define it the same way. Likewise the Hindu fanatics who incinerated a harmless Christian missionary & his kids a few years ago - the same ilk who murdered Mahatma Gandhi. Posted by Mhoram, Saturday, 11 March 2006 9:25:51 PM
| |
Dear Faustino
Yes, I can see where ur coming from, and the last thing I want to do as a person is threaten or disrupt your obvious desire to live a good life as you see it, in terms of becoming dis-attached to the sources of pain and suffering, through Buddhism. You comments about Thailand are also acknowledged. Yet at the same time, I speak as one who knows Christ, in heart and in mind, and so it becomes imperative to announce Jesus, the Saviour,Son of God, -to all, irrespective of philosophy of life. In your case, I am aware of a degree of fragility in your background as you have intimated here from time to time, which includes some exposure to Christian knowlege. I ask that you understand my comments in the context of what you know about the gospel. Yes, I hope you return to Christ, or perhaps just discover Him for the first time. Thailand is very 'religious' indeed, but considering the Buddha himself was not teaching a 'religion' this is surprising. It reminds me of those at Athens who were very religious and had an idol to 'An Unknown God' Paul announced "What you worship as unknown, I proclaim to you". Thai people are looking for fulfillment, forgiveness, and seeking to 'make merit' to avoid being reborn as a frog etc... What they are striving after, we proclaim, -in Christ all the fulfillment and reconciliation to their Creator is made known. As it is for we in the West also, and those in this forum. The story of the 300 chanting is interesting. People don't want to be detached from loved ones. Jesus said "Unless a man hates mother, father, etc,even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." meaning of course, placing Him ahead of all things. But at the same time, he berated those who used 'religion' as an excuse for not caring for loved ones. When we are united with Him, our loved ones will be more loved. Mike.. I could not agree more. Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 11 March 2006 10:12:07 PM
| |
Buddhism is only a philosophy , that believes in reincarnation (wishful thinking) won't tread on or kill a blowfly or ant in case it's a relative. It is not spiritual as Buddhist's want us to believe.
Just look at all Buddhist nations like Vietnam,laos,Thailand,etc, poverty,disease,misery and no hope with kids sold as prostitutes. Christianity has not done that, we are blessed by Christ although a backslidden nation,revival is soon to come, as in Wales in 1904 and Asuza St . Russia and Kiev especially are crying out for more of God they were forced into atheism and communism ,told there was no God and they fell,why? No religion. China the same but have underground churches of millions,people experiencing God'slove Christianity is NOT religion it is a lifestyle . Christ hated religion and the religious priests ,who were as white washed tombs,and vipers who robbed widows ,He rebuked them also for openly praying out loud so all could see how great they thought they were and were law enforcers like Islam. He said they were sons of hell. Religion tries to put on a happy face,wants attention ,full of pride and arrogance . Religion can be anything and everywhere,you don't need statues ,as many idols are in men's hearts. The New Testament Bible,in Ephesians ch6 v12 says, we are not fighting flesh and blood, but against principalites,powers ,rulers of the darkness of this age ,and spiritual hosts (demons)of wickedness in heavenly places. And to pray at all times . Boaz is right ,we need to pray 2 Chronicles Ch 7 v 14 non stop .Pray without ceasing . To the atheists and non believer's you will believe there is a Hell 5 seconds after you arrive there, Jesus,spoke more about Hell than Heaven check it . Most of all, "God Is Love", and He Loves all mankind. I know ,He saved me and you don't know where I came from ,so don't mock I was 42 years a non believer .Islam and Muslims are visited by Jesus in mosques and dreams telling them He loves them , He IS The Way. Posted by dobbadan, Saturday, 11 March 2006 11:46:59 PM
| |
Bushbred
Islam wasn’t accepted it dominated through jihad. Actually it is Christianity that was accepted, its first three centuries were marked by persecution by a dominant antagonistic surrounding culture. Islam conquered previously Christian Asia Minor, North Africa and the Holy Lands. Obviously great centres of learning included. "The Arabians contributed in a very large degree to making Aristotle known in Christian Europe; however, in doing this, they were but transmitting what they themselves had received from Christian sources; and, moreover, the Aristotle who finally gained recognition in Christian Europe was not the Arabian Aristotle, but the Greek Aristotle, who came to Western Europe by way of Constantinople." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01674c.htm Yet why did Islam stagnate and Europe rise? "While the other world religions emphasized mystery and intuition, Christianity alone embraced reason and logic as the primary guides to religious truth. Christian faith in reason was influenced by Greek philosophy. But the more important fact is that Greek philosophy had little impact on Greek religions. Those remained typical mystery cults, in which ambiguity and logical contradictions were taken as hallmarks of sacred origins. Similar assumptions concerning the fundamental inexplicability of the gods and the intellectual superiority of introspection dominated all of the other major world religions." Prof. Rodney Stark Averroes, Avicenna and Jewish philosopher Maimonides are used as examples of a golden age in Islam. The Rabbi Maimonides died in exile suffering religious persecution throughout his life. Averroes was banished and his works consigned to the flames. It was Latin and Jewish preservation of his works that affected Europe. “The overthrow of Mutazilite (doctrine that Quran was created rather than eternal) Islam, coincided with the loss of the scientific edge of the islamic world and the rise to prominence of a more dogmatic approach to islam, of which Al-Ghazali was a staunch defender. Sunni and shi'a Islam became the mainstream schools of islam. As a consequence, the tables turned and most scholars and scientists like Ibn Rushd and Avicenna with Mutazilite views were the victims of persecution themselves in the centuries to follow.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims#Persecution_of_and_by_Mutazilites Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 12 March 2006 8:36:50 AM
| |
The amazing Wafa Sultan... Highly recommended.
Here is a video URL posted by dobbadan to another thread (article=4133#34474) http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null Or access from Ali Sina's faithfreedom: http://www.faithfreedom.org Posted by GZ Tan, Sunday, 12 March 2006 8:45:52 AM
| |
dobbadan, whatever Buddhism is, there is no philosophy in the teaching of the Buddha. Based on his own experiential knowledge, he taught the truth of suffering and how to come out of, and how each one of us could pursue that through our own efforts, developing our own wisdom, not depending on external teaching, philosophy or dogma. In 45 years of teaching, he refused to be drawn into philosophical discussion. Nor did he teach reincarnation, which implies a continuing entity, a soul or whatever, something permanent, when self-observation reveals that all is change, nothing is permanent.
Boaz, you are well-meaning and I think I’ve got through to you once or twice, but in general you’re too blinkered to make a dialogue worthwhile. Yes, I was raised as a Christian (I abandoned it when I was13), my understanding of Christ’s teaching was much enhanced by practising Vipassana, but my understanding of “the Kingdom of Heaven lies within you” must be far away from yours. It sounds from your quote as if Jesus was telling his disciples that they had to overcome attachment, non-attachment of course does not mean putting aside love for others, it leads to overflowing loving-kindness which is not based on ego or attachment, which is unselfish, undemanding, nonjudgmental, and of course not confined to your family. Posted by Faustino, Sunday, 12 March 2006 10:40:40 AM
| |
AMSADL, Narcissist, and pegasus. I have posted links to statistics and documentation. Note, Islamic organisations in Europe recognise a disproportionate representation of Islamic men in rape agianst local christian girls. http://www.cphpost.dk/get/62605.html .
(I will not be surprised if the LEFTISTS suggest the Muslim organistions are racist to Muslims for recognising statistics and cultural clashes). You LEFTISTS are the enemy of Australia, Australian women, and integration. I invite you to browse the GOVERNMENT STATISTICS published in reputable European NEWSPAPERS. '... police statistics, revealed that in 68% of all rapes committed this year the perpetrator was from an ethnic minority.' AND 'Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls' -http://www.cphpost.dk/get/62605.html 'Over the last 5-10 years there has an increasing tendency to marginalise and alienate immigrants. As a result, many second generation immigrants have reacted against this through various types of criminal activity, including rape. And if you look at the figures, men with an immigrant background are grossly over-represented, compared to the proportion of the population they make up' – Professor Flemming Balvig, a criminologist at Copenhagen University. http://www.cphpost.dk/get/62173.html backed up by a 1998 Justice Ministry survey on crime, which found that immigrants were over-represented by an average of 46 per cent, [and] recent publication of a report from the Copenhagen police shows that 47.5 per cent of prisoners on remand for serious crimes such as murder, attempted murder and rape come from immigrant backgrounds. 'Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study.' - http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece AND, 'While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases. - Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo's Vice, Robbery and Violent crime. http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/07/norwegian-government-covering-up.html Posted by Thor, Sunday, 12 March 2006 2:04:09 PM
| |
The Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet reported that 65 percent of rapes of Norwegian women were performed by "non-Western" immigrants –
A CATEGORY THAT, IN NORWAY, CONSISTS MOSTLY OF MUSLIMS. The article quoted a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo (note: her name is Unni Wikan - a MUSLIM) as saying that "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor's conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it." - http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/07/norwegian-government-covering-up.html LET ME POINT OUT THE ISLAMIST RESPONSE ONCE MORE, 'Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it'. Yes, the Islamist response IS defended by LEFTISTS. LEFTISTS are the enemy of Australia, Australian women, and integration. Posted by Thor, Sunday, 12 March 2006 2:12:47 PM
| |
Thor you left out capitalists. They demand immigration because it makes us more 'competitive'! Judging by your rape stats, this is the kind of competitiveness we don't need.
