Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on November 25, 2006, 06:28:15 am
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/3PWIK8YTZS8
It's long (~45 mins), and hard-hitting. And it's about time.
-
you know everyone who comes into this is going to have there minds made up already, they are either going to come in thinking there is a violent movement in Islam that threatens the world or they are going to think anyone who thinks that is a nut who will do what ever they can (including making movies full of BS) to try and prove there obviously stupid point of view (I'm not saying this BTW).
no bodies going to even consider anything that is said in that movie unless they are members of the choir already, in which case they will believe every single assertion made.
The formulaic response this thread is destined to receive makes me ill...
-
Could you sum it up for us, Sarno? Don't have the available time to watch it.
-
/me is tempted to post his essay on the subject...
-
Could you sum it up for us, Sarno? Don't have the available time to watch it.
Here goes. In five sentences, is that condensed enough?
1. There is a lot of hate-mongering against western world and specifically against Jewish people and USA going on in many islamic nations.
2. This is a wide-spread phenomenon induced by both religious authorities and even heads of states, and it is spread by non-independent media, which also explains why the people often buy it - they have never actually had independent media telling stuff to them, so they have weak skills in telling the fact from fiction.
3. Western world media has not yet revealed the extent of the hate-mongering going on there, but now Glenn Beck, who is NOT a journalist, has come forth to tell all the people his opinions on what is really going on in Middle East.
4. Luckily, there are also muslims who condemn the hate-mongering, terrorist actions and stuff like that.
5. The Western world needs to understand the extent of hate-mongering and act accordingly to prevent a genocide and the rise of Islamic World Order, and the most important thing to do right now would seem to be to prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons technology.
-
Well, I agree with 1, 2, 4 and 5. 3, I dunno... guessing that's just some self-pimpage by the author :p
I think the real problem lies in #1 and 2 though. I honestly don't think that the muslim world in general hates the west - Most of them don't know the west, so how could they hate it - But they're being led to believe a lot of wrong things by their leaders who stand to profit politically by appearing to fight some evil western empire. Those muslims who actually live in the western world, and thus know what it's like, tend to like it there.
Iran might be the exception though. I get the distinct impression that their religious leaders genuinely believe they're doing the work of god, and aren't just trying to profit from hatemongering. Which is an unpleasant thought.
-
Well, I agree with 1, 2, 4 and 5. 3, I dunno... guessing that's just some self-pimpage by the author :p
I think the real problem lies in #1 and 2 though. I honestly don't think that the muslim world in general hates the west - Most of them don't know the west, so how could they hate it
It's easier to hate someone you don't know. Don't have to acknowledge their humanity or anything nasty like that.
-
It's easy to play the victim. Fact is, there is just as much hate mongering from Western civilization and Jewish people toward Islamic nations. Likely the vast majority comes from Israel.
-
It's easy to play the victim. Fact is, there is just as much hate mongering from Western civilization and Jewish people toward Islamic nations. Likely the vast majority comes from Israel.
Not that I'm justifying hate-mongering or saying there isn't another side, but the slaughter of their Olympic team, very little international support outside of the US, the attempted annihilation of their nation, and promises by prominent Middle Eastern leaders to wipe them off the face of the Earth will do that to a people.
-
I'm not going to trust CNN on a subject as sensitive as this.
-
I'm not going to trust CNN on a subject as sensitive as this.
Nor should you...watch them and see what they say, watch the BBC and see what they say, watch whatever newscasts you can and try and weave a line in between all of the rhetoric.
-
I'd say it's more American media than Western media. This kinda thing just isn't shown on American TV, but over here (in the UK anyways) we see it alot.
-
what?
-
what?
He's saying that your media is overly conservative and doesn't bother to post controversial documentaries. Well I'm saying that. Its largely true. Unless the controversy is over some hollywood star. I haven't seen any good American documentary programs on TV for a while....sometimes Frontline does a good job on PBS but not like the 5th Estate or some of the stuff they broadcast in the UK through the BBC.
-
it sounded like he was saying the opposite of that...
-
It's easy to play the victim. Fact is, there is just as much hate mongering from Western civilization and Jewish people toward Islamic nations. Likely the vast majority comes from Israel.
"Hate mongering"? Is that why we (we = Israel, FYI) have Arab and Muslim cabinet ministers? Sir, you speak of which you do not know.
