PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jaybird180 on November 04, 2015, 03:24:58 PM
-
I haven't finished reading the article, but thought I'd share and see if we can get some discussion going.
http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm (http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm)
-
More bullshit to please progressives, muslims, and atheists, without much in the way of reality.
If the three groups of malcontents would expend the same amount of energy on improving the world they live in, that they spend attacking anyone who thinks differently, people might have more respect for them.
-
To a Christian, the divinity of the risen Christ is a matter of faith, and so not subject to critical investigation.
To the rest of us, the historicity of Jesus is not taken for granted, and can be a serious matter of study.
And there is precious little evidence concerning the existence of a historical Jesus.
Jews face a similar conundrum. There is no evidence they were ever slaves in Egypt, and archaeologists have found no evidence of a 40 year trek in the desert, a lá Exodus.
For believers, none of this matters a whit. But for nonbelievers, these are legitimate fields of study.
And none of it is meant to "attack" anything. Unless the search for truth is seen as an attack.
-
I haven't finished reading the article, but thought I'd share and see if we can get some discussion going.
http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm (http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm)
Well that's a waste of 60 seconds of my life that I'll never get back. >:(
-
Well that's a waste of 60 seconds of my life that I'll never get back. >:(
Let's just say I was not impressed.
But the study of the very beginnings of Christianity, and how the New Testament was compiled, is a fascinating story. And one I find many Christians largely ignorant of.
-
To a Christian, the divinity of the risen Christ is a matter of faith, and so not subject to critical investigation.
To the rest of us, the historicity of Jesus is not taken for granted, and can be a serious matter of study.
And there is precious little evidence concerning the existence of a historical Jesus.
Jews face a similar conundrum. There is no evidence they were ever slaves in Egypt, and archaeologists have found no evidence of a 40 year trek in the desert, a lá Exodus.
For believers, none of this matters a whit. But for nonbelievers, these are legitimate fields of study.
And none of it is meant to "attack" anything. Unless the search for truth is seen as an attack.
That's not really true, but no amount of evidence will satiate non believers from their quest to disprove and ridicule the faith of believers.
-
That's not really true, but no amount of evidence will satiate non believers from their quest to disprove and ridicule the faith of believers.
How would you know? There is no evidence with which to test your hypothesis.
-
That's not really true, but no amount of evidence will satiate non believers from their quest to disprove and ridicule the faith of believers.
How would you know? There is no evidence with which to test your hypothesis.
Dude, it's late, I'm in no mood, and while I'm a good researcher, I can't really cover 2,000 years worth of research and writings of historians, theologians, and archeologists before hitting the rack. Give Google a try yourself.
-
Is this the beginning of the end of Christianity? "Probably not," grants Atwill, "but what my work has done is give permission to many of those ready to leave the religion to make a clean break. We've got the evidence now to show exactly where the story of Jesus came from.
Although Christianity can be a comfort to some, it can also be very damaging and repressive, an insidious form of mind control that has led to blind acceptance of serfdom, poverty, and war throughout history. To this day, especially in the United States, it is used to create support for war in the Middle East."
Atwill encourages skeptics to challenge him at Conway Hall, where after the presentations there is likely to be a lively Q&A session. Joining Mr.Atwill will be fellow scholar Kenneth Humphreys, author of the book "Jesus Never Existed."
A tad skewed, but hey, he set out with a goal. That will be a lively Q&A session, indeed. The Gospel accounts of Jesus' ministry have long been acknowledged by scholars as being different from one another, with huge gaps and disparities in time, especially pertaining to Jesus' ministry in Judea.
-
The Gospel accounts of Jesus' ministry have long been acknowledged by scholars as being different from one another, with huge gaps and disparities in time, especially pertaining to Jesus' ministry in Judea.
And yet scholars also know that all four "canonical" gospels* stem from the same source. They call it "Q", from quelle, the German word for "source". And none were written by the names attached to them.
And what's fascinating is to read Mark, knowing it was the first to be written down, and the only one likely to have been written in the lifetimes of the disciples. And to reflect on what's NOT there - no virgin birth or nativity story, beginning abruptly with the meeting of John the Baptist, and ending quite abruptly with an empty tomb. It sure seems like each following gospel, written by authors who were not there, just glommed on additional mythological events for effect.
http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/crossroads/resources/birthofjesus/intro/the_dating_of_thegospels.html (http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/crossroads/resources/birthofjesus/intro/the_dating_of_thegospels.html)
I find it all quite interesting.
Good book on the topic, easily accessible for a layman:
(http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348309125l/756971.jpg)
Oh, and my goal is not to "disprove" anything, and certainly not to ridicule.
*Also of interest is how those four gospels were selected, while others discarded.
-
I had a history professor in college that took a sabbatical to study why Jesus was crucified. From his study he came away with that Jesus was crucified because he rode a donkey into the city on the Holy Day and using transportation was forbidden. He said that Pilate was very concerned about not just having him crucified because the elder clergy wanted him gone. I'm sure he'll be very disappointed to find out what he learned was just B.S.
-
I had a history professor in college that took a sabbatical to study why Jesus was crucified. From his study he came away with that Jesus was crucified because he rode a donkey into the city on the Holy Day and using transportation was forbidden. He said that Pilate was very concerned about not just having him crucified because the elder clergy wanted him gone. I'm sure he'll be very disappointed to find out what he learned was just B.S.
Didn't you hear? There's "precious little evidence" of the existence of Jesus. ???