Posted by davo, Sunday, 12 March 2006 2:42:35 PM
| |
Faustino,
Thanks, mate, for the acknowledgement concerning the far more glorious earlier days of Islam, helped very much of course not only by the fact, that Mahomet's followers had overrun the centre of Middle Eastern learning of the time, but also that Alexander the Great's followers had introduced Golden Age Greek Philosophy into the area. The Great Library of Alexandria, even well before AD, was attended by peoples even as far away as India. But sadly, during early AD, Christians regarded such teaching as pagan and evil, later destroying much of the Great Library which had held priceless readings and exhibits of early Greek learning. It is so historically interesting that the early Islamics set about rebuilding the Library, treasuring what was left, especially the more scientific exhibits. As already mentioned, most of the Middle Eastern peoples whom Mahomet overran, were non-barbarian, different to over the Alps where most of our present Western peoples are descended from. Right now, it is the Islamics who are in a Dark Ages, forced that way like the early Christians into an escapist lust for the afterlife, brought on by us former barbarians now so over-lusty with scientific knowledge first began by the Greeks and accepted by Mahomet's followers, but we are now using it to belittle those historical followers, who had the insight at the time not to destroy but to pass them on to the peoples who now have command of this globe. But going by what is happening on our globe at present, we only wish that the advances in technology might also give us leaders with much more acumen and understanding in historical knowledge, rather than the crude barbarian frontier- style activity we are being presented with at present. Not only in politics, but also in our trickle-down style economics Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 12 March 2006 2:57:16 PM
| |
Thor, you are thundering away at "leftists" louder than your ancient namesake was when trundling around the sky in his billy-goat cart throwing the magic hammer Mjolnir at giants.
From what you have posted about the Norwegian scene, the Muslim outlook is damned crook. And it wasn't too good when Olaf took over the Norwegian crown and got "sainted" for converting his subjects to Christianity via the practice of sitting reluctant women on steaming kettles. I think he might have been a capitalist rather than a leftist. Posted by colinsett, Sunday, 12 March 2006 4:11:52 PM
| |
Dear Faustino
your last sentence said it all. There is no real difference between what I was saying, and what you are saying in terms of the inner dimension to not being attached to things from an ego basis. The difficulty I see is, Buddha recognized that being attached to the world and things in it, based on ego, will lead to suffering, he only offered 'freedom from' so, presumably, by not persuing selfishness, we avoid suffering. Though common sense tells us this is unreal. We suffer in many ways which have nothing to do with how we ourselves are mentally conditioned. Denying the suffering of a severed hand would not stack up as far as my blinkered view can see :) But aside from the semantics of the Buddha's teaching or experience, I cannot see why one who is raised to know Christ would depart from one who solved our sin problem, dying on our behalf, and rose to Glory to give us a real hope, and promised to return and gather those who love Him to himself. Buddhism is a denial of Christ, by saying that we ourselves can rid ourselves of the attachment which causes suffering. But it cannot rid us of guilt. There are things we all have done, which can never ever be undone, and such things can only be forgiven, not extinguished. But the Buddha cannot forgive. He cannot give us a clean slate, a new heart or a new mind. His body lies somewhere in a grave. No one can seriously question the value of his teaching from a psychological perspective, but I find nothing more in it than that. Jesus said 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' Its not a new philosophy, a new idea, a new doctrine that we need, its a new birth. How could you have missed this in your upbringing, and why would you abandon it ? I'm guessing there is something you are not telling us. Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 12 March 2006 4:16:41 PM
| |
Dear Thor,
No need to shout, we can hear you mate. Fistly how did I get labelled as LEFTIST. Probably the same way you quoted stats out of context. Simply stabbing in the dark. I'm not and I ask you to define your term "LEFTIST". Apparently must be in capitals, so I follow your convention. As to providing sources, quoting newspaper reports is about as reliable as our politicians in Australia. You can't beleive anything they say or publish. And you quote a blog as an authority too. That's rich mate. You'll be quoting the Daily Telegraph in Sydney as a source next. You also haven't given any clue to which country and reliable sources you are talking about? Is it Italy, Norway or what? You haven't mentioned Australian stats which is where I found your statements sweeping and innacurate. Perhaps we don't keep stats of rapes by race. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make anyway. What is your point? It would help if you stated it clearly please. Posted by pegasus, Sunday, 12 March 2006 8:32:22 PM
| |
Well I have finally made up my mind at long long last ........
I am going to convert and be a Moslem extremist, strap on some explosives - and then go blow something up. Not quite sure what I will blow up ...maybe I might just only blow myself up, but the thought is there - I just want to be a martyr, go to heaven and have an endless supply of willing, ever lasting virgins, All willing, ready and practised (?) at my beck and call in my old age. Ahhhh......... What a life to contemplate, especially when you take into consideration the alternative as espoused by all these bloody crazy christian religions, whose steady dull mantra of pain, suffering and preying (sic) all their lives to then go to a purgatory existence before you might, just might, if you do not mind make it. Well to me it is a no brainer ..... An instant passport into paradise to service 72 (or is it 75?) everlasting virgins for MY everlasting pleasure ..... Hmmmmm Just wondering if I could keep it up for the lot of them? What would happen to me if I missed out on a few? What would happen to me if they had discovered their own equal right and DEMANDED their own conjugal rights?? Oh well I suppose I would just have to brace myself, keep a stiff upper lip (even if another part stays limp....) and think of good old Mohammad, who had done his bit to provide this brilliant afterlife for me. After all the alternative life in HELL would be one to one of being shut in a small room for the rest of eternity with all you posters here on OLO....... Just joking you guys..... Posted by Kekenidika, Sunday, 12 March 2006 8:57:14 PM
| |
Tough luck, Kekenidika,
No virgins at the end of that particular road. Not even a pony. If you want to really understand, Scott Atran's essay, http://www.interdisciplines.org/terrorism/papers/1 explains. Summary: (1) suicide terrorism is not due to poverty/illiteracy; (2) suicide terrorists have no abnormal or special personality characteristics; (3) a purely or even predominantly military response to suicide terrorism is unlikely to succeed; (4) the widespread support in Islamic countries for the suicide terrorists is not due to the popular dislike of democracy, civil liberties, the treatment of women, or other aspects of American society that might indicate a "clash of civilizations"; (5) support for suicide terrorism in Islamic countries is a reaction to American foreign policy--in particular for the US support for Israel and unpopular, authoritarian Islamic regimes; (6) the effective way to end suicide terrorism is to change these foreign policy choices. The fact remains: QUOTE Contemporary suicide terrorists from the Middle East are publicly deemed crazed cowards bent on senseless destruction who thrive in poverty and ignorance. [But] they have no appreciable psychopathology and are as educated and economically well-off as surrounding populations. A first line of defense is to get the communities from which suicide attackers stem to [learn] how to minimize the receptivity of mostly ordinary people to recruiting organizations. END QUOTE Virgins? Nothing to do with it, any more than they had with WWII Japanese kamikaze pilots: QUOTE ... suicide attack as a weapon of terror is usually chosen by weaker parties against materially stronger foes when fighting methods of lesser cost seem unlikely to succeed. Choice is often voluntary, but typically under conditions of group pressure and charismatic leadership. Thus, the kamikaze (“divine wind”) first used in the battle of the Philippines (November 1944) were young, fairly well educated pilots... Many of these young men were well read in Western philosophy and literature, some were Marxists or Christians... the state was apparently able to manipulate [them] to convince the pilots that it was their honor to “die like beautiful falling cherry petals”. END QUOTE Want to blow yourself to bits for cherry petals? Your choice. Posted by MikeM, Sunday, 12 March 2006 10:12:41 PM
| |
If you should die today ,are you prepared for what is waiting for those who don't believe? Just imagine being shut in a box with no light and no sound all on your own for eternity. Terrifying ,right?