-
Islam's problem is that the Qu'ran actually specifically charges people to take up arms and expand, or defend, their surzeainty. The collected sayings of the Prophet include one that states "He who dies without participating in a campaign dies in a kind of unbelief."
Islam's days of waging offensive war are over; they ended with the defeat of the second siege of Vienna. Arguably they ended even well before that with the beginning of the Reconquista in Spain, or the Normans retaking Sciliy. But the religion suffers from a crisis of faith now. When they were young, their rightness of purpose was assured by their victories, their power, wealth, accomplisments, influence. Truly they were God's chosen, for His favor was clearly upon them.
Then Europe resurged. The Spanish retook their country. The Normans retook Sciliy. The first siege of Vienna was broken. The second siege of Vienna ended in a rout. Cracks appeared in the monolith that Mohammed's faith was meant to be. But is was still strong, still capable, or so it appeared. The Ottoman Empire, heirs to the Caliphate if anyone was, was still regarded as a major power.
Then came WWI, and everything changed. The Faithful fractured, their empire divided, the Christians, for Islam has difficulty understanding that the term "Christendom" has lost its meaning, triumphant. And they remain divided, weak, bereft of leadership and the power they fought so long and so fiercely to gain slipping from their grasp with ever-increasing speed.
Islam remembers a time when it was strong, when it ruled vast tracts of Russia, when its armies were the terror of Europe, when it was the premier power of the world. God was with them then.
Now, He seems to have deserted them. And they percieve that as clearly as they once did their own strength.
-
*sniffle* That was.... *sniff* ...almost touching. :) Where'd you learn to write?
-
Myself, mostly. And reading a variety of books ranging from Bernard Lewis' commentary on Islam and the West to Official History of United States Naval Operations in World War II.
This is my "scholarly" writing mode. I paraphrased a paper I wrote earlier this semester. I didn't want to post my whole essay on the subject, making you read 5 and 1/3 pages would be a little cruel.
-
Well, there are a few Psalms out there that speak of God giving strength for War and teaching Fingers to Fight (Thank you Medieval Total War 2) but the thing is, both Holy Books contain verses about love, respect and tolerance as much as Fire, Death and Subjugation, that's why I don't trust either. Never trust a God small enough to fit into a Book, that's my motto ;)
Thing is, it's easy to feel benevolent when you are well off, and easy to justify atrocities if you think it will make you better off. That's where the Second crusades came from (The first were partly defensive and partly deliberate misinterpretation of the Pope's decree).
Propaganda in general is disgusting to see, remember Saddam's 'Baby Factories'?
The problem is, bombing and shelling them isn't stopping that Propoganda, it is helping to support it, I can't remember who said it, but the enemy isn't Islam, it's not Al Quaeda, it's not Terror, it's ignorance, and you can't shoot ignorance, it needs the International equivalent of keyhole surgery, not a chainsaw.
-
Well, there are a few Psalms out there that speak of God giving strength for War and teaching Fingers to Fight (Thank you Medieval Total War 2) but the thing is, both Holy Books contain verses about love, respect and tolerance as much as Fire, Death and Subjugation, that's why I don't trust either. Never trust a God small enough to fit into a Book, that's my motto ;)
There's truth to that, but the Shar'ia, which is essentially the "living" Islam, has long divided the world into two groups; the House of Islam and the House of War. The assumption was that Islam would keep fighting until they conquered the world. It did not come to pass. It does sometimes recognize a third division, the House of Truce, places which Islam did not directly control, yet. But the implicit assumption has always remained that Islam the culture and Islam the religion would one day control everything. It is perhaps to be expected, Islam fought wars very early in its existance, when the Prophet was still alive, but it has a militaristic bent to it that is totally foriegn to even the most devout follower of Christianity or Judaism, and therefore difficult to credit.
The credo of Islam ascendant over all humanity is extremely well-entrenched. It will take time and, regretably, a lot of explosives, to dig it out. Too many are True Believers in that credo, too many would use it to their own advantage to the detriment of everyone else. Too many who cannot be reasoned with, and cannot be appeased. They must be destroyed instead, for the good of Islam and the world. It would be better for Islam to police its own house, of course, much as Christianity policed its own house once upon a time (the humbling of Spain comes to mind), but it does not have the capablity to do so. The fall of the Ottoman Empire was a disaster for Islam in more than one way.
-
TOTALLY foriegn
Quote from: The Bible on July 14, 3006BC, 4:36:21 AM (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Deuteronomy+20%3A10-14&version1=31)
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.
