Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on August 02, 2013, 01:47:44 pm
-
Your daily dose of OMGWTFAMIWATCHINGKILLITWITHFIRE idiocy brought to you by Fox News.
-
I don't get it.
-
Some times, I wish I could reach through the internet with my fist and punch some people in the face. That woman has been added to the list of people I'd probably consider punching if I had that super power.
-
XD You can tell that she was embarrassed after he said he was a phd when she started to lower her voice and mumble in shame when she started to read the oped quote. His rebuttal was awesome.
It is clear that he understood Faux News enough to insult the audience and the reporter by speaking slowly and reemphasizing his phd status.
-
He pounced on that quick, she barely got a word in edgewise
-
1:10 -- wow do you think
Well that was an incredibly disrespectful clip. I'm not particularly fond of Islam, but was it really neccesary to turn the interview into a thinly-veiled attack on his religion? As an atheist I will say that Jesus and his life are points of interest for me as well.
Conservative Political religious close-mindedness at its finest.
EDIT: Made last paragraph more specific.
-
I still think it's not clear.
I still didn't hear it properly. Come on man, say it again.
I HAVE A PHD! I HAVE A PHD! I HAVE A PHD!
Seriously, Reza has an authority complex.
-
Seriously, Reza has an authority complex.
Not sure if sarcasm. But if not sarcasm, I disagree
-
Basically, what we have here is a non-Christian being attacked for a scholarly work on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Not because of the work, mind, but because being non-Christian he clearly has no right to do this!
...you know, sort of like non-Muslims get attacked sometimes for scholarly works about the Prophet and Fox would defend them vigorously because FREEDOM.
-
was it really neccesary to turn the interview into a thinly-veiled attack on his religion?
Well... yeah. Fox has to cater to their audience like any other channel. :p
-
oh Fox news has done far worse than that interview, I don't trust any of the news networks and haven't for years. If you want facts you have to read the associated press, they at least print corrections when they make mistakes. As for attacking a religious scholar who happens to be Muslim for daring to write about a religious historical figure who isn't Muslim it's just shameful.
-
Seriously, Reza has an authority complex.
Not sure if sarcasm. But if not sarcasm, I disagree
also disagree. It seems to me that he's spelling out to Fox that he's not Muslim writing about Jesus. It also seems like he's treating the people on Fox like children, which made me laugh!
-
Also, it's not like Muslims "don't believe in Jesus". They do, in fact, he's considered the second most important prophet in Islam. They do not accept his godhood, but he's as close to God as he could be (Islam is really big on the "monotheist" part, and the Holy Trinity is too big of a departure from that). Jesus is an extremely important person in Islam, and a Muslim writing about him isn't any different than a Christian doing the same. Knowing this, it's really funny to see this "Jesus vs. Muhammad" concept some extremists like to use. In fact, when you look at it, Christianity and Islam are really similar, much more than a lot of people would like to admit. Considering where they came from (starting out as Judaism adapted for Roman and Arab cultures, respectively), it shouldn't be surprising.
-
Basically, what we have here is a non-Christian being attacked for a scholarly work on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Not because of the work, mind, but because being non-Christian he clearly has no right to do this!
Please.
This isn't an "attack". It's dumb question. It's fox's job to ask ignorant, conservative-birthed questions to people non-WASP/WASC demographic subjects - that's the entire reason they are popular in the states. It's a stupid question with very little offensive rhetoric, at least on the reporter's part.
I mean, sure - Fox was pretty insensitive to the guy in this interview, but what the hell would you expect? It's FOX. I'm pretty sure the only reason the guy is even allowing himself to be interviewed by such a conservative media outlet is to prove how stupid they are.
As far as terrible fox interviews go, this is nothing. IMO it's hardly even worth mentioning. I don't watch Fox much, naturally, but it's in my experience that interviews like this happen all the time.