That is what religion is about, a hereafter ,and there is a place for all who follow Christ ,He proved it ,came down from His dad (God Almighty) did what He was sent to do ,showed compassion to all ,women were set free from condemnation ,even adulterers,men were corrected and religious zealots rebuked by God in the flesh (Christ ). The religious priests (do you get it?) hated Christ and planned to kill Him off because He had compassion (healed people on a sabbath day ) and in the temple. (Shock ,Horror),gave sight to the blind ,hearing to the deaf,cleansed the lepers (untouchables)stopped the blood flow in a woman (Dangerous for her in public) could have been stoned by the priests. Jesus openly opposed religion. Allowed them to torture and crucify Him to death, then came back to life as He said He would 3 days later. Walked thru walls, ate with His disciples,stayed another days on earth then rose Heaven in witness of 500 people going UP to Heaven promised coming back again after Israel and Jews are attacked by their many enemies,but win. Does this sound like fantasy it's all recorded in The Bible and in history books ? So can Buddha beat that, or Allah's Mohammed or Hinduism's 300 million god's or mormon's gold plates and angels,or Watchtower slaves 144,000 male virgin Jews they claim to be? No .All founders are dead and in their graves forever. Whom will you choose ? The man who came down from Heaven or the false god's? View Ian Mc Cormick story on the net ,or the man who was dead for 3 days sealed in a coffin and embalmed with chemicals, ON CFAN in Africa, both died , went to Hell and then to Heaven for a look,hear their testimonies then decide .You will get a first hand account that both exist. Posted by dobbadan, Sunday, 12 March 2006 10:30:59 PM
| |
"Just imagine being shut in a box with no light and no sound all on your own for eternity. Terrifying ,right?
That is what religion is about, a hereafter ,and there is a place for all who follow Christ" Yup Dobba, that is what religions are all about. Using fear to scare the heebeejeebies into people and then offering a solution, where those who claim to know that solution, have power over you. As they say, for every fool that dies, another 10 are born :) Religions, as are being sold to the consumer, would have to be the biggest con trick ever invented. Amazingly they never have to deliver or provide evidence for their claims either. Just scare the hell out of people, then offer them hope and a solution. Voila, a brilliant business and control model is born! If you want to understand the world, just look at nature. The laws are there for all to see. In nature, deception is common to take advantage of the gullible. Clearly on this thread, there is no shortage of gullible people... Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 12 March 2006 11:41:24 PM
| |
You are pretty well spot on, MikeM. Looks like you have good insight into Middle East history. You appear like a keen scholar, in fact.
Just been reading a report about Harold Pinter who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2005. Also before that he had won he Shakespear Prize, the European Prize for Literature, the Pirandello Prize at Palermo, the David Cohen British Prize for Literature, Also won the French Moliers D'Honour for lifetime literature achievement, and in 1999 was made a Companion of Literature by the Royal Society of Literature. Also has received Honorary Degrees from 14 universities. We might say that Harold Pinter's view of our present global commandeers is not very nice. He says that in these days of so-called advanced Enlightenemnt, our present unipolarists, the Americans, and probably those who follow them, are interested not in truth but in power, and the maintainance of that power. Further, to maintain that power, it is essential to use evasive tactics, as well as to tell untruths, so that the ordinary people remain in ignorance. It reminds us very much of a quote by Ralston Saul of Canada, about it being essential to dumb down a questioning public. Certainly both the Murdoch and Packer media have a strong hand in 'not to reason why' in Australia. Finally, talking about suicide bombing, Mike, I guess you already know that the record for suicide bombers giving their lives is held by the Tamil Tigers. Somewhere between four and five hundred. The most interesting one, of course, was performed by a young Tamil girl, who blew up herself and Rajiv Gandhi, Mrs Gandhi's son, who had foolishly landed an Indian military force in Norhern Sri-Lanka to quell down the original Tamil Tiger Revolt. Stupidly foolish because the Tamil Tigers are blood cousins of the Tamils of India. Also talking about Vestal Virgins, Mike, we never hear what the suicide bomber females expect to be granted in heaven? Regards, George C, WA - Bushbred Posted by bushbred, Monday, 13 March 2006 1:12:01 AM
| |
bushbred wrote, "[Pinter] says that in these days of so-called advanced Enlightenemnt, our present unipolarists, the Americans, and probably those who follow them, are interested not in truth but in power, and the maintainance of that power..."
The classic statement of the Bush administration position was in Ron Suskind's New York Times Magazine feature, "Without a Doubt", http://www.cs.umass.edu/~immerman/play/opinion05/WithoutADoubt.html QUOTE In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency. The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' END QUOTE Good point about the Tamil Tigers. Notably the Tamil Tigers are mainly Hindu and the similarly lethal Nepalese terrorists are Maoist communists. Posted by MikeM, Monday, 13 March 2006 6:11:45 AM
| |
Yabby, interesting perspective about
1/ scaring people 2/ offering a solution 3/ gaining power over them. Sounds like "The Family", or Maharaj Ji with his personal 747, or.. perhaps even Benny Hinz ? David Koresh, or Jim Jones or even the Catholic Church in some ways, (No offense Catholic friends please) and many cult figures, but concerning Jesus, Messiah and Lord ? nope.. can't recognize Him there. I do see some truth in points 1 & 2 but that is the reality of fallen humanity, we can argue the toss on those, but the last one..3/ "Gaining power" that's the point of departure from Christ. "If anyone among you would be first, he must become servant of all" yep..sounds like a real power trip to me :) Mike I would not dispute the accuracy of your quotes to be honest. They seem in harmony with the fallen nature of humans who DO live just for power and empire.(Can you show me a nation/tribe/race which has not ?) But its more than that. Unfortunately, like feminism, Marxism this-ism that-ism there is never any stopping at 'equality' or Victory. It always goes further, once power is gained, it has to be held, and that requires the reducing of power of enemies (forcing tribute on conquered tribes/classes) and enhancing ones own. What I dispute is as follows: 1/ That some body like the UN or some socialist Utopia is going to solve it. 2/ That there are humans who would be 'different' once in power. As Jesus said "The jugement you give, is the judgement you will get" When we cry out against the USA etc, we are really crying out against ourselves. The foundational problem is us. Our hearts, our stubborn wills, and our selfish minds. If history has taught us anything, it has taught us this. "I tell you the truth, you must be born again" (Jesus) ARJAY we have common ground in the area of common sense re human behavior, we just have different solutions :) Don't take my 'mud slinging' jibe as too serious..was just making a general point. Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 13 March 2006 8:21:53 AM
| |
Boaz-David, I think you are in a weak position to pontificate on this site about those who you deem to be 'spritually dead'. Your preachings are hollow. You cannot explain why you simultaneously believe that only true Christians will be received into heaven while being unable to explain the fate of the 'blameless non-believers', as was exposed on another thread last week. You are some kind of evangelist, it seems. Why don't you have the courage of your convictions and undertake a mission to convert the Muslims of Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows, you might save a few souls even if it results in you meeting your maker rather earlier than you had planned. Preaching to us here on this site reaches only the converted and the committedly unconverted.
Posted by PK, Monday, 13 March 2006 8:42:05 AM
| |
Well the christians have turned this into a muslim bashing thread again, in their effort to take the heat of their own reality.
The massive problem we face is the intolerance of all religion towards each other and those that wish to live a life in peace and harmony. Rather than denial, violence and debauchery. Its all religion that suffers from intolerance, there are no exceptions. Its believe or go down under a religious barrage of verbal diarrhea, followed by threats of damnation, followed by violent confrontation. The religious have but one course to sail, thats domination at all costs, no tolerance in that, no caring, no peace, no love. Just scripture, threats, then, we all know whats next, we see it all over the world today and throughout history. Posted by The alchemist, Monday, 13 March 2006 8:47:14 AM
| |
Kay,
Re: Intolerance - Once you will know the truth you will understand how I feel. Don’t judge me by ‘how’ I come across on these pages bur “what” my message is. Faustino, Thailand is a nice peaceful country sadly drifting away into oblivion, compliments of the Selfish Buddhism. I was overwhelmed to note the contrast between the opulent riches of the temples and the ruins and rat-infested surrounding tin huts people live in. Drugs and prostitution is rife. I have seen (with tears in my eyes) 7 year-old girls and boys going with old men for less than a dollar. Unwanted babies are found in rubbish bins. Aids is rampant. Blank faces everywhere. Beggars crawling in market places. The Islamic revolt is bubbling in the south. Mosque minarets already share Bangkok’s city backdrop. (no surprises there). Good Christian work is being done in the Slums. Lives are being transformed. I agree with BD, Jesus is what Thai people desperately need. Mhoram, “Coach: Do U really think U are entitled to force yr religious views on others? Such strategies have never worked (cf. USSR, Roman Empire, both tried this against Christians; English tried against RCs, etc etc).” Have you heard of freedom of expression? I am not forcing anything. I am just exposing the One and Only Truth. It’s up to people like you to sift through the facts and discover (it) for yourselves. The Alchemist, Your lack of understanding of spiritual matters has pushed you in your comfortable little intellectual box. Like some others here you use the words Christianity and Religion interchangeably (conveniently and/or out of ignorance), lumping it all in one religious sack, therefore reinforcing your narrow view of life. What you are lacking is the spiritual dimension needed to express your lack of. You cannot possess that lingo without being in touch with your supreme creator (God). To do that you need Faith of course. Faith will only be awarded to you if you drop your puffed up ego and submit to your Lord and ask Him for faith. Until then all communication will remain gibberish. Posted by coach, Monday, 13 March 2006 9:52:48 AM
| |
PK what would you have David do? Argue for the truth but don't mention Jesus. Argue for the truth but not for one religion as more true than another. Argue for the truth but "don't use your annoying Bible because I prefer my sacred texts to yours".