-
Well, crap. I did say I was cursed with a gene that makes me want to see all sides of things. But I don't have time to be a Biblical scholar. So I'll just keep on trying to make sense of the world I see, and keep an eye on the other side of it. As I've said before, I had two experiences that sealed the deal for me when it came to believing we're in a guarded universe. So I feel obligated to believe, and for lack of a better term, I believe in God. It also seems right to be an honest, helpful, loving person. Like so many things, religion can be used for good or bad. Also, as an English major, I learned pretty quickly that one can defend pretty much any thesis. If someone wants to prove Jesus is a myth, it can be done. It just may not be true.
-
Hmmmm, seems to me that if you want us to consider Jesus was made up then you have to consider that the Prophet Muhammad, the guy who killed many, isn't a prophet at all.
-
Hmmmm, seems to me that if you want us to consider Jesus was made up then you have to consider that the Prophet Muhammad, the guy who killed many, isn't a prophet at all.
well, duh.
-
Hmmmm, seems to me that if you want us to consider Jesus was made up then you have to consider that the Prophet Muhammad, the guy who killed many, isn't a prophet at all.
Now THAT'S the PaulS that we know!
-
I haven't finished reading the article, but thought I'd share and see if we can get some discussion going.
http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm (http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm)
Nothing surprising here at all. Men made all of it up. The Torah, The Bible, The Quran, all of it. Loads of other religions too over the eons and on every continent. The answers aren't all known and some people need comfort in some level of knowing. Men, and it has mostly been men, have brought great comfort to the people with stories, rules and guidelines. They have helped to keep societies and civilizations together. They have also exploited their position of power afforded them being the keepers of the stories for great evil sadly.
It's all just part of the human condition.
-
Whether Jesus or God is real or not, the secularization of society has lead to a harsher, more tenuous existence for all. I'd like to believe that there is a greater power, and a greater good. I think the "Progressives" in society believe that man is the highest power. I view it as incredibly short sighted, and very, very selfish, self centered, and SELF IMPORTANT.
-
Whether Jesus or God is real or not, the secularization of society has lead to a harsher, more tenuous existence for all. I'd like to believe that there is a greater power, and a greater good. I think the "Progressives" in society believe that man is the highest power. I view it as incredibly short sighted, and very, very selfish, self centered, and SELF IMPORTANT.
This might shock you, but most all the progressives and democrats I know and I know a lot of them, believe in some sort of higher power, or life energy, or whatever. They are just not fond of large, organized conventional religions. Neither am I. I don't know of anybody that believes that man is the highest power in the universe. Of those that I know that are agnostic, or atheist, they recognize just the opposite, that man is no more powerful in the universe than a tree, or a cockroach. We simply are part of the universe. Many also believe that by mathematical probability, we are also not alone in the universe and there well could be those more advanced than us, but the vastness of space and the universe may mean we will never meet them. In short, atheists and agnostics believe that, physics, nature and the natural order of the observable universe is the highest power.
-
This might shock you, but most all the progressives and democrats I know and I know a lot of them, believe in some sort of higher power, or life energy, or whatever. They are just not fond of large, organized conventional religions. Neither am I. I don't know of anybody that believes that man is the highest power in the universe. Of those that I know that are agnostic, or atheist, they recognize just the opposite, that man is no more powerful in the universe than a tree, or a cockroach. We simply are part of the universe. Many also believe that by mathematical probability, we are also not alone in the universe and there well could be those more advanced than us, but the vastness of space and the universe may mean we will never meet them. In short, atheists and agnostics believe that, physics, nature and the natural order of the observable universe is the highest power.
By definition, Agnostics, don't know if God exists. Thus your claim that Agnostics believe that, physics, nature and the natural order of the observable universe is the highest power is incorrect.
It may shock you that many Christians also believe that we are not alone in the universe (e.g., other races on other planets). I realize it is hard for many to grasp that Christianity and science are not mutually exclusive.
-
By definition, Agnostics, don't know if God exists. Thus your claim that Agnostics believe that, physics, nature and the natural order of the observable universe is the highest power is incorrect.
I disagree. It's true that agnostics don't know if God exists or not, but lacking any proof of God, simply believe that the universe is what it is and we are just a tiny bit in it. However, they are not closed to the idea of a god, just they see no evidence of it. The atheist is closed to the idea of a god.
It may shock you that many Christians also believe that we are not alone in the universe (e.g., other races on other planets). I realize it is hard for many to grasp that Christianity and science are not mutually exclusive.
I am not shocked at all. I personally have never said that Christianity and science are mutually exclusive. In fact obviously they are not since a very large number of important scientists throughout history have identified as being Christian and still do to this day. The Christians that have trouble with science are the fundamentalists that take every word in the Bible as literal, absolute truth. For these people, scientific truth is incompatible. Fortunately these people are a minority IMO.
-
The atheist is closed to the idea of a god.
Where do you get that idea?
-
I disagree. It's true that agnostics don't know if God exists or not, but lacking any proof of God, simply believe that the universe is what it is and we are just a tiny bit in it. However, they are not closed to the idea of a god, just they see no evidence of it.
The defintion of agnostics that I'm using includes that proof of God is not possible. Don't know where you are going your definition.
-
As much as I like the theory it doesn't hold up. There were Christians in Rome far before the Flavian dynasty, they are mentioned in Roman histories and were even blamed (perhaps correctly) for the great fire of Rome where Nero fiddled.
-
Jesus loves everyone! :)
I'm just his favorite. 8)
-
Where do you get that idea?