I mean, hell, it's only perceived as offensive because it's religiously loaded. It's like if George Lucas wrote a book about the history of Star Trek. It's simply counter-intuitive to the average viewer.
-
This isn't an "attack".
Questioning the right/ability of someone who has a Ph.D. on the subject to write a book about it is pretty clearly an attack on them, their credentials, and probably wherever they got those credentials. It's openly dismissive of their expertise on the subject when they've done something to establish those credentials, because, you know, Ph.D.
-
This isn't an "attack".
Questioning the right/ability of someone who has a Ph.D. on the subject to write a book about it is pretty clearly an attack on them, their credentials, and probably wherever they got those credentials. It's openly dismissive of their expertise on the subject when they've done something to establish those credentials, because, you know, Ph.D.
It is not a question of right or ability. The word she used was "why". She is questioning the motives, because it is an unexpected occurence, at least to Fox. Your statement is putting words in her mouth.
-
The word she used was "why".
This is the man's specialty. Asking why he'd write the book is questioning is ability and his right to do so, because this subject is what he does. Asking him why he did this, questioning his motives, when this is what he does, is accusing him of dishonesty and being unfit to write about the subject.
Never mind that asking him "why did you do this" is parenthetically asking "and not leave this to the real experts you filthy nonbeliever" in this context, which you apparently didn't watch the whole interview if you didn't catch that undercurrent, particularly about the op-ed she started to read off.
Asking him why he does why he's doing something he's made out of a career out of is most definitely an attack, particularly because it is a question about this particular action and not his career as a whole.
-
*snip*
Fox tends to be more stupid and ignorant than they are blatently offensive outside of their talk shows. I don't see the question as one that's intended to have harmful rhetoric, more like one that is in the stance of a double take.
-
*snip*
Fox tends to be more stupid and ignorant than they are blatently offensive outside of their talk shows. I don't see the question as one that's intended to have harmful rhetoric, more like one that is in the stance of a double take.
The question here is basically "why would a Muslim write about Jesus". Coming from right-wing Christian pundits, that carries some obvious moral judgement. Look at her thinly-veiled hostility towards him.
EDIT: I wonder if the people at Fox realize that Muslims and Christians worship the same god.
-
I don't see the question as one that's intended to have harmful rhetoric, more like one that is in the stance of a double take.
...so I guess the entire context laid out is one that's lost on you? Context matters, as Batts would say.
-
Fox tends to be more stupid and ignorant than they are blatently offensive outside of their talk shows. I don't see the question as one that's intended to have harmful rhetoric, more like one that is in the stance of a double take.
"blatantly offensive" and "harmful rhetoric" are basically their bread and butter.
-
EDIT: I wonder if the people at Fox realize that Muslims and Christians worship the same god.
Clearly you've never met any of the Bible-thumpers that vehemently deny that.
-
This is where Fox News just utterly fails, watch the interview he had at the Daily Show (AKA FAKE NEWS SHOW) a couple of weeks ago and then watch the Fox News interview and see how a COMEDIAN does a better job of interviewing people than so called reporters. Not only is it obvious that John Oliver (Who is filling in for Jon Stewart) actually read a bit of the book but he is also able to engage his guest with relevant questions to the subject matter. Some thing the Fox News anchors forgot how to do (If they ever knew in first place) a long time ago. Just a truly sad and pathetic observation of the state of modern news media, if you can even call them that any more.
-
And here we see a perfect example of why corporate news has poisoned the news itself. You don't see as much of this bull**** (if at all) on NPO-run stations. Once the news' purpose became more about the bottom line than the actual task of informing the viewer, it hit the ****ter.
-
I like Fox News. I appreciate their openly being absolutely transparent in their ideological prejudices, biases and shenanigans. It's the best window towards the psychology of at least 30% of 'Murica, and perhaps a lot more than that.
Yes, how "dare" a person make an analysis of Jesus if he is a muslim. Clearly the guy has an agenda that must coincide with the likes of Al Quaeda and so on. The book is most assuredly filled with lies and communist muslim propaganda.