I get the feeling Christian positions on things you take as a kind of propaganda. David knows what he is saying but often non-Christians in here don't realise their own assumptions, don't realise they begin from a scientifically unprovable first premise too. The difference is David knows what he is saying but for otheres their beliefs have been taken for granted so long that they don't know that what they say sounds like propaganda to a Christian. (Who hasn't the benefit of a sympathetic surrounding culture that allows our world view to go unchallenged) I'd find David hypocritical if he didn't cite scripture to support his arguments. Or even use the Word of God as a stand alone when necessary. Most know what Christ stood for (I hope) and can easily access his words. If David is pontificating why not confront him with Jesus' words? Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 13 March 2006 10:49:19 AM
| |
Martin, your post is nonsense. You are saying in effect that I can only argue with David (and by extension, other christians) by using bible quotes. That is not so. My position is that all this Christian proselytising from David, you and others is boring and often, as observed by others in this thread and elsewhere, degenerates into an intolerant anti-Muslim stance. I don't see it as propaganda, it is just transparent intolerance. It doesn't matter whether Christians quote the Bible in their posts or not as far as I am concerned. Such quotes can only ever be regarded as selective, and that is a big part of the problem. I would like to see some refreshing new insights whether from Christians or others. Judging from your post, you are probably not capable of questioning your own views, or those of fellow Christians such as David, so all that we will ever hear is more of the same. And by the way, Boaz-David must be the most prolific poster on matters in any way connected with religion, he doesn't need your clumsy attempts to argue on his behalf.
Posted by PK, Monday, 13 March 2006 11:12:21 AM
| |
From Coach's 13 March post, it seems that the faith-less might be in some sort of a quandry regarding choice.
Of those currently ready to run in the faith stakes, which horse should they back in this betting-ring of life? The one bred-and-trained by the delightful Taoists - galloping under the colours of absolute sincerity and honesty? Perhaps the one ridden by a jockey wearing Buddhist saffron, and bearing the slogan " harm not your fellow creatures" might appeal. Should they put their money of the rider with the Atheist slogan "do good, for good is good to do, spurn bribe of heaven and threat of hell". Ah, there are several that might appeal to those in need of faith; an apeal relevant to those who would seek a more civilised world for themselves and their descendants. For the more warlike, the choice becomes wider: "There is but one God, and Allah is his prophet"; "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war"; and others of equal intolernce. Posted by colinsett, Monday, 13 March 2006 11:42:29 AM
| |
Martin, unlike PK I very much appreciate your posts, all the way from america? Your positions are well researched and well thought out, unlike those of your detractors. I am sure radio national does not regularly have any of these posters on their programs!
"Judging from your post, you are probably not capable of questioning your own views" PK, the fool, seems unaware that you have questioned Islam (your original religion) and found it wanting to a ridiculous degree, whereas you have found the truth in Christianity. The posters here often presume extremely strange things regarding the Christian posters, an example is that they are unable to see that some religionists are not brought up that way and have turned to religion to fill something missing in the wider intelectual culture. These religionists are condemned as brainwashed from birth, despite the fact that many have claimed, usually on other threads but do we need to spell it out at the beginning of every post, that they have found secular culture stultifying and inane. The most laughable postition of all, in my view, is the common assertion that all religions are the same, based on superstition, and unreasonable. One has to wonder at the lack of basic understanding not only of religion but of history and philosophy, that these posts illistrate. Posters often seem unaware that their own views are as faith bound as those of the religionist. It is amusing to note that despite science admitting that science is faith bound, as all knowledge must be, the great unwashed continue to believe that knowledge based in science is based in truth. The one thing that I have found in this forum is that the terminology 'great unwashed' is truly alive and well, so many in our cultures seem unaware of their ignorance, and if aware, proud of it (anti-intelectual thread just started). Posted by fide mae, Monday, 13 March 2006 11:47:03 AM
| |
Faith Stakes
Perhaps the one ridden by a jockey wearing Buddhist saffron, and bearing the slogan " harm not your fellow creatures" might appeal. This option is also essentially atheist and if enforced at a government level would end in similar tragic losses for the 'greater good' as did/does communism. What is the bigger problem, deaths of insects, or death and poverty for humans? both are the same on this understanding. Should they put their money of the rider with the Atheist slogan "do good, for good is good to do, spurn bribe of heaven and threat of hell". And become, logically, communists who support sacrifice for 'the greater good' - what value is there in one human life in this system? None, only the community matters. For the more warlike, the choice becomes wider: "There is but one God, and Allah is his prophet"; agreed, if you choose this you threaten all western traditions, most expecially democracy "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as (off) to war"; and prevent the disolution of our democratic way of life, which evolved from Christian morality. Posted by fide mae, Monday, 13 March 2006 12:33:57 PM
| |
Boaz, re your Monday morning post, you are in effect saying that to change the world, we must change ourselves. True, and easy to say, hard to do. What the Buddha taught was the way to do it, which is also the way to develop the qualities of wisdom, loving kindness, compassion and sympathetic joy. The way to develop the qualities exhibited by Jesus in fact.
A saintly person is a saintly person. It doesn’t matter what label they have or don’t have, it’s having those qualities and applying their energy to helping others to develop those qualities. These are universal qualities which each of us can develop, they can’t be sectarian or dependent on sectarian teaching. This is the crucial fact which you seem unable or unwilling to grasp, you are blinded by your attachment to your teacher. I’ve been fortunate to meet several saintly people and to work with some of them, e.g. J N Krishnamurti, S N Goenka and Achaan Cha and others who were (to my ignorant eyes) perhaps not quite as advanced, such as John Coleman, Ruth Denison, Achaan Sumedho and Kalu Rinpoche. While I’m not sure if he was in the same class, I also worked with Mahasi Sayadaw. All of these people were devoted to helping others to develop spiritually. None of them pushed a sectarian barrow. Of U Ba Khin’s disciples in this list, Goenka was a leader of the Hindu community in Burma, Coleman and Denison had a Christian background. None of them denied that background, but nor did they draw their teaching from it. In your previous post, you expressed concern or disbelief with some aspects of the Buddha’s teaching, with the fact that I could walk away from Christianity and that non-attachment “cannot rid us of guilt. There are things we all have done, which can never ever be undone, and such things can only be forgiven, not extinguished. But the Buddha cannot forgive. He cannot give us a clean slate, a new heart or a new mind. His body lies somewhere in a grave.” (to next post) Posted by Faustino, Monday, 13 March 2006 2:08:03 PM
| |
Too much to deal with there! But using the introspection technique taught by Buddha, you find that we are nothing but a bundle of mental and physical phenomena, a mass of bubbles, no substance, no ego, changing, impermanence. You’ll never grasp this unless you experience it. Understanding this through direct experience of our own being, we can dissolve all our conditionings, complexes, guilt, impurities. And after impurities are removed, what remains is purity, the Kingdom of Heaven within. No need to invoke any deity, any dogma, any sect, just take responsibility for your own suffering and your own salvation. Simple, really, although it takes great effort, and I haven’t always applied as much effort as some of my peers.