From the lay person's, popular knowledge of all this religious crap.
Atheist- "There is no God."
Pretty much sums it up for me, but you seem to really study this stuff, so what is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist then?
-
Pretty much sums it up for me, but you seem to really study this stuff, so what is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist then?
An atheist believes that God does not exist
An agnostic doesn't know if God exists or not
In effect, the agnostic admits that God could exist. The atheist does not.
-
An atheist believes that God does not exist.
Yes.
But that does not imply that an atheist's mind must be closed to the possibility of a God or Gods.
I think most atheists simply find the evidence for such a being or beings lacking, making the null hypothesis that there is no God.
I am an atheist, but I hold open at least the possibility of a God or Gods. I rate myself a "6" on this helpful scale:
(http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/files/2012/10/dawkins-scale.png)
I wonder where some other forum members might place themselves.
-
Jesus loves everyone! :)
I'm just his favorite. 8)
Sure... You keep telling yourself that...
-
This might shock you, but most all the progressives and democrats I know and I know a lot of them, believe in some sort of higher power, or life energy, or whatever.
May da Schwartz be wit you.
(http://exiledingeeksville.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Spaceballs-Yogurt.jpg)
-
Whether Jesus or God is real or not, the secularization of society has lead to a harsher, more tenuous existence for all. I'd like to believe that there is a greater power, and a greater good. I think the "Progressives" in society believe that man is the highest power. I view it as incredibly short sighted, and very, very selfish, self centered, and SELF IMPORTANT.
Really! We are arguably more religious than we were 50 years ago. Certainly there is more skepticism of science than there was in the 60's.
However, if you look back over the last 2000 years or so, you will see that religious fundamentalism has been a huge barrier to technological and social advancement. Look at what Islam did to the once learned Arabic world. It was also the loosening of the reins of the church of Rome by the reformation that allowed knowledge to accumulate and Europe to become the most advanced of the civilizations.
-
Really! We are arguably more religious than we were 50 years ago. Certainly there is more skepticism of science than there was in the 60's.
more religious? ah, no. Fewer people are going to Church on Sunday. Put another way, a smaller percentage of this country self-identifies as a member of a particular religion.
I'd love to see numbers that backup your claim for more skepticism of science. You say "Certainly..." ... well, it should be simple for you to back up that statement.
-
When the wife complained that I was missing Mass way too much and it wasn't a good example for the kids, I took them all up to around 4000 feet on a sparking CAVU Sunday morning, and said "This is my Church."
That was the last time I heard about it.
-
When the wife complained that I was missing Mass way too much and it wasn't a good example for the kids, I took them all up to around 4000 feet on a sparking CAVU Sunday morning, and said "This is my Church."
"I'd rather be flying and thinking about God than sitting in church and thinking of flying" so the saying goes. For me, the jury is out. The engineer/scientist in me says yeah, hard to prove, but I also see a lot of very smart successful people who believe, and I see our church involved in a lot of good mission work. People helping people ain't a bad thing.
-
One does not need to sit in Church to be religious or a Christian.
-
One does not need to sit in Church to be religious or a Christian.
Tell that to one of my former neighbours down here. She was all "You have to come to my church. My preacher (baptist) is the only way to salvation."
I think I said something like "Wasn't the Reformation all about people not needing a priest to be the intercessor between man and God? So now Baptists have become Catholic. Is that what you're saying?" Funny story...she never bugged me about religion again.
-
Tell that to one of my former neighbours down here. She was all "You have to come to my church. My preacher (baptist) is the only way to salvation."
I think I said something like "Wasn't the Reformation all about people not needing a priest to be the intercessor between man and God? So now Baptists have become Catholic. Is that what you're saying?" Funny story...she never bugged me about religion again.
Jeff, I lived in Lexington, Kentucky for several years. I saw the Southern Baptist mentality first hand. They do a lot of good mission work, don't get me wrong. I have never been a huge fan of organized religion. Between "Christians" and Jihadis though, I'll take the Christians.
-
Really! We are arguably more religious than we were 50 years ago. Certainly there is more skepticism of science than there was in the 60's.
However, if you look back over the last 2000 years or so, you will see that religious fundamentalism has been a huge barrier to technological and social advancement. Look at what Islam did to the once learned Arabic world. It was also the loosening of the reins of the church of Rome by the reformation that allowed knowledge to accumulate and Europe to become the most advanced of the civilizations.
I think you have that backward. I think your perversion is intentional. The Arabs were a people in what's known as Ja-haliya (deep ignorance) before Islam. A large majority of the people were illiterate and superstition and polytheism ruled the land. Islam gave rise to the renaissance m'lady.
-
Nothing surprising here at all. Men made all of it up. The Torah, The Bible, The Quran, all of it. Loads of other religions too over the eons and on every continent. The answers aren't all known and some people need comfort in some level of knowing. Men, and it has mostly been men, have brought great comfort to the people with stories, rules and guidelines. They have helped to keep societies and civilizations together. They have also exploited their position of power afforded them being the keepers of the stories for great evil sadly.
It's all just part of the human condition.