Joking aside, the idea that islam is "very similar" to christianity is somewhat ridiculous... no their theological narratives are absurdly different, with very different real world consequences.
-
care to elaborate (that sounds interesting)
-
Joking aside, the idea that islam is "very similar" to christianity is somewhat ridiculous... no their theological narratives are absurdly different, with very different real world consequences.
I'm not claiming that they're identical, merely that they have a lot in common, much more than it's assumed. Of course, there are big differences in their beliefs, but the "backstory" and the basic assumptions (the "point" the religion is trying to get across) are really similar, in many cases, literally identical (the Old Testament and a good part of the new one are accepted in both). What differs greatly is the interpretation and philosophy derived from it.
-
Well the main difference is obviously while islam is absolutely monotheistic, with a far-away god that is inscrutable, innefable, uknowable, therefore unable to be represented in any way whatsoever (this is why it is forbidden to represent it, for example), where the only exception to this absolute gap between Him and us is by the connection he made with the prophet Mohammed, Christianity is all about the Trinity. This means that in Christianity, God is also this "unknowable" monotheistic absolute but with a difference: he made the choice to become human like us, to suffer with us, to struggle with us, to die with us. He even becomes an atheist at the very end ("My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?",Matthew 27:46)... Then, when God dies at the cross, the holy spirit takes over. This is the idea that Christ developed, where he stated that whenever any of his followers were gathered in his name, "he" would be present with them. This is the Holy Spirit and the basis, among many other things, for the existence of the Church itself. (One could even say that it is the same kind of idea that drives other kinds of "communions", yes even communistic gatherings with "comrades", etc.)
In this sense, "God" in christianity is the social sharing of the struggle against the human condition. There is nothing like this in Islam. Islam means "submission", where God is just way up there in infinity demanding full obedience from His slaves believers. They call themselves "Christianity 2.0" but I personally have a preference on the christian theology.
-
the only exception to this absolute gap between Him and us is by the connection he made with the prophet Mohammed
I absolutely disagree with this. Muslims believe that God made multiple connections with us, beginning with Adam.
God is just way up there in infinity demanding full obedience from His slaves believers.
This is offensive. I don't care that you struck through that word, but don't ever equate a follower of a religion that you don't agree with to a slave.
-
What about the ones that were, quite literally, slaves? [/I agree with you, but object to both your commanding tone and use of the word 'ever']
-
It wasn't meant to be commanding; it was intended as advice as to not offend any Muslim members we have here. Apologies if I came across as authoritative.
-
He's using it to illustrate a point about the difference in the relationships between the Christian and Islamic gods and mankind. I think it's pretty acceptable.
-
Aren't Christians then slaves for being terrified of Hell and willingly submitting to religious oppression? Not all of them are like that, but that is very much the religion's historical course.
Islam and Christianity are two sides of the same coin, each having variations that are better or worse than a religion based solely on their respective holy books. The only difference in terms of moral quality is that one of them has, on average (because there is no single, all-encompassing Christian or Islamic religion) modernized faster than the other.
-
I don't mean to offend anyone, but the gist is undeniable. Alah demands strict full obedience of the converted, and the word "islam" means itself "Submission". This submission is not a crude one, it is something that really changes one person inside out and I don't have any doubts for the intense consequences on one's psyche and life overall. There's nothing wrong per se to be a "slave" to something as metaphysical as a God or an ideology. Such a state of mind can feel quite like freedom, a burst of meaning and a sense of place as nothing else can really substitute for. In such cases, the cynical push of the contrarian or the skeptic is like poison, destroying this real paradise inside the follower's heads.
Incidentally this is why the atheists and agnostics are attacked so often when they dare say anything at all about these matters... just look at the latest reporter in Saudi Arabia that was found guilty of expressing "doubts", and so was condemned to 7 years in prison and 600 slashes. I'm sorry if I offended any muslim, but until these matters are denounced by the majority of muslims, I really don't feel the obligation to cater to such kinds of "sensitivities".