And, Pegasus and Ludwig, I’ve actually driven some of these saintly people around! The practice referred to above requires constant awareness of what’s happening within you; when I was driving Ruth Denison, she’d often appear to be asleep; but if my speed rose to a point where maintaining road awareness led to the loss of bodily awareness, she’d open her eyes and give me a telling look. Very interesting! Posted by Faustino, Monday, 13 March 2006 2:08:29 PM
| |
It is truly amazing the bigots that a discussion of tolerance attracts. They lecture us thus:
"Whom will you choose ? The man who came down from Heaven or the false god's?" "Yes, the Islamist response IS defended by LEFTISTS. LEFTISTS are the enemy of Australia, Australian women, and integration." "6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' " "If you should die today ,are you prepared for what is waiting for those who don't believe?" "I am just exposing the One and Only Truth." "What you are lacking is the spiritual dimension needed to express your lack of. You cannot possess that lingo without being in touch with your supreme creator (God)." "PK what would you have David do? Argue for the truth but don't mention Jesus." "The one thing that I have found in this forum is that the terminology 'great unwashed' is truly alive and well, so many in our cultures seem unaware of their ignorance, and if aware, proud of it..." "'There is but one God, and Allah is his prophet'; agreed, if you choose this you threaten all western traditions, most expecially democracy" Interesting collection of recipes for a tolerant society. Posted by MikeM, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 6:43:28 AM
| |
Writing on the op-ed page of The New York Times on Sunday, Slavoj Zizek:
QUOTE Defenders of the Faith FOR centuries, we have been told that without religion we are no more than egotistic animals fighting for our share, our only morality that of a pack of wolves; only religion, it is said, can elevate us to a higher spiritual level. Today, when religion is emerging as the wellspring of murderous violence around the world, assurances that Christian or Muslim or Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting the noble spiritual messages of their creeds ring increasingly hollow. What about restoring the dignity of atheism, one of Europe's greatest legacies and perhaps our only chance for peace? More than a century ago, in "The Brothers Karamazov" and other works, Dostoyevsky warned against the dangers of godless moral nihilism, arguing in essence that if God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted... This argument couldn't have been more wrong: the lesson of today's terrorism is that if God exists, then everything, including blowing up thousands of innocent bystanders, is permitted — at least to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, since, clearly, a direct link to God justifies the violation of any merely human constraints and considerations. In short, fundamentalists have become no different than the "godless" Stalinist Communists, to whom everything was permitted since they perceived themselves as direct instruments of their divinity, the Historical Necessity of Progress Toward Communism... Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do. I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God's existence... END QUOTE The Christians infesting this thread provide proof of Zizek's thesis. Posted by MikeM, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 6:52:38 AM
| |
MikeM
You may be interested in my post http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4211#35403 on the "Sharing the true values of Sharia" thread. I posted an abbreviated extract from an article I found on a Christian website which discusses addiction to religion and the affect on such rigid and misguided people. It is interesting for many reasons especially that it had been written by a Christian and is an objective look at the behaviour of people who become religious addicts. When I read the article I was reminded of many posters to OLO who proceed to abuse and discriminate against any who hold different beliefs to them. So much for tolerance from those who claim to believe in Jesus. Regards Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 7:25:18 AM
| |
MIke
Dostoevsky was exactly right. (He also had encounters with evangelicals of the day which amazed him.. Lord Radstock being one.) Without reference to a codification of 'right/wrong' outside our own cultures and social experience, we are absolutely and unquestionably left in 'Make_it_up_as_u_go' land. (Peter Singer "Cull the weak children") I'm sure you are bright enough to not need the 'cultural relativism' lecture, or the talk about different cultures have not only different but often CONFLICTING ideas about right and wrong, good and evil. So your attempt to salvage something of philosophical value and credibility for Atheism is rather lame. No insult intended. You blame 'religious extremists' on all sides for the state of the world and you attach violence to the religious foundations, using the alleged practicioners of those faiths as evidence. That is flawed reasoning. Its good 'emotion' but bad reasoning. The only way to assess a faith, is by its fundamental tenets and then assess its followers in terms of those basics. Inevitably, just as Hitler use the 'cleansing of the temple' event from Jesus life to justify the holocaust, and the Lords Resistance Army of Uganda his 'if your hand sins, cut it off' to justify dismemberings, there will be those who use similarly incorrect interpretations for their own purposes. Just as Constantine 'used' Christianity for political goals, so others do. The Faith does not change just because it is misused. Can you point to any command or example of Jesus which suggests the violent oppression of others ? that encourages a 'worldly' political system ? Not that I know of. Alternatively, can you find example and teaching which opposes such things ? of course u can if you look. "There are none so blind as those who.....'will' not see" (Jesus) Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 9:11:08 AM
| |
Boaz_David, you ask 'Can you point to any command or example of Jesus which suggests the violent oppression of others ?' I presume you will also accept examples involving God Himself. So: The flood of Noah, The mass murder of the first-born sons of Egypt, Joshua's destruction of Jericho, the slaughter of the Canaanites by the Israelites (in fact the whole notion of the Israelites being 'the chosen race'), Moses against the Midianites. It was very easy to find these examples.
Posted by PK, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:16:59 AM
| |
Reading the posts above i've lost track somewhat of what this debate is. Seems to have boiled down to a "my religion/non-religion is better than yours" type thread.
Faustino, In response to your post to me, i do like your answer. I have great respect for Buddhism and admire the teachings of the Buddha Siddhartha. You said: "to teach the Dhammas (truth) only to those who asked them to, and only to those who were in a fit state to receive it (eg., not tired, distracted or drunk)" The only thing with this is that you'd still have to know that someone (like Buddha) may have the truth before you can ask to be taught it. And how can you know this unless he (or his followers) has promoted it in some way first? On achieving enlightenment, the Buddha could have kept it to himself and left the conditioned state with noone the wiser. But he instead chose to remain and "spread the word" as it were. The problem is that some have altered "spread the word" to be "enforce the word" and this has damaged the good name of many religions (Buddhism possibly excluded). Alchemist, This brings me to your post. I'm not fully clear on what you are asking me or what you refer to by the term "forceful conversion". But I would only consider being "constantly assaulted by religious verbal rubbish" to be forceful if it were threatening in some way. Otherwise its just a bunch of words and/or sounds. Though I would definately not expect you to "tolerate" being assaulted by verbal rubbish (which i don't think you do anyway :)). I'd expect you to either ignore it or return fire (verbally of course). Posted by Donnie, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 12:35:14 PM
| |
Donnie, forceful conversions not only relates to bible bashing, but to the millions of indigenous and animists, that were threatened with damnation and death of they didn't believe. When you have someone with a gun and are fearful because of the mystery and power of the gun, plus you have no idea how it kills from such a distance, with such noise. Then are threatened, that if you don't follow and believe in god, you will suffer purgatory and are faced with technology far beyond your experience and understanding. Thats forceful.
Its also forceful to have it thrust in your face from TV and door knockers giving the same message. Its an affront to our intelligence, considering the evidence of gods works, (violence, war, destruction of indigenous lifestyles and beliefs). As well as the ongoing and growing religious wars between monotheistic factions worldwide throughout history. Your statement "spread the word" to be "enforce the word" is very true. But I have yet to see an example from any of history that could be described as spreading the word as opposed to enforcing the word. Those that lack evidence of the veracity of their claims, always use force. True love, caring and reality requires no enforcement, it speaks for itself. Unlike religious ideology which must use forceful methods and threats, as its reality can only be expressed in its truth and thats violence. We see it in the zealots here, condemnation and threats of damnation, no examples of love. Just you wait until your dead, your in for it then. What a loving god you have, no consideration for any of those that lead good and helpful lives without enslaved dogma, no you'll all go to hell. Great I say, all the good people will be there whilst the religious will be fighting in heaven to be the closest to their god and prove their worth in the manner that they do in life, violently. Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 4:04:04 PM
| |
Does the quote by Socrates - "Out with the Gods and in with the Good" still suffice today? Maybe it does after reading so many of our well-intentioned Posts - some knocking Christianity, but many more knocking Islam.
Indeed, if killing each other apart from WW1 and WW2 is the problem, there is little doubt that in the last two hundred and fifty years Christian nations must win the inglorious medallion, pepped up so much by the Germanic genocide of six million Jews. But also British and European colonialism can count up to many millions, as can Russian Siberian advancements, even before the millions put to death by the Soviets. Moreover, the Americans in so-called modern peace-time have made a pretty strong fist of it, owing to the deaths that can be caused by modern artillery and missiles alone without the use of aircraft. Not that we should ever concede to Islamic suicide bombing as such, but as far as damage is caused to buildings and superstructure alone, 9/11 and the destruction of New York Trade Center, stands insignificant compared to the destruction so far carried out by missiles and shot fired by consent of Christian leaders. Finally, taking the Socratic view that we must look for justice deep within us, we might well protest about what is happening from both sides of this modern conflict between Christians and Muslims? Is it that one wants to dominate the other, or as the well-decorated writer and thinker, Harold Pinter believes, it is simply a question of a strong nation virtually being granted the power, and making sure that it can maintain that power by making sure other nations are subjected to far lesser power. Certainly sounds more like the power of pagan Pax Romana, than what the power of the strongest modern Christian nation should be like. No doubt what Socrates meant to say, if the Gods think that way, then find something better by using deep reasoning rather than a faith misguided. Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 5:01:19 PM
| |
Excellent Gary
I don't care that you probably selected not the best photo of yourself available - your article is lucid, eloquent, refereshing to read amongst the avalanche of nonsense that has followed the cartoons. And it has a nice world-weary sense of humour (e.g. "let them go to hell in thier own way"). My own spiritual convictions are my own and apart from being based on the underlying altruism involved in "do unto others" have little to do with any bureaucratic establishment claiming to be a true religion but really just another McDonalds-like franchise system organised for the power and aggrandisment of its officials. What puzzles me is that we actually give TAX BREAKS to religions. In democracies, no party standing for election dares offend the religious vote. The creationist-type Christian fundamentalist vote got Bush into power (for the second time, he wasn't actually elected first time round - why WASN'T he made to relinquish the presidency when the true result became known?). Democracies are too beholden to religions. Religions don't pay rates or taxes and that's how they manage with such ease to build all these buildings dedicated to their particular choice of imaginary friend. By all means tolerate religions but why give them special tax treatment? They should be treated like the businesses they are and taxed at the normal rate. The money thus raised could be used to help poor people (but probably wouldn't be). Posted by Thermoman, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 9:20:12 PM
| |
Better still, the money raised from taxing religions could be used to improve the education system so that people are less susceptible to being hoodwinked/brainwashed by snake oil salesmen proposing to save your soul.