On Tuesday, the spouse and I were walking through the Bayon temple at Angkor Thom. Met a guy there that grew up in Iraq when Saddam in power. We got to talking about the history of the Angkor Complex and he mentioned that the day before, he was at Angkor Wat and overheard a guide answer a question about the labor required to build the temples. The guide said that while the pyramids were built with slave labor, the Angkor temples were not. He rationalized that by saying that the laborers believed that if they died while building the temple they would go to heaven. And since they truly believed that, then they were not 'slaves'. Our new Iraqi friend was appalled at that. Said that the only difference between the slaves in Eqypt and the laborers at the Angkor complex was the brainwashing. Said Saddam did the same thing. Used Koran verses to fit his need and opinion. To make what he wanted appear to be correct and holy. Said that religion was nothing but a path to power. And that path, more often than not, was abused by those who achieved it. I wished we had had time to discuss it further, it was interesting to hear the opinion of someone who grew up under that kind of regime.
-
Organized religion was more government. Especially the Catholic Church.
-
On Tuesday, the spouse and I were walking through the Bayon temple at Angkor Thom. Met a guy there that grew up in Iraq when Saddam in power. We got to talking about the history of the Angkor Complex and he mentioned that the day before, he was at Angkor Wat and overheard a guide answer a question about the labor required to build the temples. The guide said that while the pyramids were built with slave labor, the Angkor temples were not. He rationalized that by saying that the laborers believed that if they died while building the temple they would go to heaven. And since they truly believed that, then they were not 'slaves'. Our new Iraqi friend was appalled at that. Said that the only difference between the slaves in Eqypt and the laborers at the Angkor complex was the brainwashing. Said Saddam did the same thing. Used Koran verses to fit his need and opinion. To make what he wanted appear to be correct and holy. Said that religion was nothing but a path to power. And that path, more often than not, was abused by those who achieved it. I wished we had had time to discuss it further, it was interesting to hear the opinion of someone who grew up under that kind of regime.
1- It's been clearly refuted that the Pyramids were NOT built using slave labor. That one's been beat to death and the myth has been busted.
2- Saddam was not known as a religious man. In fact, I saw an interview were he was asked a very simple question about religion and he declined, saying politely that "I'm not scholar."
3- Where are you going?
-
Tell that to one of my former neighbours down here. She was all "You have to come to my church. My preacher (baptist) is the only way to salvation."
My neighbor two doors down asked me where I went to church. I said I didn't, that I wasn't really a believer.
His response? "You're going to hell, you know."
Have not chosen to speak with him for almost 10 years now. What a hateful thing to say. What a hateful religion that would lead him to that belief.
-
Why do you give yourself a pass? You say (post) hateful things, but never hold yourself to that standard. The problem with absolute statements is they also apply to you.
-
You say (post) hateful things...
Citation, please.
-
Citation, please.
That is a slippery way to avoid the truth. You are the owner of your past posting history, here and at the stupid board.
-
1- It's been clearly refuted that the Pyramids were NOT built using slave labor. That one's been beat to death and the myth has been busted.
True. Also the archaeological evidence suggest quite the opposite. It suggests the pyramids were built by a combination of skilled professionals that were paid and volunteers. There is no evidence anywhere that suggests that Egypt ever had any slaves. That story was made up for the stories in the Old Testament. The men that wrote that document had no idea how the pyramids were built, but with such a large, impressive structure, slave labor sounds reasonable. It also paints the Pharaohs with their polytheist religion as being backward and evil. It adds to the narrative.
-
That is a slippery way to avoid the truth. You are the owner of your past posting history, here and at the stupid board.
Evasion noted.
-
Why do you give yourself a pass? You say (post) hateful things, but never hold yourself to that standard. The problem with absolute statements is they also apply to you.
If Fast Eddie is a hater and going to hell, everyone on this board is going to hell. Some deeper circles than others.
-
True. Also the archaeological evidence suggest quite the opposite. It suggests the pyramids were built by a combination of skilled professionals that were paid and volunteers. There is no evidence anywhere that suggests that Egypt ever had any slaves. That story was made up for the stories in the Old Testament. The men that wrote that document had no idea how the pyramids were built, but with such a large, impressive structure, slave labor sounds reasonable. It also paints the Pharaohs with their polytheist religion as being backward and evil. It adds to the narrative.
We are in agreement.
-
I disagree with everything you just claimed, because you (and Fast Eddie) aren't God, have no idea what God thinks, and aren't qualified to speak on God's behalf.
However, when he posted about his neighbor, he acted just like a progressive. He AND his neighbor feel strongly about the subject, but have different conclusions, therefore, in Eddie's world, the neighbor is a hater, and evil, and Eddie spent the past decades intentionally labeling and separating himself from his neighbor based on nothing more than a disagreement over theology.
On top of it, he still feels justified demanding separation from his neighbor based on nothing more than a difference of opinion about a single topic. That does sound awfully like the little snowflakes who demand safe spaces away from different thoughts, other opinions, alternative viewpoints, and he never misses a chance to remind us of his utter fear of his neighbor's difference. He's even expressed, or at least agreed with those that expressed it (on the other board) the idea that no one should be lawfully allowed to hold office if they hold such a repulsive opinion about the existence and activity of God.
If that isn't the position of the snowflake contingent, nothing is.
-
That is a slippery way to avoid the truth. You are the owner of your past posting history, here and at the stupid board.
So, that's a "No, I don't have any examples, but I'm sticking with my narrative."
This supports my supposition that you're actually a liberal who is trolling by pretending to be conservative.
-
Or, if you look at it from my viewpoint, I don;t have access to the other board, where those examples exist(ed), probably used to because the moderators being what they are. However, if you wish to label me because you can't help yourself, please continue to do so at your leisure.
As for my backup, it was posted separately and you were too busy labeling me to notice.