-
Name me one religion that doesn't attempt or aim to spread itself over all humanity.......
-
Hinduism?
-
agnosticism?
EDIT: Probably any religion not a subset of Judaiaism
-
So all these other religions accept that their 'opposing' religions are perfectly 100% correct and cannot be in any way wrong?
-
So all these other religions accept that their 'opposing' religions are perfectly 100% correct and cannot be in any way wrong?
I'm not incredibly well-versed on religion, but I believe that Hinduism or Buddhism teach that there are many ways to enlightment/The Ultimate Goal™, but I wouldn't quote me on that.
Bear in mind that plenty of religions outside of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) don't actually worship any gods or stress importance on one pantheon; Daoism, Confucianism, Shinto, and Buddhism are more philosophies than actual religions.
-
P: <- I can lick my eye.
-
Swantz, cut the spam.
Nuclear: Confucianism isnt exactly a faith, but more a series of guidelines to live by...
-
So all these other religions accept that their 'opposing' religions are perfectly 100% correct and cannot be in any way wrong?
nuclear1 hit the nail on the head really.
The "Three" are interesting critters. Forceful conversion being heavilly ingrained in the dogma leads directly to their overall success. At the same time Hinduism and Buddhism are exact opposites with success being from effectively using the idea of not-forcing dogma to show their correctness. Of course Hinduism has some nasty stuff in the form of the caste system.
-
TOTALLY foriegn
Indeed. I've certainly never seen that before. I doubt any priest/rabbi/minister/reverand/what-have-you could quote it from memory. I doubt any member of St. Gregory the Great parish is familar with it at all.
In fact, in great measure you've just proved my point. By digging that deep to find a quote that suits your purposes you demonstrate a fundemental difference; you have to dig for it. It's not hard to find at all in Islamic tradition.
I'd also point out that the words of a certain Jesus Christ would contradict you, but hey... For that matter I could probably quote Psalms or other sections of the Bible at you until the cows come how at cross-purposes to your quote.
-
So all these other religions accept that their 'opposing' religions are perfectly 100% correct and cannot be in any way wrong?
I'm not incredibly well-versed on religion, but I believe that Hinduism or Buddhism teach that there are many ways to enlightment/The Ultimate Goal™, but I wouldn't quote me on that.
Bear in mind that plenty of religions outside of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) don't actually worship any gods or stress importance on one pantheon; Daoism, Confucianism, Shinto, and Buddhism are more philosophies than actual religions.
Buddhism did actually spring to my mind, but even that IMO places predominance upon one set of teachings / philosophies as the 'best'.
-
So all these other religions accept that their 'opposing' religions are perfectly 100% correct and cannot be in any way wrong?
I'm not incredibly well-versed on religion, but I believe that Hinduism or Buddhism teach that there are many ways to enlightment/The Ultimate Goal™, but I wouldn't quote me on that.
Bear in mind that plenty of religions outside of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) don't actually worship any gods or stress importance on one pantheon; Daoism, Confucianism, Shinto, and Buddhism are more philosophies than actual religions.
Buddhism did actually spring to my mind, but even that IMO places predominance upon one set of teachings / philosophies as the 'best'.
True, but as Ace said, only the Abrahamic faiths (particularly Christianity and Islam) particularly stress activity on the followers' parts to convert unbelievers. Other faiths are either exclusive (see: Zoroastrianism) or don't engage in evangelism.
-
True, but as Ace said, only the Abrahamic faiths (particularly Christianity and Islam) particularly stress activity on the followers' parts to convert unbelievers. Other faiths are either exclusive (see: Zoroastrianism) or don't engage in evangelism.
Granted, yes, but my point was - or that I was trying to make - that every and any religion (and, I guess, aetheism; which isn't a religion as such) relies on an explicit assumption that it's the correct one to follow. To me, that assumption is the important bit here; whilst other religions might not actively evangelise, certainly anyone who asks isn't going to be dissuaded, and I think the consequence of that is an implicit aim that said belief should be universal. It just so happens that said belief aims to encourage people to come to it rather than force itself upon another, which is something I actually like (free will etc etc).
-
Could you sum it up for us, Sarno? Don't have the available time to watch it.
Here goes. In five sentences, is that condensed enough?
1. There is a lot of hate-mongering against western world and specifically against Jewish people and USA going on in many islamic nations.