Posted by Thermoman, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 9:28:23 PM
| |
Thermoman
I particularly enjoyed your first and last paragraphs in yours post. Cheers Kay Posted by kalweb, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 10:38:38 PM
| |
Thermoman - "By all means tolerate religions but why give them special tax treatment? They should be treated like the businesses they are and taxed at the normal rate" - the reason religious organisations were given tax exempt status was because they did charity work that the government could not afford. You would need to show that this situation has changed, else all charities should be taxed, which is not a solution you would want I am presuming.
brushbread - "Indeed, if killing each other apart from WW1 and WW2 is the problem, there is little doubt that in the last two hundred and fifty years Christian nations must win the inglorious medallion, pepped up so much by the Germanic genocide of six million Jews. But also British and European colonialism can count up to many millions, as can Russian Siberian advancements, even before the millions put to death by the Soviets." - you say to leave ww1 and 2 out of the discussion but then go on to cite the germans in ww2? The Germans were not Christians, Hitler had started his own new religion, not even based on Christianity but on Germanic pagan beliefs. You then cite the Russians, who were communists (atheists), as representing Christian agression. You also cite american in the last century and british and european colonialism, but fail to see that these were not states run by Christianity, but states where Christianity is present. So the leaders of these regimes were bad Christians, and not even acting on Christian beliefs, yet you use these situations to claim that Christianity is to blame. Surely if this was an argument directed at Islam, you would say not to judge the whole because of a few, but seeing as it is Christianity you target, there is no need for such reason? Posted by fide mae, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 11:43:10 AM
| |
fide mae, "You would need to show that this situation has changed, else all charities should be taxed, which is not a solution you would want I am presuming."
Simple solutioon is to treat the genuinely charitable work as tax exempt and the other stuff gets treated the same way as any other interest group is treated which has property, employs staff, spends money on advertising etc. I'm fairly confident that the direct "charitable work" of churches I was involved in was very minimal apart from the odd special appeal for disasters much like many other organisations run. Most of the money was spent on running the church, entertaining the members and marketing (outreach/missionary type activities) rather than on no strings giving to help the needy. The level of book keeping required in any modern church should make it possible to keep track what is charitable and what is not. Any of us claiming tax exemptions have to be able to justify the exemption, the same kinds of mechanisms should be applicable to churches - receipts, log books, estimates of proportion of usage etc. If I give a charitable donation I keep a receipt, if I claim a tax deduction for my home PC it is an estimate of the proportion of usage spent on work related activities - you get the idea I hope. For the record I don't regard activities which are primarly missionary in nature as charitible, rather like a "free" sausage sizzle as part of a marketing event for the local car yard. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 3:04:10 PM
| |
Can someone please tell me which religious group is getting tax exemptions?
In my local church, we are registered as a "Not for Profit" organisation As I understand this means we are obviously not to make a profit This does not however relieve us from our legal liabilities regarding the quarterly B.A.S. reporting and remittance of payments regarding G.S.T. and P.A.Y.G. Are bigger churches receiving better "tax breaks" or is it reserved for some special organisations? ________________ The Alchemist, "True love, caring and reality requires no enforcement, it speaks for itself." If you really love someone - a child for example - and you know that they can hurt themselves by doing something potentially dangerous, wouldn't you warn them about it, perhaps lay some ground rules, and be forceful if they don't respond? The definition of God's love is beyond all comprehension. The warning signs are real - but people are free (like you) to ignore them. Regrettably you don't know what you're doing (now). You only consolation is your partial intellect - that is no match to the creator of the universe we live in. It is sad to watch you and others here self destruct, claiming that you have discovered the secrets of life, when in fact you only know what you can comprehend, missing out on the much greater multidimensional life. I also wish that you make an effort and understand the serious situation we are facing in this country namely Islam. OK you can dig dirt on other religions to your heart content – but please believe me (and others) that Islam is different. Islam is a dangerous cult disguised as a mainstream monotheistic religion. Its only agenda is total world domination. Real Christianity has no such ambition. Please acknowledge this difference if you want to continue to enjoy a secular country. Thank you Posted by coach, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 11:19:59 PM
| |
Coach
Not-for-profit does not mean that your association’s income cannot exceed expenditure. It means that profit, or excess, cannot be distributed to the members of the association or its directors (or anyone else). Effectively, the whole of the profit, or excess, must be applied towards achieving of the objects of the association. As to “tax breaks”, visit the ATO web site at http://www.ato.gov.au/nonprofit/ Posted by SandiM, Thursday, 16 March 2006 3:27:53 AM
| |
Coach, a major tax-break is that some donations by individuals to charities are tax-deductible. So if you are on the top tax rate and donate $100, you get $48.50 off your tax bill. This probably means that many people donate twice as much as they would without the tax break. This applies mainly to donations to "education building funds", for which quite a lot of charities/not-for-profit organisations qualify. Many also get GST exemptions.
Posted by Faustino, Thursday, 16 March 2006 5:32:53 PM
| |
Coach, your expression of love and caring for a child, is when they respect and understand you. If you have to use “rules, and be forceful”, or they “don't respond”, in bringing up your child. Then you have failed, as the need for enforcement is the result of bad loving, caring and example.
You lack tolerance so your example and expression, is intolerance. Children are unencumbered by indoctrination, so tolerate life well. Then their parents expressed beleifs, begin to enforce their indoctrination upon the child, until they have the example or fear of that belief. Then you add the example of the parents, compared to their expressed beleifs and you either have a child who rebels, or becomes totally submissive. If you can be tolerant towards the child's growing understandings and not enforce or express your own, then you show love. The child will listen to what you say and act through respect, love and trust. If you express as you believe, that installs confidence and more trust, until the child understands the value of thinking, investigating and them deciding, before acting. Having to enforce rules, means you have lost their trust and become intolerant. Monotheistic religion is intolerant and untrustworthy, by its expression in society. To be tolerant is to be passively resistant. Thats means you accept everyones reality. But you don't let it overrun you, nor change what you believe, just enhance it. Keeping your beleifs to yourself and allowing the example of your life to show what you are, is an act of love and tolerance. You need more than religion to do that, you have to be able to evolve your acceptance of whats reality and work with it. Not against all other realities, as with intolerant monothiestic religions. Posted by The alchemist, Thursday, 16 March 2006 6:50:50 PM
| |
Alchemist, well put on child rearing. Studies by child psychologists show that children are generally unconcerned by difference until age 9 or 10, most then "learn" to discriminate because discrimination, insider-outsider aproaches, predominate in society. If you don't play the insider-outsider game, then the insiders - those who hold or gain power through such nonsense - will close ranks against you. It takes strength of character to remain non-discriminatory in those circumstances, it often comes at some cost.
Posted by Faustino, Thursday, 16 March 2006 7:30:06 PM
| |
Hi PK ..glad you brought up those points, it enables some clarification.
"I presume you will also accept examples involving God Himself. So: The flood of Noah, The mass murder of the first-born sons of Egypt, Joshua's destruction of Jericho, the slaughter of the Canaanites by the Israelites" We cannot use the specific 'judgements' of God (on the Midianites, and the Canaanites or the flood) as grounds to act likewise. This should be plain as the nose on our faces. These things happened in direct response to a direct and specific pronouncement of judgement by God. They had nothing to do with a generalized call for oppression. You r welcome to argue with the Almighty if u wish, about why He punished an evil humanity, that's your option. PK. you seem to have more trouble with the idea of God than with His acts in history. Using acts if divine intervention to feed your unbelief. Jesus being the fulfillment of the Law is the one who we can look to in order to understand Gods actions in the Old Testament. Jesus did actually condemn some cities "you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.[d] If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." But note, he did not call for earthly judgement, military assault, Armed attack, he emphasised their choice, but promised that 'wages' will indeed by paid eventually, when they face God. So, in summary, there is no call or example for a general violent defence of the Faith. The pattern in the New testament was that when persecution arose, the church was scattered.. and then it procliamed Christ .. and continued to grow. Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 17 March 2006 12:03:59 AM
| |
Boaz_David, you post is obfuscating nonsense that apparently took you days to dream up. These examples I quoted show that God as portrayed in the Bible was/is biased in favour of a chosen racial group and was prepared to use violence to oppress or kill the enemies of the chosen ones and others he wanted to punish. The idea of the Israelites being God's 'chosen race' still poisons Middle East relations, that much is clear. It is also clear that some people do use these biblical examples of "God's judgement'to act violently towards others. I think those simple facts undermine your position in this debate.