-
Or, if you look at it from my viewpoint, I don;t have access to the other board, where those examples exist(ed), probably used to because the moderators being what they are. However, if you wish to label me because you can't help yourself, please continue to do so at your leisure.
As for my backup, it was posted separately and you were too busy labeling me to notice.
I made your ignore list over on POA, maybe you could honour me by putting me there here too.
You're a troll.
-
He AND his neighbor feel strongly about the subject, but have different conclusions, therefore, in Eddie's world, the neighbor is a hater, and evil, and Eddie spent the past decades intentionally labeling and separating himself from his neighbor based on nothing more than a disagreement over theology.
I think the key difference is that upon meeting a new neighbor, I would not dream of saying, "You know, there is no God and everything you believe is fabricated and false."
1) Because I try to be polite about other's beliefs, and...
2) While I strongly suspect the Christian God is mythical, it's none of my concern what others believe - including most of my friends and family, and...
3) To the best of my recollection, I never said my neighbor was "evil". That's purely a projection on your part. I simply choose not to interface with people who believe it's a good plan to have me suffer for eternity in hell. And while not in and of itself "evil", I still stand by that belief as being hateful.
-
I think the key difference is that upon meeting a new neighbor, I would not dream of saying, "You know, there is no God and everything you believe is fabricated and false."
1) Because I try to be polite about other's beliefs, and...
2) While I strongly suspect the Christian God is mythical, it's none of my concern what others believe - including most of my friends and family, and...
3) To the best of my recollection, I never said my neighbor was "evil". That's purely a projection on your part. I simply choose not to interface with people who believe it's a good plan to have me suffer for eternity in hell. And while not in and of itself "evil", I still stand by that belief as being hateful.
Right. Because you are the personification of right, and your neighbor, by disagreeing on this one topic, and doing so in a way you disapprove of, deserves to be segregated forever, because.... because,,,well, after all.. you said so.
I don't see a great deal of difference between you and the snowflakes, but you seem content to feel superior, and perfect, so that must must make you right.
All you need is a safe space and some teenage progressives to surround you, and you'll be safe.
-
I made your ignore list over on POA, maybe you could honour me by putting me there here too.
If you are so frightened of me, why don't you put me on ignore and protect yourself from those who dare to disagree with your magnificence, and amazing-ness??? Or do you need others to d it for you?
-
If you are so frightened of me, why don't you put me on ignore and protect yourself from those who dare to disagree with your magnificence, and amazing-ness??? Or do you need others to d it for you?
I can handle reading other opinions without going off the deep end of ad hominem. You couldn't, and that's why you chose to put me on ignore, troll.
-
Eddie, for your neighbor's statement to mean anything to you, you would have to believe there is a hell, which I have picked up here that you don't.
Mythical places typically aren't threatening, even when believed in by others.
-
I rarely make comments about other posters. I don't do this and will probably regret it, but I think we have a great opportunity here. I respect all posters, including FC, and JeffDG immensely. Some of us just have a different way to communicate. This is an imperfect medium. We are different than POA. Our similarities are much more than our differences.
-
My neighbor two doors down asked me where I went to church. I said I didn't, that I wasn't really a believer.
His response? "You're going to hell, you know."
Have not chosen to speak with him for almost 10 years now. What a hateful thing to say. What a hateful religion that would lead him to that belief.
Meh. I just would have smiled and said "Guess I'll see you there, eh, buddy?" and laughed it off.
-
Meh. I just would have smiled and said "Guess I'll see you there, eh, buddy?" and laughed it off.
Good answer.
-
Florida Cracker...
You flatter yourself.
Your ideas are neither novel nor well stated nor threatening.
On POA, I saw you as a caricature. I envisioned you as Foghorn Leghorn, just spouting bombastic nonsense, albeit with great vitriol. It was almost cute for a while.
But your barbs and insults and crassness just got tiresome, and did so pretty quickly.
Like my neighbor, there are just certain people that I don't choose to engage with. I chose not to on POA, and I choose not to here as well.
-
Good answer.
It's always easy to think of what one should have said!
Like that lady that told me my red shirt reminded her of the blood of Christ! Talk about missed opportunities!
Usually I'm just flummoxed by unsolicited pronouncements like that - they just catch me off guard!
-
It's always easy to think of what one should have said!
Like that lady that told me my red shirt reminded her of the blood of Christ! Talk about missed opportunities!
Usually I'm just flummoxed by unsolicited pronouncements like that - they just catch me off guard!
So the guy who told you you are going to hell deserves the sarcastic answer. The lady, probably not so much, a simple nod or smile would be fine.
-
I rarely make comments about other posters. I don't do this and will probably regret it, but I think we have a great opportunity here. I respect all posters, including FC, and JeffDG immensely. Some of us just have a different way to communicate. This is an imperfect medium. We are different than POA. Our similarities are much more than our differences.
Concur.
-
It's always easy to think of what one should have said!
Like that lady that told me my red shirt reminded her of the blood of Christ! Talk about missed opportunities!
Usually I'm just flummoxed by unsolicited pronouncements like that - they just catch me off guard!
"I can assure you no Jesuses were harmed in the making of this shirt"
Of course as you said it's east to MMQ, much harder to think of a snappy retort on the spot!
-
Tell that to one of my former neighbours down here. She was all "You have to come to my church. My preacher (baptist) is the only way to salvation."
I think I said something like "Wasn't the Reformation all about people not needing a priest to be the intercessor between man and God? So now Baptists have become Catholic. Is that what you're saying?" Funny story...she never bugged me about religion again.