2. This is a wide-spread phenomenon induced by both religious authorities and even heads of states, and it is spread by non-independent media, which also explains why the people often buy it - they have never actually had independent media telling stuff to them, so they have weak skills in telling the fact from fiction.
3. Western world media has not yet revealed the extent of the hate-mongering going on there, but now Glenn Beck, who is NOT a journalist, has come forth to tell all the people his opinions on what is really going on in Middle East.
4. Luckily, there are also muslims who condemn the hate-mongering, terrorist actions and stuff like that.
5. The Western world needs to understand the extent of hate-mongering and act accordingly to prevent a genocide and the rise of Islamic World Order, and the most important thing to do right now would seem to be to prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons technology.
This is news how?
-
Thing is, it's easy to feel benevolent when you are well off, and easy to justify atrocities if you think it will make you better off. That's where the Second crusades came from (The first were partly defensive and partly deliberate misinterpretation of the Pope's decree).
The crusades were generally not lumped into groups. They were singular, sequential and usually spaced out by a few years, but there are a few exceptions. During the First Crusade, three smaller crusades, the People's, the German, and the Princes', took place and have been been put under the umbrella of the First Crusade.
How do you figure that the Urban II's decree was misinterpreted? I've done quite a lot of research into the Crusades, and I've never seen anyone else mention a misinterpretation of the intentions of a crusade.
-
This is news how?
Indeed. If you're surprised that there are Islamic extremists over yonder in the middle-east, then you should also be ready to hear some bad news about the Titanic. :rolleyes:
-
What, you mean the Titanic has already left the docks?
Bummer, nobody bothered to tell me! So how did it fare? :lol:
EDIT: To unspam this message, I want to say that I was also more than little amused by this Glenn Beck's behaviour. It was like this was a whole new matter to him.
Then again, perhaps it was new to him, but I think that was nat because of lack of information available but rather lack of interest in finding out what's going on, using different sources and so on. I have no actual first-hand experience considering US media, or it's quality or lack thereof. If this matter is really as unfamiliar to US citizens as Beck seems to think, I guess it's good that this program was aired.
-
How do you figure that the Urban II's decree was misinterpreted? I've done quite a lot of research into the Crusades, and I've never seen anyone else mention a misinterpretation of the intentions of a crusade.
Because the inital decree was, iirc, to recapture Jerusalem from the Muslims, not to start a massive war of expansionism. It was an appeal to the French knightly order that rapidly turned into a exodus of a massive rabble of Knights and Peasants to 'Holy War' in the promised land.
-
iirc Sandwich you're an israeli settler whos living in a region taken by force from said muslims 40 years ago by a nation which believes that god has given said land to them regardless of who actually owns it. The words pot and kettle spring to mind.
Anyways programs like this but of far better quality get shown all the time of Brit TV, Channel 4 does some of the best ones:
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/index.html
-
"taken by force from said muslims 40 years ago by a nation which believes that god has given said land to them from a nation that tried to crush them because they believed that God wanted them to"
there is a lot of cooklery in the mideast.
-
"from a nation that tried to crush them because they believed that God wanted them to"
I think if you check your facts you'll find that most arabs were opposed to the creation of the state of Israel because it was being created on land that was legally theirs and had lived on for generations, not because of some divine instructions. Given that Muslims ruled palestine as well as other parts of the world with significent jewish populations without crushing them for over a thousand years its stretching the envelope a bit to expect people to believe thats what they're trying to do. Fact is, the israeli problem, whatever the motives of its inhabitants, is the direct result of a long and nasty campaign by members of another religion, christianity, to crush the jews. Zionism was originally established to escape from persecution in europe by fleeing to the middle east. Ironic eh?
Islamic extremism, while dangerous, is directed specifically towards europeans and not Indians (bar the Kashmiri thing), Chinese or anybody else for that matter. Why? Well, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine/Israel, Iran, Balfour, Sikes/Picott, the list goes on. The past hundred years or more nearly the whole of the muslim world has had its actions dictated to it from Paris, London Washington or Moskow. Ye've pissed in their pot and they're not happy about it. Islamic extremism is getting more vocal and dangerous not because of the nature of islam itself, which actually explicitly forbids a lot of the things these guys do, but due to the increased meddling in the region by the european powers since the fall of the ottoman empire. Given that they're sitting on the largest supply of a resource that western civilisation is completely dependant on i'd get used to the idea of a few bombs round the place and some nuts waving swords about.