Knossosf2 is right about the correction over the gap thing, I was oversimplifying it. The difference remains, while Yaweh came down, became a man himself and died with us, etc., Allah remains forever up there, as an eternal platonic ideal.
Aren't Christians then slaves for being terrified of Hell and willingly submitting to religious oppression? Not all of them are like that, but that is very much the religion's historical course.
Yeah, the idea of hell hasn't really aged well over the last centuries...
To be precise, I was speaking of the theological core of both religions, not their marginal tactics to keep the believers in, etc.
-
He's using it to illustrate a point about the difference in the relationships between the Christian and Islamic gods and mankind. I think it's pretty acceptable.
IMHO, it would have been acceptable had the word "slaves" been excluded. The inclusion of this word makes the post offensive, as it appears to be antagonistic toward the Islamic faith.
I'm sorry if I offended any muslim, but until these matters are denounced by the majority of muslims, I really don't feel the obligation to cater to such kinds of "sensitivities".
You are entitled to your own opinion, and I respect you for that, but I don't think you can just say the majority of Muslims doesn't denounce any injustices committed against non-believers without any valid support. For all you know, the majority does indeed denounce these horrendous acts, but not openly; their voices may be suppressed by those who retain power in countries like Saudi Arabia, and they most likely are fearful of the consequences if they do speak out.
Anyway, I think we veered well off topic. We're supposed to be making fun of Fox News ;)
-
I haven't seen any muslim outcry over this matter. Burn a koran or draw Mohammed and you'll get embassies burned, slash a man 600 times and throw him to the prison for 7 years for "doubting" and all I hear is a bird whistling in some lonely tree. No, knossos, muslims have to step up and improve their performance if we are to turn the 21st century into a civilized one.
-
This is just a matter of culture, not of religion. The same "doubts" would've gotten this man stoned in a Christian community about 1000 years ago. The problem isn't religion, but rather people who happen to be 1000 years backwards. Middle East is a very poorly developed region, and it doesn't really have anything to do with the religion they believe in. It has to do with bone-headed international decisions dating back to World War I. Sharia law, compared to Christian religious laws, is actually a pretty progressive one. It's just that nobody takes the latter seriously since a few hundred years, but due to developmental differences, Sharia is still used (and rightfully causes outcries, because it's plainly outdated). Do not mistake a religion with the culture, as they're connected, but not the same. Islam and Christianity have plenty in common. An average Muslim and an average Christian have a lot less in common, because of many different reasons, most of them not related to religion, but rather to politics and geography.
You probably could find Christians who'd think that 7 years in prison and 600 lashes would be an approbate punishment for a nonbeliever (look in very rural areas of American South and Poland). They'd be most likely old, backwards and bigoted - a sign of bygone age. Now, in the Middle East, such stances are simply more common, because their culture isn't developed as well. Which religion they believe in has nothing to do with it.
-
This is just a matter of culture, not of religion. The same "doubts" would've gotten this man stoned in a Christian community about 1000 years ago. The problem isn't religion, but rather people who happen to be 1000 years backwards. Middle East is a very poorly developed region, and it doesn't really have anything to do with the religion they believe in. It has to do with bone-headed international decisions dating back to World War I. Sharia law, compared to Christian religious laws, is actually a pretty progressive one. It's just that nobody takes the latter seriously since a few hundred years, but due to developmental differences, Sharia is still used (and rightfully causes outcries, because it's plainly outdated). Do not mistake a religion with the culture, as they're connected, but not the same. Islam and Christianity have plenty in common. An average Muslim and an average Christian have a lot less in common, because of many different reasons, most of them not related to religion, but rather to politics and geography.
You probably could find Christians who'd think that 7 years in prison and 600 lashes would be an approbate punishment for a nonbeliever (look in very rural areas of American South and Poland). They'd be most likely old, backwards and bigoted - a sign of bygone age. Now, in the Middle East, such stances are simply more common, because their culture isn't developed as well. Which religion they believe in has nothing to do with it.