Posted by PK, Friday, 17 March 2006 9:52:50 AM
| |
Alchemist,
I agree with you for the most part about forceful conversion. Although i personally don't really consider ads on TV and doorknocking to be that forceful as long as i can turn the TV off or say no thanks and close the door. Those things you mention about war and destruction are all the works of man, whether God exists or not. So maybe what you really object to is the use of God's name to justify destructive actions, which is basically a definition of blasphemy. Your statement: "Those that lack evidence of the veracity of their claims, always use force" is fairly insightful. I would qualify it by saying that it is only true if those making the claim are also seeking to garner agreement. One who lacks evidence of the veracity of their claims but is not seeking agreement, has no use for force. The real question is would one who actually does have evidence of the veracity of their claims have to use force to break through the lies and past the liers that barricade its way? Posted by Donnie, Friday, 17 March 2006 11:26:14 AM
| |
Donnie, I understand about tv ads and door knocking, for most, their house is their place to escape. Having nutters of any persuasion disturbing your peace, is an invasion of privacy and shouldn't be tolerated. Tv is a forum for advertising, it requires censorship, religion, uses false premises to advertise itself and should be censored.
“war and destruction are all the works of man, whether God exists or not “ You can't have it both ways, either those who believe, represent god or they don't. Choosing according to intent, is a common religious ploy to avoid scrutiny of its veracity. “what you really object to is the use of God's name to justify destructive actions.” Sorry, again an attempt to pass blame away from god. If god were true loving and caring for its creation, it would surely direct and guide those that follow it, by using its power over all, the facts show the opposite. PK has good points, just like to hear Bd, explain the specifics of Noah and the flood. Where all the water came from to flood the world, where it went to. How did Noah get around to picking up all the animals in the southern hemisphere, controlled, fed and housed them in an ark that according to the specifications, would find it hard to hold a millionth of the life of this planet and the variety of foods needed to support them. If you have veracity of your claims, there is no need to try and change others, your example would suffice. The strength you would have from your verifiable proof, would be sufficient and your god would be there to help and support you. Currently thats not the case, god is nowhere to be seen except within the violence and destruction that permeates the world. Some may point to all the charity work done, but that work is mostly caused by the introduction of monotheistics, that has caused the problems in the first place. A liar is one who tries to deceive, not because of what they truly believe and express. Posted by The alchemist, Friday, 17 March 2006 3:10:44 PM
| |
Dear PK
I'll ignore the abuse and continue with explaining the 'unexplainable' :) I can recognise the pattern in what you are presenting. Sadly, it is because you are outside of Christ, that you see things in that way. 'CHOSEN RACE' your comment on this, was illustrative of your general lack of understanding of the History of Salvation as recorded in the Scriptures. Genesis 12:3b in the context of the promise to Abraham as he was called out of his own people by God. ..and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Did you note this ? who will be blessed by the 'choosing' of a special people ? "all the peoples on earth"..... That summarizes the purpose of Gods selecting Israel, NOT because of anything special in themselves, but that His eternal purpose and salvation might reach the ends of the earth. As God says through the prophet Isaiah Isaiah 49:6 "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth." THE GOAL and purpose of Israel was that all the earth might know the salvation of God, which raises an important question.. "Are 'you' saved" ? Is God 'your' God ? have you given your heart to Him ? I can only raise the question, u can provide the answer, and not to me, but to Him. Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 17 March 2006 7:53:17 PM
| |
BOAZ_David
Are you the same BOAZ_David who in another forum suggests privatising marriage, so that gay relationships could be on the same footing as straight ones? http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/boaz/boaz2.html That would be a less unexplainable thing to explain than the unexplainable thing you tried to explain in your previous post, an explanation I might add that needs further refinement before I am able to grasp it, even in part. If God had picked homosexuals rather than Jews as the Chosen People (remember, he created both) wouldn't that have allowed the end of the Chosen Race to come centuries sooner - and by natural attrition rather than by fire and brimstone? He could have gotten over all the Rapture and Ascent to Heaven stuff that happens when any project goes wrong - search for the guilty, punishment of the innocent and rewarding of the bystanders - maybe in the 6th or 8th century. Instead of waiting until the 21st. Or even later. Then with a clean slate, He could have started to create humanity Mark II and correct basic engineering mistakes in the Mark I model. Such as a brain apt to suffer from terminal gullibility. Posted by MikeM, Friday, 17 March 2006 8:47:04 PM
| |
The alchemist,
Your pedagogical and child rearing skills are distorted. A belief in itself has no power unless it is accepted. I don’t agree with your conclusive outcome that the mere expression of a belief should result in fear of that belief. Why can’t it just be accepted or refuted without rebelion or submissiveness? ”If you can be tolerant towards the child's growing understandings and not enforce or express your own, then you show love.” Not always. In your case for example it would be impossible not to enforce on a child your “conviction” of 'no god'. Would you send them to Sunday school as 'an investigative exercise in growing and understanding'? I doubt it. Would You be showing love? You would blame yourself for ever if s/he becomes a born again child of God. So your submissive indoctrination of your beliefs is inevitable also. "Having to enforce rules, means you have lost their trust and become intolerant”? Not necessarily. Where do you draw the line? Would you let a six year old experiment with drugs or sex? … accept everyones reality.”? What if their reality represents a real threat to your very existence? “If god were true loving and caring for its creation, it would surely direct and guide those that follow it, by using its power over all, the facts show the opposite.”? That statement is in direct contradiction with your laisser faire approach to freedom of choice. Actually this is as true a description of who God is as you might ever come up with. Well done! God is Love but does not force His love upon us. We choose to accept it or rebel against it. “If you have veracity of your claims, there is no need to try and change others, your example would suffice.” How so? If you had a cure for a type of cancer or knowledge of an oncoming tsunami would you just keep it to yourself? And if you did; how could that be God’s fault? See we can’t blame God (Monotheism) for all our wickedness. Posted by coach, Friday, 17 March 2006 8:58:17 PM
| |
Dear Mike
no, I'm not that guy, I've been not only asked that b4, I've been outright accused of BEING him.... but I'm not. On your rather involved logic/reasoning.. I can't go too far into hypertheticals mate.. I used to do that myself b4 coming to know Christ. My former RAAF Bible bashing room-mate will testify to that. All I can say is this.. let me describe the relationship between the non Christian and the Christian toward God, as stated in Ephesians 2. This is quite 'blunt' and does not pull punches: Paul writing to Christians at Ephesus.. 1/ The Non Christian [[ 1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath...... 11 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world 2/ The Christian (these are the most beautiful words a sinner can here) 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions. in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. ]] That is it in a nutshell mate... Far....brought near... Lost... found Estranged... Reconciled Dead...given life. ... and this is the gift of God. Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 18 March 2006 7:06:52 PM
| |
BOAZ_David,
Thanks for the clarification. I come back to my previous point though. God did not do a real good job of designing the human race. There are bits left over like the appendix and pubic hair and abdominal fat that were probably in a prototype for reasons that have now vanished. There's the awkward crossover between the esophagus and the windpipe that provides the opportunity for people to choke to death. There's the way that eyeballs lose their elasticity so that old people are unable to read text. Then of course there's things like George Bush. BOAZ_David, be really, really honest. If You were the Divine Creator looking down on all this mess, wouldn't You want to clean it all off and start afresh? Adoring creatures modelled on hamsters would be a good way to start. Posted by MikeM, Saturday, 18 March 2006 7:26:52 PM
| |
Tolerance.....?
Just what is tolerance from the Muslim viewpoint. The Cartoon Controversy Understanding Muslim reaction to the Mohammed cartoons http://www.bustedhalo.com/features/TheCartoonControversy.htm and a Danish response http://www.bustedhalo.com/features/CartoonControversy-DanishResponse.htm Obviously they are tolerant as long as everyone bows to their viewpoint..... Posted by Kekenidika, Saturday, 18 March 2006 8:41:06 PM
| |
Animism and polytheism are natural tendencies of the human mind. So we might say that the hegemony of the three western monotheistic religions is almost unnatural.