-
Well, if you want to stir the water even more, here goes - the Palestinians themselves were invaders just as much as the Israelites. Also, the name "Palestine" is derived from a people mentioned numerous times in many actual historical contexts as well as the old testimony - the Philistines.
The Philistines were apparently not very peaceful lot themselves, not that any particular tribe/nationality was that at the day... Granted that they did inhabit the southern parts of Canaan when the Israelites arrived, but the Philistines did apparently come from somewhere else themselves and took the land from the dwellers of Canaan, gradually mixing their original culture with semitic influences in process. They were a strong people and they were almost continuously in war with the Israel for a long, long time.
...Not that it matters any bit who started things like this. What matters is who has the guts to stop it.
It is possible to break the loop of violence, as the case of Ireland has shown - albeit in Ireland the history of conflict didn't range back to 3k years ago or so, and it was much less complex situation, but still. At least I hope it is possible... :rolleyes:
-
I dont think palestinians are actually claiming or thought to be the descendants of the philistines as such, think they get their name more from the location rather than any geneological(?) reasons. Generally it refers to the inhabitants of pre-1948 british mandate palestine who would be descendands of a large number of nations i suppose, including greeks, romans and jewish converts to christianity and islam. Got 10,000 years of history there you know. Most of it bloody. Including periods where the jews themselves fought the Israelite kingdom.
As for the case of Ireland, yeah a much less complicated situation, though it took 400 years to get from the period where colonisation was occouring to the present day, and the violence is still ongoing at a low level so I wouldnt call it over just yet.
-
albeit in Ireland the history of conflict didn't range back to 3k years ago or so, and it was much less complex situation, but still. At least I hope it is possible... :rolleyes:
Once you go beyond living memory it's all just names and dates anyway. Living memory is all that should matter in this sort of thing. 300 or 3000 years doesn't matter. Besides it wasn't the Muslims who through the Jews out of Israel. The only people they have a legitimate complaint with in that respect are the Italians.
-
I dont think palestinians are actually claiming or thought to be the descendants of the philistines as such, think they get their name more from the location rather than any geneological(?) reasons. Generally it refers to the inhabitants of pre-1948 british mandate palestine who would be descendands of a large number of nations i suppose, including greeks, romans and jewish converts to christianity and islam. Got 10,000 years of history there you know. Most of it bloody. Including periods where the jews themselves fought the Israelite kingdom.
As for the case of Ireland, yeah a much less complicated situation, though it took 400 years to get from the period where colonisation was occouring to the present day, and the violence is still ongoing at a low level so I wouldnt call it over just yet.
Gank, my friend, I do believe this is a first - I completely agree with everything you say in one of your posts. :) Let's just not mention the previous two posts... :p
-
albeit in Ireland the history of conflict didn't range back to 3k years ago or so, and it was much less complex situation, but still. At least I hope it is possible... :rolleyes:
Once you go beyond living memory it's all just names and dates anyway. Living memory is all that should matter in this sort of thing. 300 or 3000 years doesn't matter. Besides it wasn't the Muslims who through the Jews out of Israel. The only people they have a legitimate complaint with in that respect are the Italians.
Thing is, if you consider that Hadrians Wall was built nearly 2000 years ago as a defence against the Northerners and that neither the Scoti tribe nor the English actually lived in the UK when the Romans invaded, it's amazing how far a grudge can actually go.
-
BTW, here's another, completely different clip, this one 12 minutes: http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm
-
Sandwich, cheers, but mention whatever you want mate, think we both know you're on shaky ground when it comes to religious extremism :P
Anyways all this muslim extremism stuff is way over-hyped, the way things are going at the minute the west will have wiped out the entire muslim population of the world before they've managed to clear out even one of our cities.
-
Thing is, if you consider that Hadrians Wall was built nearly 2000 years ago as a defence against the Northerners and that neither the Scoti tribe nor the English actually lived in the UK when the Romans invaded, it's amazing how far a grudge can actually go.
Not amazing so much as pathetic to my mind. :)
-
albeit in Ireland the history of conflict didn't range back to 3k years ago or so, and it was much less complex situation, but still. At least I hope it is possible... :rolleyes:
Once you go beyond living memory it's all just names and dates anyway. Living memory is all that should matter in this sort of thing. 300 or 3000 years doesn't matter. Besides it wasn't the Muslims who through the Jews out of Israel. The only people they have a legitimate complaint with in that respect are the Italians.