Actually, that is a blasphemous statement.
-
I think you have that backward. I think your perversion is intentional. The Arabs were a people in what's known as Ja-haliya (deep ignorance) before Islam. A large majority of the people were illiterate and superstition and polytheism ruled the land. Islam gave rise to the renaissance m'lady.
Sorry, they still are. Look what they have brought to Europe of late. 100% Muslims. And our Muslim in Chief wants to bring that trash here.
-
1- It's been clearly refuted that the Pyramids were NOT built using slave labor. That one's been beat to death and the myth has been busted.
2- Saddam was not known as a religious man. In fact, I saw an interview were he was asked a very simple question about religion and he declined, saying politely that "I'm not scholar."
3- Where are you going?
Were they paid a "living wage" after soaking the "rich" of their "fair share"?
-
My neighbor two doors down asked me where I went to church. I said I didn't, that I wasn't really a believer.
His response? "You're going to hell, you know."
Have not chosen to speak with him for almost 10 years now. What a hateful thing to say. What a hateful religion that would lead him to that belief.
That's bullshit, Eddie. It's not the religion, it's the dumbass who doesn't even know his own religion's teachings. Ex: Matthew 7:1-3
-
Good answer.
Unfortunately the snappy comeback is 10 years late.
-
Sorry, they still are. Look what they have brought to Europe of late. 100% Muslims. And our Muslim in Chief wants to bring that trash here.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/03/shariah-compliant-twitter/ (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/03/shariah-compliant-twitter/)
"Shariah’s adherents demand that no offense be given to them, their religion, deity or prophet. Now, all other things being equal, they are close to ensuring that none will be forthcoming in 140 characters.
If successful, contemporary Islamists will have achieved a major step towards a goal they have been pursuing through other means for nearly two decades: the worldwide prohibition of “defamation of religions” – read, Islam. In particular, since 2005, their proto-Caliphate – the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – has been working through the United Nations on a ten-year plan to impose this restraint concerning freedom of expression on the rest of us.
In 2011, with the active support of the Obama administration, this gambit produced UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. It basically gives the imprimatur of international law to Shariah’s demand that speech, books, videos and now Tweets that “defame” Muslims or their faith be prohibited.
In July of that year, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implicated herself personally in this affront to our First Amendment guarantee of free expression. She launched with the OIC and the European Union the so-called “Istanbul Process,” a tripartite effort to accommodate the Islamic supremacists’ demands that Western nations conform to Resolution 16/18 by adopting domestic strictures against offense-giving to Muslims."
-
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/03/shariah-compliant-twitter/ (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/03/shariah-compliant-twitter/)
"Shariah’s adherents demand that no offense be given to them, their religion, deity or prophet. Now, all other things being equal, they are close to ensuring that none will be forthcoming in 140 characters.
If successful, contemporary Islamists will have achieved a major step towards a goal they have been pursuing through other means for nearly two decades: the worldwide prohibition of “defamation of religions” – read, Islam. In particular, since 2005, their proto-Caliphate – the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – has been working through the United Nations on a ten-year plan to impose this restraint concerning freedom of expression on the rest of us.
In 2011, with the active support of the Obama administration, this gambit produced UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. It basically gives the imprimatur of international law to Shariah’s demand that speech, books, videos and now Tweets that “defame” Muslims or their faith be prohibited.
In July of that year, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implicated herself personally in this affront to our First Amendment guarantee of free expression. She launched with the OIC and the European Union the so-called “Istanbul Process,” a tripartite effort to accommodate the Islamic supremacists’ demands that Western nations conform to Resolution 16/18 by adopting domestic strictures against offense-giving to Muslims."
The 2nd as well as the 1st Amendment are both under attack from enemies, foreign and domestic. I am sincerely concerned that a democratic win will allow the UN to shape US laws and policy.
-
Florida Cracker...
(snip)
Like my neighbor, there are just certain people that I don't choose to engage with. I chose not to on POA, and I choose not to here as well.
For folks who claim they don't care what I say or think, you two certainly waste a lot of energy proving otherwise...
Haters gotta hate... and self righteous gas bags gotta blow gas.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/03/shariah-compliant-twitter/ (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/03/shariah-compliant-twitter/)
"Shariah’s adherents demand that no offense be given to them, their religion, deity or prophet. Now, all other things being equal, they are close to ensuring that none will be forthcoming in 140 characters.
If successful, contemporary Islamists will have achieved a major step towards a goal they have been pursuing through other means for nearly two decades: the worldwide prohibition of “defamation of religions” – read, Islam. In particular, since 2005, their proto-Caliphate – the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – has been working through the United Nations on a ten-year plan to impose this restraint concerning freedom of expression on the rest of us.
In 2011, with the active support of the Obama administration, this gambit produced UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. It basically gives the imprimatur of international law to Shariah’s demand that speech, books, videos and now Tweets that “defame” Muslims or their faith be prohibited.
In July of that year, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implicated herself personally in this affront to our First Amendment guarantee of free expression. She launched with the OIC and the European Union the so-called “Istanbul Process,” a tripartite effort to accommodate the Islamic supremacists’ demands that Western nations conform to Resolution 16/18 by adopting domestic strictures against offense-giving to Muslims."