"Pantheism is the permanent natural bent of the human mind. It is the attitude into which the mind automatically falls when left to itself"- C.S.Lewis. The imaginary companions of many children can be compared to the familiar spirits of shamanism. In a rational environment the child will be socialized away from these "visions". In a primitive society, the hallucinations and imaginings will be encouraged. The real distinction between New Age and orthodox monotheism is that New Age is based on magical thinking. I.e. the individual will is able to control fate. Immanence implies that the individual is divine, therefore can control fate. New Age is an attempt at re-enchantment, a liberation of the repressed irrational part of man. Magic comes from the tradition which is outside of the consciousness of historical time. Secularism, thought to be the final destination of the modern world, is now seen as merely a bridge to New Age. "The magical heritage casts a threatening and possibly permanent shadow over all of man's other creations, and could suddenly overwhelm civilized cultures." The New Age is a reemergence of Gnosticism, a new Hellenistic age. Historically, receiving Gnosis, the individual is awakened and knows that he is divine. [at first] disenfranchised upper class Jewish intellectuals were the most common converts to Gnosticism. Later it became Hellenized. Gnosticism is individualistic. They believed that the soul of each individual has a spark of the divine. Inner illumination, spiritual elitism, libertinism, asceticism, and anti-institutionalism were typical of Gnosticism. The Transcendentalists Thoreau, Emerson, Whitman, Alcott, etc, believed that the divine exists in all persons. They favored intuition over reason. Is intuition nothing more than a reasoning too complex to be explained simply, or is it the release of deep irrational animal instincts? New Age is as much political as religious. Posted by All-, Sunday, 19 March 2006 10:05:18 AM
| |
Coach, true teaching isn't pedantry, its progressive and open. Belief in god isn't accepted by many in the world, it's powerfully destructive just the same. Espousing retribution to non believers, instills fear in the uneducated.
if you don't express a belief, it's not enforced. Its the example you show that counts. Religions so lacking in veracity, it must enforce fears to gain control for unsupportable beliefs. Sending children to Sunday school, the same as sending them to anything that instills fearfull control. If they wish to go on their own initiative, thats fine, its part of their learning process. If one of my kids took up god, thats their business not mine. Unlike your ilk, I have need to force anything, just be open and understanding. Giving children the info available from all sides, they make up their own mind. Its called love and respect for someones individual right to choose. Drawing the line in the rearing of children, is providing them with the right example and gaining their trust. Then when you warn them of something that may harm them, they listen, because they trust you and can have faith in that trust. Unlike religion, which can't be trusted, as its rhetoric is the opposite to its actions, throughout its many facets of expression. There's a cure for most cancers, but its no economical, or controlling, so it's denounced. Just like there is a cure for the ills of the world, but as its not economical or controlling, its also denounced by the warmongers and control freaks (religious) of the world. Those entrapped in myth, could be forgiven for their narrowness, if they weren't so violent and despotic in their expression of their love for god and lack of tolerance for those that wish to live in peace. Considering the wickedness of the world is being carried out by monotheistic followers, who else is there to blame but the one that supports them, god. After all you are cast in his own image aren't you. Posted by The alchemist, Sunday, 19 March 2006 10:06:22 AM
| |
Boaz-David, your arguments are defeated by the contradictions and omissions in your posts. Just how were the Egyptians 'blessed' by God when they lost their first born sons in an act of God's punishment? Many of these sons must have been entirely innocent of anything except being Egyptians. Similarly the innocence of most of those drowned in Noah's flood, including the animals. And you quote the Bible as saying non-Christians are recipients of 'wrath'. Sounds a bit oppressive doesn't it? Particularly in the case of the blameless non-Christians I have raised with you before. Just admit it - the Bible is full of oppression, punishment and vengefulness that the Bible would have us believe we deserve and will be good for us. Now you want me to take it up with God. I don't think he contributes to this site.
Posted by PK, Monday, 20 March 2006 10:41:50 AM
| |
The alchemist,
“Religions so lacking in veracity, it must enforce fears to gain control for unsupportable beliefs.”? Maybe on political and economical levels, SOME misguided pseudo-christians take it upon their human selves to enforce God’s Love upon others – usually less fortunate, uneducated, fearful, and superstitious - by twisting the truth for self gain and power. IF a religion is false then it doesn’t matter what approach is taken to “enforce it”, the damning results are the same. True Christianity is established in truth, based on knowledge, motivated by love, and accepted in total freedom. To be "born again” is an act of understanding of the truth. (not blind faith) Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will KNOW the truth, and the truth will set you free." He was addressing Jews who knew and meticulously preserved for generations biblical truths. Therefore the object of control by “fear” or “reward” is unnecessary and perhaps counter effective. As we agreed if you love someone you don’t need to persuade them. I am grieved to see how your version of Christianity is so different then what it is. Like I said before you throw it with other religions and label the lot as false and destructive. “Cast in God’s image” is not a robotic version or cloning of Him. We share some characteristics of our heavenly Father like love and justice. We become His adopted children when we FREELY accept His Son Jesus as our eternal Saviour and Lord. On this side of eternity however we are still “human”. We make the same mistakes as non-believers. That does not change who God is. He hates evil. Therefore you should not blame God for all human stupidity and the wickedness of the world. (Same as if your child becomes a Christian you would not blame yourself) This is why I dislike the term ‘religion” as a description for that Father-Child relationship we have with our Creator. It’s a false representation of the most beautiful act of love: a father’s ultimate sacrifice for his children. Posted by coach, Monday, 20 March 2006 12:12:35 PM
| |
Take, if you want a slice
If you want a piece If it feels alright Break, if you like the sound If it gets you up If it brings you down Share, if it makes you sleep If it sets you free If it helps you breathe Don't come over here And piss on my gate Save it just keep it Off my wave Cry, if you want to cry If it helps you see If it clears your eyes Hate, if you want to hate If it keeps you safe If it makes you brave Pray, if you want to pray If you like to kneel If you like to lay Don't come over here And piss on my gate Save it just keep it Off my wave Keep it off my wave Keep it off my wave Keep it off my wave My wave Cry, if you want to cry If it helps you see If it clears your eyes Hate, if you want to hate If it keeps you safe If it makes you brave Take, if you want a slice If you want a piece If it feels alright Don't come over here And piss on my gate Save it just keep it Off my wave Keep it off my wave Keep it off my wave My wave (soundgarden) Posted by its not easy being, Monday, 20 March 2006 5:56:31 PM
| |
Coach, “IF a religion is false then it doesn’t matter what approach is taken to “enforce it”, the damning results are the same.”
Thats true, monotheists have tried every approach with the same damning results, which are recorded historically. There's no stronger truth than whats observed and widely recorded “True Christianity is established in truth, based on knowledge, motivated by love, and accepted in total freedom. To be "born again” is an act of understanding of the truth. (not blind faith).” Firstly, your have to establish truth, that can only equate to historical truth and knowledge. Blind faith is dismissing the historical and relying on hope and illusion, god. If you equate being born again to believing in god, then thats false. Truth is established fact, god, being established destructive, despotic and illusionary practise. Gods motivated love, can be seen in the millions murdered, abused and sexually assaulted in its name, throughout history, thats the knowledge we have of its truth. “He was addressing Jews who knew and meticulously preserved for generations biblical truths.” The Old testaments truths are expressed as a violent and destructive god. Historically its plagiarised from earlier texts, so a false document that can't explain its discrepancies between fact and fiction. For instance, explain the incest between Lot and his daughters, the flood and constant violence against the peoples of the world. “I am grieved to see how your version of Christianity is so different then what it is. Like I said before you throw it with other religions and label the lot as false and destructive.” You can only equate christianity to its history, its veracity in what it says and how it actually expresses in life. Factually thats what its like, not what you or any others wish it to be within your mind, but what it shows to the whole world. Recite all the scripture you like, first you have to provide some substantial provable facts to support your supposition of it being good. Otherwise it remains as its seen, false, suppressive, destructive and failed. Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:27:46 PM
| |
It is not often that I disagree with Gary Brown particularly when he writes on Defence matters but I think that here he may be missing the point in that Muslims were not so much offended by Mohammed being portrayed in an unfavourable light but that he was being portrayed at all. Islam prohibits his portrayal for the same reason that there is no portrayal of persons or animals in mosques. It is to prevent idolatory as some would say has occurred with christianity particularly Catholicism with the Virgin Mary virtually becoming an earth Mother Goddess and a depiction of someone being tortured to death becoming a religious symbol. I think Gary should concentrate on what he does best, Defence particularly procurement and write for the mainstream media where he would exert greater influence which is surely needed
Posted by Abu Famir, Saturday, 25 March 2006 10:05:59 AM
| |
Abu Famir, it might be an artifact of selective reporting but most of the complaint I have seen has been in regard to the insult rather than the fact of an image with the latter only being treated as a side image. It's also been pointed out elsewhere that some muslims use made up images of Mohammed in their own publications. As with the christain church no one really knows what the key figures actually looked like so any images are kind of a moot point.
If what you say is the truth it really makes the reaction to the cartoons much worse because it moves from being an over-reaction to what appears to be a deliberate provocation to an attempt to impose muslim rules on non muslims - quite a different beast. I don't like either but the former is much less of a threat to my freedoms than the latter. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 25 March 2006 3:39:08 PM
|
Although Muslims knew about the cartoons since last year and many like me, found them arrogant and stupid. I was not angry with the Danish people because you can't penalise a group because of the actions of one or few. The portrayed riots were politically motivated in my view.
Keep it up,
Peace,