Thing is, if you consider that Hadrians Wall was built nearly 2000 years ago as a defence against the Northerners and that neither the Scoti tribe nor the English actually lived in the UK when the Romans invaded, it's amazing how far a grudge can actually go.
What grudge?
-
Well, probably grudge is the wrong word, but the general belief held by a lot of the population of the UK that the 'confrontations' between the English and the Scottish across the border has been going on since Roman times, when, in truth, that was an entirely different two set of races. We sort of adopted the confrontation between the Picts, Celts and Saxons and merged with the the History of the Normans, Romans and various Gaellic/Icelandic peoples and bundle it all together into 'British History'.
This is one of the reasons I laugh when I hear about Boudecia, current theory is she wasn't British, and she got her arse kicked by the Romans anyway ;)
-
Sandwich, cheers, but mention whatever you want mate, think we both know you're on shaky ground when it comes to religious extremism :P
I'd not call myself a religious extremist by any means... we've got too many of those weirdos wandering around the streets of Jerusalem as it is (they call it "Jerusalem Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_syndrome)").
-
Sandwich, iirc you're a messianic jew, ya? Not exactly what you'd call a mainstream religion, pretty controversial really. Canadian B'nai Brith for example accuses them of anti-semitic acts. The state of israel itself doesnt even recognise you as jews. Point is while you may not consider yourself an extremist, a lot of people would. Lets be honest here, your religious beliefs are the reason you're in a country which has been in a constant state of war with practically everyone around it in its short existance, right?
This is one of the reasons I laugh when I hear about Boudecia, current theory is she wasn't British, and she got her arse kicked by the Romans anyway ;)
Boudeacia was the leader (wife of the deceased leader technically) of the Icena tribe, a brythonic celt tribe who were based around Norfolk. Shes about as british as you can get mate. Brythonic=British
-
As British for the Period as you can get, the original Norfolk inhabitants were mostly displaced by the Roman occupation by Caesar about 100 years before hand, indeed, she used the last uprising against the Romans as an example of how it could be done again.
When they allied with the Romans in 43AD there was almost certainly some cross-breeding. She was undoubtedly of Brithonic culture, but just how pure anyone's blood was by that stage is still a matter of debate in some quarters. Much like the legitimacy of the current Royal Family (There are documents in France that place the king in France when Henry 4th (I think) was concieved in the UK). I suppose it's one of those things that will never properly be answered.
These days I doubt there are many Celtic lines left from the original Brithonic tribes, maybe still in some areas of Wales, but I couldn't say for certain.
-
Caesar didnt occupy any land, he merely installed a friendly celtic king and set sail back for the continent. True roman invasion didnt occur until ad43 and given that she had two daughters of sufficent age to be raped prior to her rebellion in 60 its hardly likely that Boudicea had any roman blood in her. Possible maybe that she may had some gallic or belgae blood in her, if they did migrate there from the south as you say though thats conjecture really. All part of the brythonic celtic group anyways.
Henry IV? Dont need to go that far back to determine you're king ethnicity mate, the house of windsor was known up until 1917 as "The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha". Thought it was common knowledge that you're being ruled by Germans man.
-
Heh, yep, I knew the line was German in origin, I got my names mixed up anyway, it was James 4th that was most likely not of Royal descendency, indeed, it's highly possible that he was the son of the Queen and a Longbowman.
-
Sandwich, iirc you're a messianic jew, ya? Not exactly what you'd call a mainstream religion, pretty controversial really. Canadian B'nai Brith for example accuses them of anti-semitic acts. The state of israel itself doesnt even recognise you as jews. Point is while you may not consider yourself an extremist, a lot of people would. Lets be honest here, your religious beliefs are the reason you're in a country which has been in a constant state of war with practically everyone around it in its short existance, right?
There are Muslims, and there are Muslim extremists. Saying that I'm an extremist just because someone else accuses others who believe like I do of anti-semitic acts (????) doesn't make sense any more than lumping all Muslims together does.
Anyway, it depends what you mean by "extremist". I'm sure it's not the dictionary definition, but I'd say an extremist would be one who (among other things) tries to force his or her religion and beliefs on others, sometimes even through the use of force. In that regard, there's no way in hell that I could be labeled as an extremist. The farthest I'd ever go would be to tell someone that I believe they're wrong, but they're also perfectly welcome to continue being wrong if that's what they want. *shrugs* Non-Christians aren't the only ones who've been pissed-off at the more invasive evangelism methods in use today... :doubt:
-
There are Muslims, and there are Muslim extremists. Saying that I'm an extremist just because someone else accuses others who believe like I do of anti-semitic acts (????) doesn't make sense any more than lumping all Muslims together does.