Thanks for the link to the Op-Ed piece. I'll consider their interpretation as inflammatory as what I read here on PS. Here's another look at 16/18:
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/publications/united-nations-human-rights-council-resolution-16-18 (http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/publications/united-nations-human-rights-council-resolution-16-18)
Resolution 16/18, Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief, was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in March 2011. Among its many specific points, it highlights barriers to religiously tolerant societies and provides recommendations on how these barriers can be overcome. The resolution calls upon all member states to foster religious freedom and pluralism, to ensure religious minorities are properly represented, and to consider adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief. Other recommendations include creating government programs to promote inter-religious tolerance and dialogue, training government employees to be sensitive toward religious sensitivities, and engaging in outreach initiatives.
-
Thanks for the link to the Op-Ed piece. I'll consider their interpretation as inflammatory as what I read here on PS. Here's another look at 16/18:
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/publications/united-nations-human-rights-council-resolution-16-18 (http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/publications/united-nations-human-rights-council-resolution-16-18)
Resolution 16/18, Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief, was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in March 2011. Among its many specific points, it highlights barriers to religiously tolerant societies and provides recommendations on how these barriers can be overcome. The resolution calls upon all member states to foster religious freedom and pluralism, to ensure religious minorities are properly represented, and to consider adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief. Other recommendations include creating government programs to promote inter-religious tolerance and dialogue, training government employees to be sensitive toward religious sensitivities, and engaging in outreach initiatives.
Member states on the the United Nations Human Rights Council include such champions of human rights as:
Algeria
Bangladesh
Botswana
China
Congo
Cuba
El Salvador
Ethiopia
Ghana
Kenya
Morocco
Namibia
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Venezuela
Vietnam
Specifically EXCLUDED from membership is the US and Canada.
So pardon me if I say a big FUCK YOU to anything coming out of this hypocritical piece of shit body of human rights violators.
-
It would probably help to read the actual resolution.
The resolution is all about religious tolerance and freedom (something not actually done very well in many muslim countries). Some might think it targets anti-muslim sentiment, and perhaps that's want the writers really intended, but it should actually be worse for the intolerant muslims (like the pond scum that destroyed ancient buddist statues).
Not specifically addressed is the conflict between some religions and basic human rights.
-
It would probably help to read the actual resolution.
The resolution is all about religious tolerance and freedom (something not actually done very well in many muslim countries). Some might think it targets anti-muslim sentiment, and perhaps that's want the writers really intended, but it should actually be worse for the intolerant muslims (like the pond scum that destroyed ancient buddist statues).
Not specifically addressed is the conflict between some religions and basic human rights.
That's an insult to pond scum.
-
Thanks for the link to the Op-Ed piece... Among its many specific points, it highlights barriers to religiously tolerant societies and provides recommendations on how these barriers can be overcome. The resolution calls upon all member states to foster religious freedom and pluralism, to ensure religious minorities are properly represented, and to consider adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief...
Has it helped stop the wanton slaughter of Christians and non-believers?
-
1- It's been clearly refuted that the Pyramids were NOT built using slave labor. That one's been beat to death and the myth has been busted.
Huh. Who knew. I haven't done a whole lot of studying on the pyramids, might be time to do so.
2- Saddam was not known as a religious man. In fact, I saw an interview were he was asked a very simple question about religion and he declined, saying politely that "I'm not scholar."
His problem was that Saddam twisted the Koran to support whatever it was he wanted to do. Not sure if brainwashing the people would be an appropriate term, but using religion to encourage support to further his agenda.
3- Where are you going?
Just got back 4 hours ago from 5 weeks in Thailand. (Well 4 weeks in Thailand, 1 week in Cambodia). Already planning next trip.
-
The Egyptians kept good records.
I believe none have been found indicating the Jews were ever enslaved there in the first place.
One might expect the destruction of a portion of the Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea would have been worthy of note.
Also, one might expect the Jews wandering in the desert for 40 years to have left some trace, or account beyond scripture.
Not saying all this did NOT happen, just that it's worth looking at biblical accounts with a critical eye.
-
Specifically EXCLUDED from membership is the US and Canada.
So pardon me if I say a big FUCK YOU to anything coming out of this hypocritical piece of shit body of human rights violators.
There was a longstanding policy of the UN adding member states to councils that their nation regularly abused, in the hope that their membership on that council would embarrass their leadership into behaving better.
It never worked.
-
more religious? ah, no. Fewer people are going to Church on Sunday. Put another way, a smaller percentage of this country self-identifies as a member of a particular religion.
I'd love to see numbers that backup your claim for more skepticism of science. You say "Certainly..." ... well, it should be simple for you to back up that statement.
One example is the effort over the last 20 or so years to get creationism and "intelligent design" taught in the schools. That was not going on to the degree it is now, back in the 70's and 80's.
-
I think you have that backward. I think your perversion is intentional. The Arabs were a people in what's known as Ja-haliya (deep ignorance) before Islam. A large majority of the people were illiterate and superstition and polytheism ruled the land. Islam gave rise to the renaissance m'lady.
Who sacked the library at Alexandria? Or perhaps we could compare the number if Islamic Nobel Prize winners who are Muslim as compared to Christians, Jews, non-believers, etc. I think it stands at only two.
Which renaissance? Certainly not the European one.
-
One example is the effort over the last 20 or so years to get creationism and "intelligent design" taught in the schools. That was not going on to the degree it is now, back in the 70's and 80's.
You are going to have to do better than that.
one weak example does not show a certainty.
-
Who sacked the library at Alexandria? Or perhaps we could compare the number if Islamic Nobel Prize winners who are Muslim as compared to Christians, Jews, non-believers, etc. I think it stands at only two.