They are functionally the same thing. The primary Middle-Eastern religion is a horrible caricature of Islam that has been twisted into an oppressive, violently misogynistic faith by Arab culture. So yeah, the religion is the problem, but it is not the same religion that Mohammed created.
EDIT: Basically what I'm saying is that the Middle East is ruled by a barbaric religion but there are multiple religions (or forms, if you prefer that) of Islam and not all of them are that bad.
-
There is also this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1'%C3%AD_Faith Which poses some interesting questions when you read its history with Islam.
-
This is just a matter of culture, not of religion. The same "doubts" would've gotten this man stoned in a Christian community about 1000 years ago. The problem isn't religion, but rather people who happen to be 1000 years backwards. Middle East is a very poorly developed region, and it doesn't really have anything to do with the religion they believe in. It has to do with bone-headed international decisions dating back to World War I. Sharia law, compared to Christian religious laws, is actually a pretty progressive one. It's just that nobody takes the latter seriously since a few hundred years, but due to developmental differences, Sharia is still used (and rightfully causes outcries, because it's plainly outdated). Do not mistake a religion with the culture, as they're connected, but not the same. Islam and Christianity have plenty in common. An average Muslim and an average Christian have a lot less in common, because of many different reasons, most of them not related to religion, but rather to politics and geography.
You probably could find Christians who'd think that 7 years in prison and 600 lashes would be an approbate punishment for a nonbeliever (look in very rural areas of American South and Poland). They'd be most likely old, backwards and bigoted - a sign of bygone age. Now, in the Middle East, such stances are simply more common, because their culture isn't developed as well. Which religion they believe in has nothing to do with it.
This. And it should be noted that although Sharia Law is somewhat based on Islam, it was created by men, for men, to appease the men with power and further oppress those without power. Corruption at its finest.
Luis, what seemed to be a good debate now appears to be an attack on Islam and all Muslims worldwide. You said you were sorry if you offended any Muslims, but you are continuing to offend me by 1. grouping all of the Muslims in the world together and insinuating that they are the same as the Muslims in the Middle East, 2. assuming that all Muslims reacted the same way to the Qur'an burning and other injustices, and 3. implying that Muslims in the Middle East are pathetic in their attempts to "improve their performance." AFAIK, they are attempting to improve their lives and countries at this moment. What do you think is happening in Syria? Tunisia? Libya? Change is gradual. You can't force anyone to change immediately, especially if you want them to be the Western definition of "civilized."
all I hear is a bird whistling in some lonely tree
Where I live, there are hundreds of flocks, with each bird chirping away. If you took the time to research, you'd find that many Muslims worldwide are against these corrupt practices.
Apollo, I agree with you about how Islam has been corrupted in the Middle East, but I feel the need to point out that there are some educated people there who are trying to resist the twisted faith. Additionally, I believe the culture and the corrupt religion are both the problem.
Also,
it is not the same religion that was revealed to Mohammed.
minor correction :)
-
This. And it should be noted that although Sharia Law is somewhat based on Islam, it was created by men, for men, to appease the men with power and further oppress those without power. Corruption at its finest.
Luis, what seemed to be a good debate now appears to be an attack on Islam and all Muslims worldwide. You said you were sorry if you offended any Muslims, but you are continuing to offend me by 1. grouping all of the Muslims in the world together and insinuating that they are the same as the Muslims in the Middle East, 2. assuming that all Muslims reacted the same way to the Qur'an burning and other injustices, and 3. implying that Muslims in the Middle East are pathetic in their attempts to "improve their performance." AFAIK, they are attempting to improve their lives and countries at this moment. What do you think is happening in Syria? Tunisia? Libya? Change is gradual. You can't force anyone to change immediately, especially if you want them to be the Western definition of "civilized."