They apparently classify the conversion of jews to christianity as an anti-semitic act, a view which itself would be probably considered as extremist in most peoples eyes.
But yeah, it does largely go by your definition of the word. Mine wouldnt neccesarily match yours, although a guy living in the occupied territories whos taken part in military operations against palestinian refugee camps could be percieved to be forcing his beliefs on others. The whole state of Israel could really be seen as guilty of forcing its beliefs religious or otherwise on others. Naturally nobody sees themselves as extremist.
Heres wikis article on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism
Extremism is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society
This is probably an accurate description of Messianic Judaism's current position in Israel no? Scroll down to the 16 traits and ask yourself honestly how many of them apply to you.
-
They apparently classify the conversion of jews to christianity as an anti-semitic act, a view which itself would be probably considered as extremist in most peoples eyes.
Honestly, I never got that. Jew A chooses to believe that Jew B is the Messiah, and just because more non-Jews believe that Jew B is the Messiah means that Jew A is a "convert"?
But yeah, it does largely go by your definition of the word. Mine wouldnt neccesarily match yours, although a guy living in the occupied territories whos taken part in military operations against palestinian refugee camps could be percieved to be forcing his beliefs on others.
Clarification: I live in the "occupied territories" (a.k.a. Judea and Samaria... Judea in my case) and have taken part in military operations against terrorists.
Oh, and a little tidbit of seasonal information... I live within like 10 minutes' walking distance from Bethlehem in one direction, and probably around 90 minutes' walking distance from Jerusalem's Old City in the other.
Heres wikis article on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism
Extremism is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society
This is probably an accurate description of Messianic Judaism's current position in Israel no? Scroll down to the 16 traits and ask yourself honestly how many of them apply to you.
I'm whole-heartedly "guilty" of identifying with number 16.
Number 15, well... you obviously don't know me personally. I'm pretty level-headed... "adorexia", I believe they called it in Lucky Number Slevin? Perhaps not that drastic with me, but definitely in that general direction.
Number 14 depends on your definition of "bad", obviously, since "bad" is an extremely relative term. Assuming the generally-held POV of something "bad" as something immoral, evil, malicious, and with intent to harm others, I'd say I have no relevance to it. If you prefer the looser definition of something that is non-beneficial to someone, then I'd say that we are all one form of bad or another. Who among us has never chosen to do something knowing that it could be non-beneficial to someone else?
13: Yes, definitely. I am fully convinced that my morals are superior to those of rapists, serial killers, and people who talk in the theater... seriously, though, what kind of definition is this? It's like saying that some people think they're smarter than others. Well, uhm, duh?
12: This needs to be defined better.
11: Oh, gawd, no.
10: Yeaah... look back on any and all of my debates here and tell me how scary and intimidating I am. Uh-huh. I may be 6'3" and weigh 230lbs, but I'm just a giant teddy bear. :)
9: As in, the rallying call being "We will resist so-and-so and such-and-such with our dying breath!"? I'll have to pass on being able to apply that to myself, although I can easily think of a few people-groups where that does apply quite tidily.
8: You're not monkeyed or banned, Gank.
......yet. ;)
7: This one I had to look up. "A key belief in Manichaeism is that there is no omnipotent good power." Yeah, sorry, doesn't apply. God is good.
6: Only those who want to kill me. :p
5: No, double-standards don't apply to me - I'm exempt. :D
4: Having inadequate proof is one of the defining things of an assertion. But regardless of the mistake there, yes, there are things I choose to believe without scientific evidence of their truth. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." I have faith that God exists, that He loves you just as much as He loves the Muslim, or the terrorist, or the rapist, or the Good Samaritan, etc. Proof? No, no scientific proof. Just proof of the heart.
3: Sweeping generalizations, yes. Irresponsible ones, no. When I generalize, not only am I aware that I am generalizing, but I often point out alongside said generalization that it is, in fact, a generalization, and that I am aware that there are numerous exceptions to the generalization.
2: Who's name-calling or labeling, you bigoted fascist pig?!?
See how unusual that sounds coming from me? Yeah. I trust I don't need to say any more.
1: As for character assassination, well, I usually leave that to my enemies to do to themselves. Cross-reference "mohammed cartoons", "religion of peace", and "muslim riots".
