bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 33,983
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Christianity used to be just like Islam is today; If one was demonstrably able to be changed, why not the other?
-
Features
Europe - The Barbarian Invasion has Begun.
- Thread starter maxparrish
- Start date
Christianity used to be just like Islam is today; If one was demonstrably able to be changed, why not the other?
DrZoidberg
Contributor
1. Special pleading. If religions can change than obviously Islam can to. You will need to argue what makes Islam unique.
2. What has the Reformation got to do with anything? The Reformation made Christianity more extreme and violent than it had been before. This has nothing to do with religion. Only about power. But you are factually wrong about the behaviour of Christians during the Reformation and following it
angelo
Deleted
Xtianity has an O/T and a N/T is the greatest difference. The barbarity of the O/T is superseded by the teachings of Jesus who by the way, never raised an army to fight infidels as Mohammed did.
Xtianity's founder was what today's equivalent may have been, a Peacenik. In contrast to a paedophile and war monger.
Xtianity's founder was what today's equivalent may have been, a Peacenik. In contrast to a paedophile and war monger.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Where's your evidence that the content of a holy book influences the level of barbarity of it's followers? I'd say the correlation is exceedingly weak. All the evidence is that morals come from elsewhere. Also, on a purely theoretical level, Socrates/Plato proved that morals can't come from religion in his Euthyphro dilemma. I'd say the evidence supports Socrates.
At best I think you can argue that, if a follower of a religion is a total cunt, its holy book helps define who will be the targets for any oppression and violence. But I strongly question whether a religion helps regulate the degree of cuntishness.
The Mongol hordes, the most brutal army the world has ever seen to date, a third of them were Christian, a third Buddhist and the rest various animist faiths. Not Muslim. They met Muslim rulers in battle. Not nearly as brutal. Even after the Mongol Khanate collapsed the surviving Mongol rulers that converted where a hell of a lot less brutal than what the Mongols were originally. The Mongol remnant empire, the Mughal empire, all Mongol, but converted to Islam, adopted a much more tolerant and accepting attitude than what they had been previously. I'm not arguing Islam is the religion of peace. I'm arguing that what religion an army has is about as important as what underwear they have.
Case in point. The Red Army had no religion. Extremely brutal. Atrocities every which way. I'm not arguing either that atheism leads to brutality. It's just not relevant.
edit: ..also... the Quran has about twice as many references than the NT to that it's better to forgive your enemies than to seek revenge (in spite of it being a shorter book. Yes, I counted them when I read them). Both books say that people shouldn't pass judgement. That it's up to God. Again.... not arguing Islam is the religion of peace. Only that unless Muslims are twice as forgiving as Christians, your argument is false.
As to the Red Army, it is important to remember what the Master Race had done to the Soviet Union. Most people thought the siegheilers had asked for all they got, and a lot more. It seems relevant, when you think of how many Muslims 'the West' has murdered.
Sure, Islam can change. We shouldn't bet our society on it, though. Let them change first!
untermensche
Contributor
It all has to do with the power possessed by religious leaders.
If they have power they do things like the Inquisition and the Crusades.
Or the things ISIS is doing.
The US moved the world forward with it's separation of church from state, Europe basically followed. In the West religious leaders have no armies and no real power.
It is not religion. It is when religious leaders, especially leaders in conquering religions like Christianity and Islam, have armies and real power.
In the ME you have powerful nations where religious leaders have real power, places like Saudi Arabia and Iran, and now ISIS, although not a real nation but holding land the size of one.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Modern militant Islam has its roots in India. It formed as an aftermath to the Seppoys rebellion. It's leaders afterwards fled to Afghanistan. Which explains the Taliban. After the Seppoys rebellion militant Islam became synonymous with anti-colonialism in "Islamic countries". The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood forming is a direct result. Qutb also.
Important to keep in mind. It is neither traditional Islam nor especially old. If they can start with this nonsense then they can stop.
Islam hasn't really changed that much, it's just they didn't have the money or the reach for the issues to be anything but very local.
The Umayyads, Abbasids and Ottomans disagree.
Oh, do go away and start another Crusade, nutter! What other answer do you have, if you believe this drivel?
Last edited:
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Reading books isn't your thing, is it?
Narapoia
Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2004
- Messages
- 160
- Location
- Antipodes
- Basic Beliefs
- Scientific humanist and an atheist
This thread has proceeded somewhat predictably along the same lines these conversations do - racist overtones from the people crying out that this immigration is the end of the world - with an altogether blase "everything will be fine" approach from the those who disagree. Can we at least be a little objective and agree that the outcome will probably be somewhere in the middle with valid concerns to be raised? Further to that - given human nature and what has happened in the past, more often than not, when different cultures are forced to live cheek and jowl - a poor outcome is more likely?