Yeah, I basically agree with that. You can't take the worst form of Islam in the entire world and lump all followers of the religion in there. And there are certainly some Muslims who completely oppose those extremists.
all I hear is a bird whistling in some lonely tree
Where I live, there are hundreds of flocks, with each bird chirping away. If you took the time to research, you'd find that many Muslims worldwide are against these corrupt practices.
Apollo, I agree with you about how Islam has been corrupted in the Middle East, but I feel the need to point out that there are some educated people there who are trying to resist the twisted faith. Additionally, I believe the culture and the corrupt religion are both the problem.
I feel like you're drawing more of a distinction between them than I would, but whatever.
I suppose the culture is really the underlying problem anyway. It will take any religion (because the same thing would have happened to Christianity) and turn it into a brutal, oppressive ideology that would horrify its founder. After this process is complete, the ruined form of the religion becomes deeply ingrained in the culture, and is used to justify it. Separating them out becomes difficult, as they are now identical in many areas. That is why I say they are functionally the same thing.
I used to think that Islam destroyed the Arabs. After I did some research, however, it became clear that the Arabs destroyed Islam.
Also,
it is not the same religion that was revealed to Mohammed.
minor correction :)
Are you a Muslim?
-
Luis, aren't Christians supposed to be "servants of God?" are not all peoples supposed to "fear him?" Is he not a "jealous God?" Otherwise the Bible I read as a child is not the same one that you appear to believe. I think everything you said about modern Islamic sects could be said of Christian sects since the fall of the Roman Empire.
-
Are you a Muslim?
I am a PhD. I am a scholar of religions with four degrees. Whether I am or am not a Muslim is irrelevant :p
The answer to your question is yes
-
Are you a Muslim?
I am a PhD. I am a scholar of religions with four degrees. Whether I am or am not a Muslim is irrelevant :p
I was about to say that the question in and of itself sounds suspiciously like what Fox News were doing. :p
-
Let us be very honest here; the Arabic expression of Islam is the closest to being the original expression of Islam that any modern form is. It is the one with the deepest roots, the closest physical connections to the founding, the custodianship of the holiest sites, and the framework of Arabic tribal culture is the framework in which Islam initially developed and among the least-changed cultures that Islam has impacted as a result.
If Arabic Islam is not the same religion as was revealed to Mohammed, then no one alive practices that religion. (Which is almost certainly true; certainly no modern form of Judaism or Christianity remotely approximates the form of those religions at their founding.) But even so, it has a level of authority beyond that of others to speak on what is authentic Islamic practice because of what I've already noted.
-
Let us be very honest here; the Arabic expression of Islam is the closest to being the original expression of Islam that any modern form is. It is the one with the deepest roots, the closest physical connections to the founding, the custodianship of the holiest sites, and the framework of Arabic tribal culture is the framework in which Islam initially developed and among the least-changed cultures that Islam has impacted as a result.
If Arabic Islam is not the same religion as was revealed to Mohammed, then no one alive practices that religion. (Which is almost certainly true; certainly no modern form of Judaism or Christianity remotely approximates the form of those religions at their founding.) But even so, it has a level of authority beyond that of others to speak on what is authentic Islamic practice because of what I've already noted.
It's like the original except that virtually everything admirable about it has been destroyed and twisted to suit various agendas. It has no authority for that reason.
You are correct in that probably no one alive practices the original forms of those religions.
-
Are you a Muslim?
I am a PhD. I am a scholar of religions with four degrees. Whether I am or am not a Muslim is irrelevant :p
I was about to say that the question in and of itself sounds suspiciously like what Fox News were doing. :p
Yeah, but they were treating him hostilely and I just asked because knossos's posts made him sound like one.
-
It's like the original except that virtually everything admirable about it has been destroyed and twisted to suit various agendas. It has no authority for that reason.
Not really. It's actually a fairly pure strain. The version of Islam that sparked a social and scientific revolution and came close to conquering the world was more Persian than Arabic.