Oh, and I have no idea why I went through that list backwards. :p
-
Honestly, I never got that. Jew A chooses to believe that Jew B is the Messiah, and just because more non-Jews believe that Jew B is the Messiah means that Jew A is a "convert"?
They're probably classing judaism as a religion, rather than an ethnic group. Its less confusing.
Clarification: I live in the "occupied territories" (a.k.a. Judea and Samaria... Judea in my case) and have taken part in military operations against terrorists.
Is that not what I said? As for the terrorists, why are they in those camps?
I'm whole-heartedly "guilty" of identifying with number 16.
You're an extremist then :p
Ye didnt have to reply to them all you know. I think that one means you think gods talking directly to you, or has singled you out personally. Otherwise all religious people would be extremists. Likewise no 4. Think no 9 probably refers to peacetime too. The one I had you in mind for was 12:
12: This needs to be defined better.
Doomsday, Har Megido, the final battle. Think you're guilty of this one mate.
-
Personally I think the two of you should agree to disagree, this is really going round in circles and it's not like either of you are going to reach a compromise.
-
Ya you're right. Do enjoy talking with you though sandwich, while I may not share your beliefs at least you're able to defend them without getting your knickers in a twist.
-
It's been an interesting read to be honest, you both obviously know your stuff, I suppose I just have concerns that it's better to say your piece and leave on a friendly footing despite the opposing views than risk it descending from debate into argument.
If Sandwich is happy to continue then I'll shut up and leave you both alone ;)
-
It's actually been the first time I can remember debating with Gank and not getting utterly annoyed at him. :p But I still say he needs to come visit ground zero(s) here, to see things firsthand. ;)
12: This needs to be defined better.
Doomsday, Har Megido, the final battle. Think you're guilty of this one mate.
What about it, though? Do I believe it will happen? Yes, I do. Do I obsess over it and throw it into people's faces as the reason why they need to repent and be saved, for The End is at hand? Not quite, no. :p Which are they referring to?
-
That you think the end is coming counts as doomsday thinking, running around telling everyone they're going to die would be preaching I'd think. As for me coming over there, not in the near future but I wouldnt rule it out. Do know people who have been and dont think it'd really make me more sympathetic towards yis.
-
Sympathetic is not what I'm looking for. Just a slight jolt of on-the-ground reality, of the "observing life on both sides of the conflict without the frame being pre-cropped by a lens" variety. :)
-
Personally I think the two of you should agree to disagree, this is really going round in circles and it's not like either of you are going to reach a compromise.
Flipside, you're in a real danger of becoming an HLP social worker.
-
I think it's kind of amusing that he steps in during the one debate between Gank and I where I, at least, don't feel like ripping Gank's head off. :p ;)
-
I dont rely on the camera as my only source of information, currently reading Hamas by Michael Levitt for example. Anyways while the view on the ground is important, its possible to get caught up in the nuts and bolts of things and lose sight of the bigger picture. As for ripping my head off, very unchristian of you. :p
-
Personally I think the two of you should agree to disagree, this is really going round in circles and it's not like either of you are going to reach a compromise.
Flipside, you're in a real danger of becoming an HLP social worker.
Would you like to talk about it? :p
-
Oh, i like to talk about it.
-
This whole last page of replies has been academically interesting. Even the character of the replies themselves. Informative AND reasonably respctful of each other.
Sad that more people can't conduct discussion of personal philosophies in such an adult and intelligent manner.
Maybe that's the take home lesson in general...
-
I think it's kind of amusing that he steps in during the one debate between Gank and I where I, at least, don't feel like ripping Gank's head off. :p ;)
I've only been moderating General for a week, give me time :p
-
I dont rely on the camera as my only source of information, currently reading Hamas by Michael Levitt for example. Anyways while the view on the ground is important, its possible to get caught up in the nuts and bolts of things and lose sight of the bigger picture. As for ripping my head off, very unchristian of you. :p
Ahh, but the big picture is composed of nothing but teeny-tiny pixels! :)
Christian != Vulcan, or Jedi, or whatever.... WE HAVE FEELINGS TOO!!!!!!1112234 If you prick us, do we not bleed all over the carpet?
I've only been moderating General for a week, give me time :p
Oh, right - you're being mod-like. I forgot about that. Very well, carry on then! Although I must say that if you ever need to moderate an admin, I will be quite amused. :)