Look at Europe itself, same racial profile by and large yet close proximity with cultural, economic and societal (Aristocracy & governmental structures) stresses led to them engaging in large scale murder of each other for all of recorded history - up until about 70 years ago. It took the largest, most brutal and horrifyingly destructive war of all time to get them to chill out & stop killing each other. By and large they set up supportive democratic socialist states in a response to this horror, built on a firm foundation of human rights, that resulted in some of the most productive and wealthy countries on the planet.
I would genuinely like to know how people think the addition of large numbers of desperate people, with very different cultural, economic and societal views does not have the potential to cause serious problems for Europe? Especially when you look at the statistics.
While it varies country by country the majority of those polled in predominantly Muslim countries support:
And on a personal level:
I know I've seen statistics on popular support for the death penalty for homosexuality in predominantly Muslim countries somewhere - but can't seem to find them.
The cultural, economic, and societal differences highlighted in these statistics are far greater than the relative differences that fuelled constant warfare across Europe until very recently. So why is it unrealistic to assume that they will do the same as the Muslim population grows within European countries - particularly at rates accelerated by the current ME instability?
There's a list of other statistics and polls here - some are clearly nonsense or alarmist and the page carries a clear bias - I just can't be arsed pulling together as long a list. There's more stats from Muslim populations within Western countries and while there is some liberalisation the results are still alarming. If anyone has counter stats I'd be happy to check them out.
Yes there is a humanitarian crisis and I don't actually have any idea of how this situation can be managed - but neither do the authorities in Europe. Throwing open the borders without a plan seems to me to be setting up a generational problem that is going to fester and cause huge issues in the short to medium term - using history as a guide as well as the example of the current Muslim minorities in Europe. It seems to me there should be room for a real conversation without resorting to:
A) Racism
B) Dismissal of any and all concerns with accusations of racism or islamophobia (ugh I hate that word)
Look at Europe itself, same racial profile by and large yet close proximity with cultural, economic and societal (Aristocracy & governmental structures) stresses led to them engaging in large scale murder of each other for all of recorded history - up until about 70 years ago. It took the largest, most brutal and horrifyingly destructive war of all time to get them to chill out & stop killing each other. By and large they set up supportive democratic socialist states in a response to this horror, built on a firm foundation of human rights, that resulted in some of the most productive and wealthy countries on the planet.
I would genuinely like to know how people think the addition of large numbers of desperate people, with very different cultural, economic and societal views does not have the potential to cause serious problems for Europe? Especially when you look at the statistics.
While it varies country by country the majority of those polled in predominantly Muslim countries support:
- Sharia Law - which is incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human rights - according to Saudi Arabia, Iran and the members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation - which crafted an alternative Declaration with a little more wiggle room for some of the exceeding bad ideas in Sharia. This includes denying women (50% of the population) the same rights as everyone else.
- Death for apostates - Hard to say exactly but about 50% doesn't seem to far off the mark (this one is a bit personal for me as it would mean my girlfriend being potentially murdered by the state in her home country when she visits - or if her friends/neighbours etc found out
- Religious judges overseeing family law
- Corporal punishment - including for things like adultery
- A very unenlightened outlook on the gay community on a political level. I know Africa is horrific in this regard as well - but we can thank the religious missionaries of another flavour for that
And on a personal level:
I know I've seen statistics on popular support for the death penalty for homosexuality in predominantly Muslim countries somewhere - but can't seem to find them.
The cultural, economic, and societal differences highlighted in these statistics are far greater than the relative differences that fuelled constant warfare across Europe until very recently. So why is it unrealistic to assume that they will do the same as the Muslim population grows within European countries - particularly at rates accelerated by the current ME instability?
There's a list of other statistics and polls here - some are clearly nonsense or alarmist and the page carries a clear bias - I just can't be arsed pulling together as long a list. There's more stats from Muslim populations within Western countries and while there is some liberalisation the results are still alarming. If anyone has counter stats I'd be happy to check them out.
Yes there is a humanitarian crisis and I don't actually have any idea of how this situation can be managed - but neither do the authorities in Europe. Throwing open the borders without a plan seems to me to be setting up a generational problem that is going to fester and cause huge issues in the short to medium term - using history as a guide as well as the example of the current Muslim minorities in Europe. It seems to me there should be room for a real conversation without resorting to:
A) Racism
B) Dismissal of any and all concerns with accusations of racism or islamophobia (ugh I hate that word)
angelo
Deleted
Oil changed all that. It's oil money and halal ect rackets that fund terrorism today.
angelo
Deleted
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
WHAT?!
They were THE major world power in opposition to Christian Europe for seven hundred years!
Where do you even GET this nonsense?
DrZoidberg
Contributor
WHAT?!
They were THE major world power in opposition to Christian Europe for seven hundred years!
Where do you even GET this nonsense?
They were way richer than us for the most of that time.
WHAT?!
They were THE major world power in opposition to Christian Europe for seven hundred years!
Where do you even GET this nonsense?
There was a period where they were a world power. Then they got left behind technologically and were has-beens. Now with oil they have the money to become a power again, although only by terrorist means.
The intent has always been expansionist.