-
Luis, what seemed to be a good debate now appears to be an attack on Islam and all Muslims worldwide. You said you were sorry if you offended any Muslims, but you are continuing to offend me by 1. grouping all of the Muslims in the world together and insinuating that they are the same as the Muslims in the Middle East, 2. assuming that all Muslims reacted the same way to the Qur'an burning and other injustices, and 3. implying that Muslims in the Middle East are pathetic in their attempts to "improve their performance."
Some things to correct here. First I am not attacking "muslims" anywhere. I was making a comment on the religion, and I think I am free to do that. The pressure you are giving me for a remark I had slashed in a humourous way is an indication of the **** shenanigans I am tired of that religions seem to be obsessed at giving to any stray comments or regards they meet. Yes, I could have been more "sensitive" and yes you could have simply ignored it.
Second, you are still confusing "muslims" with the ideology. Ideology does not function individually, it works on a supra level of common consciousness, it works in the level of what is "supposed" to be said, what is the "correct things to say we believe" and so on, not on what people privately really believe and so on. In this level, what I have seen is not enough, sorry. Muslims will have to step up the plate and shred some traditions or whatever it is that is stopping them from crying enough is enough. They will have to puncture the ideology a bit. I think this is a necessity, and I am sorry that I am an atheist saying these things, but I can no longer afford to just ignore the **** that is happening. The boat is getting smaller by the time.
Third, I never mentioned pathetic. This is a very emotional word and I wasn't being emotional at all in my comments.
AFAIK, they are attempting to improve their lives and countries at this moment. What do you think is happening in Syria? Tunisia? Libya? Change is gradual. You can't force anyone to change immediately, especially if you want them to be the Western definition of "civilized."
What is happening in Egypt, you might have continued.... I am a much deeper pessimist than you are I guess.
-
The pressure you are giving me for a remark I had slashed in a humourous way is an indication of the **** shenanigans I am tired of that religions seem to be obsessed at giving to any stray comments or regards they meet. Yes, I could have been more "sensitive" and yes you could have simply ignored it.
I was willing to ignore it, but you continued to insult Islam and Muslims. If you are so tired of the “shenanigans,” why are you persistent in soiling Muslims worldwide? Do I not have a right to defend my religion and its followers?
demanding full obedience from His slaves believers.
This doesn't seem humorous at all. In fact, it seems to be passive-aggressive. I don’t see how someone can ignore such an insensitive comment. If it was meant to be humorous, then you would have said the same thing about Christianity and other religions for that matter. Instead, you demonized Islam and elevated Christianity well above Islam. You essentially created a dichotomy of good and bad.
First I am not attacking "muslims" anywhere.
How are your posts not an attack on Muslims? You are deliberately grouping them together, acting as if they are all the same around the world. You blatantly stated that Muslims will only cry out if a picture of Muhammad was drawn or if a Qur’an was burned. You come across as intolerant; you give yourself some sort of superiority, stating that “you have seen enough” and that you can “no longer afford to ignore this.” I highly doubt that any of the events you mentioned affect you negatively, and I don’t think you should try to judge all Muslims if you are visibly biased. In fact, if you “have a preference of the Christian theology,” why don’t you acknowledge the fact that God is the ultimate judge? Your comments have been inappropriate, even if you were voicing your opinion.
Second, you are still confusing "muslims" with the ideology.
Please tell me how I am doing so. I am simply responding to your seemingly intolerant posts about Muslims in the world by saying that you shouldn’t group them together and give them a bad name. The ideology of Islam was only relevant when we were talking about the differences between Christianity and Islam. If you look back to your prior posts, you stated this:
Incidentally this is why the atheists and agnostics are attacked so often when they dare say anything at all about these matters
Are you not confusing Muslims (in the Middle East) with the ideology? Frankly, I think you are. In the previous paragraph of that post, you talked about how Islam means “[voluntary] submission;” you then implied that this was the justification for the punishment (which was suggested by the minority, or the people with power in the ME) you talked about.
Muslims will have to step up the plate and shred some traditions or whatever it is that is stopping them from crying enough is enough.
Do you really think it’s that simple? No one can ignore their traditions immediately. No one can just walk up to the corrupt power holders and say “stop.” Once again, change is gradual. Not all Muslims have to “step up to the plate;” look at the Muslims in each continent. Are they what we perceive to be backwards? No, so stop grouping all Muslims together.
Third, I never mentioned pathetic.
Please reread my post. I never said you mentioned it.
I’m sure that I can’t change your beliefs about Islam (really, I could care less about what you believed), but what you have posted since yesterday has been offensive, insensitive, and ignorant. Your apology was hollow and meaningless. In all sincerity, I am now asking you to stop insulting my religion and all of the Muslims in the world. If you can’t agree with Islam, please have some respect for the people who do agree with it. Try to read your comments in a Muslim’s point of view. You may believe that you were only commenting on a religion, but in reality, you came across as offensive and it appears that you are indeed attacking Muslims. That being said, I’m ready to put this behind us if you are.
-
It's like the original except that virtually everything admirable about it has been destroyed and twisted to suit various agendas. It has no authority for that reason.
Not really. It's actually a fairly pure strain. The version of Islam that sparked a social and scientific revolution and came close to conquering the world was more Persian than Arabic.
It has adopted all of the judgement of Mohammed's teachings with none of the moral restraint and a bunch of added teachings that serve to subjugate women and promote antisemitism to a far greater extent than what was originally there. It also ignores the "all Muslims are equal" doctrine.
-
It's like the original except that virtually everything admirable about it has been destroyed and twisted to suit various agendas. It has no authority for that reason.
Not really. It's actually a fairly pure strain. The version of Islam that sparked a social and scientific revolution and came close to conquering the world was more Persian than Arabic.
It has adopted all of the judgement of Mohammed's teachings with none of the moral restraint and a bunch of added teachings that serve to subjugate women and promote antisemitism to a far greater extent than what was originally there. It also ignores the "all Muslims are equal" doctrine.
Careful. You're talking about Wahhabism more than the generalized Arab strain of Islam. Arab != Saudi Arabia.
-
knossos, I am honestly sorry if I offended you with the slaves remark. That wasn't my intention. I'll leave any other comment to pm's, since the conversation has already gone too far OT (and yeah that's mostly my fault).
-
Careful. You're talking about Wahhabism more than the generalized Arab strain of Islam. Arab != Saudi Arabia.
Indeed. Saudi Arabia is rather corrupt, and this not only applies to religion, but to the whole country. Bribery, nepotism, blackmail... Saudi Arabia has a lot of problems with that, and they go really, really deep. Which religion their oligarchy corrupts in order to suit their needs has no meaning here, if it's been a Christian country, this wouldn't have changed a thing. This is a common problem when a country suddenly gets rich.
It's like the original except that virtually everything admirable about it has been destroyed and twisted to suit various agendas. It has no authority for that reason.
You are correct in that probably no one alive practices the original forms of those religions.
To be honest, Christianity and especially Catholicism have been subjected to the very same thing. Especially through history, so much that there were numerous attempts to "un-corrupt" Christianity, two them created very major religions on their own right. The holy books are old, but the interpretations are whatever is needed at the moment. It was especially bad before The Reformation came about, but still, the bureaucracy in Vatican is quite a mess (the current Pope is trying to change that, though. We'll see how this goes). It's especially visible in Polish politics, since the right is very Catholic, to the point of fanaticism. Of course, they're not above claiming that "religious values" are whatever suits their agenda at the moment.
-
Well, I guess some of them might not be all that extreme. My understanding of the Arab world is limited outside of Saudi and parts of North Africa.
Of course, there must be some moderate Islam there anyway, as there are moderate Muslims. They just don't have much power.