Which renaissance? Certainly not the European one.
I'm not going to argue a strawman argument.
-
It would probably help to read the actual resolution.
The resolution is all about religious tolerance and freedom (something not actually done very well in many muslim countries). Some might think it targets anti-muslim sentiment, and perhaps that's want the writers really intended, but it should actually be worse for the intolerant muslims (like the pond scum that destroyed ancient buddist statues).
Not specifically addressed is the conflict between some religions and basic human rights.
I'm going to have to do some study on this, because this doesn't agree with me. However there is precedent for destruction of religious idols. I'll have to get back to you on this one.
-
However there is precedent for destruction of religious idols.
Well, then, it's OK.
-
I'm going to have to do some study on this, because this doesn't agree with me. However there is precedent for destruction of religious idols. I'll have to get back to you on this one.
While you're at it, why not research what happened to the American military cemetery in Libya.
-
I'm going to have to do some study on this, because this doesn't agree with me. However there is precedent for destruction of religious idols. I'll have to get back to you on this one.
Is an ancient Buddhist state the equivalent of a "Religious idol" and is that the justification for the Muslim destruction of other religions' statues and other property?
-
The precedent to which I was referring was a story wherein Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) reportedly destroyed 360 idols at the Kahbah upon retaking Mecca. It's my understanding that this action was done in the tradition of Abraham, who also had destroyed idols (at the Kahbah???). I'm still looking into this, as I'm not yet satisfied with what I found thus far and have asked the opinions of others on the matter.
On the face of it, I wouldn't destroy someone else's religious artifacts, but I've also never overtaken an adversary in battle and taken the land. But I have purchased property and seized or disposed of what the former owner/occupants left behind, as is my right to do so.
I do find it amusing how some people who are irreverent anyhow attach sentimentality to other people's things they leave behind.
-
The precedent to which I was referring was a story wherein Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) reportedly destroyed 360 idols at the Kahbah upon retaking Mecca. It's my understanding that this action was done in the tradition of Abraham, who also had destroyed idols (at the Kahbah???). I'm still looking into this, as I'm not yet satisfied with what I found thus far and have asked the opinions of others on the matter.
On the face of it, I wouldn't destroy someone else's religious artifacts, but I've also never overtaken an adversary in battle and taken the land. But I have purchased property and seized or disposed of what the former owner/occupants left behind, as is my right to do so.
I do find it amusing how some people who are irreverent anyhow attach sentimentality to other people's things they leave behind.
I don't think it's amusing that you are so blind to the error (if not evilness) of destroying historical artifacts.
-
I don't think it's amusing that you are so blind to the error (if not evilness) of destroying historical artifacts.
I guess his point is, one man's historical artifact is another man's trash.
-
Concerning the destruction of priceless historic artifacts, I have to wonder about the absolute insecurity and lack of confidence in one's beliefs to warrant the need to destroy ancient treasures.
-
The precedent to which I was referring was a story wherein Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) reportedly destroyed 360 idols at the Kahbah upon retaking Mecca. It's my understanding that this action was done in the tradition of Abraham, who also had destroyed idols (at the Kahbah???). I'm still looking into this, as I'm not yet satisfied with what I found thus far and have asked the opinions of others on the matter.
On the face of it, I wouldn't destroy someone else's religious artifacts, but I've also never overtaken an adversary in battle and taken the land. But I have purchased property and seized or disposed of what the former owner/occupants left behind, as is my right to do so.
I do find it amusing how some people who are irreverent anyhow attach sentimentality to other people's things they leave behind.
Your whole post is convoluted toward justifying what you do based on what someone else has done. Seemed like you might have been considering the nastiness of that way of thinking, but your last sentence shows that you became comfortable with it. Nasty.
-
It's a wonder the Sphinx and pyramids are still there.
-
The precedent to which I was referring was a story wherein Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) reportedly destroyed 360 idols at the Kahbah upon retaking Mecca. It's my understanding that this action was done in the tradition of Abraham, who also had destroyed idols (at the Kahbah???). I'm still looking into this, as I'm not yet satisfied with what I found thus far and have asked the opinions of others on the matter.
On the face of it, I wouldn't destroy someone else's religious artifacts, but I've also never overtaken an adversary in battle and taken the land. But I have purchased property and seized or disposed of what the former owner/occupants left behind, as is my right to do so.
I do find it amusing how some people who are irreverent anyhow attach sentimentality to other people's things they leave behind.
FAIL
You'll probably cheer when your fellows tear down Notre Dame de Paris.
Despicable.
-
Your whole post is convoluted toward justifying what you do based on what someone else has done. Seemed like you might have been considering the nastiness of that way of thinking, but your last sentence shows that you became comfortable with it. Nasty.
In his religion, women and minor children are "things."
-
It would probably help to read the actual resolution.
The resolution is all about religious tolerance and freedom (something not actually done very well in many muslim countries). Some might think it targets anti-muslim sentiment, and perhaps that's want the writers really intended, but it should actually be worse for the intolerant muslims (like the pond scum that destroyed ancient buddist statues).
Not specifically addressed is the conflict between some religions and basic human rights.
I want to address this and it took me some reflection to figure a way to properly communicate to the audience here.
I first want to say that the over-arching principle should be respect for the property of others and their beliefs, even if one doesn't agree. In Islam, forced conversion is not condoned. Nevermind what we hear on the news, I'm telling you from my scholarship and from principles of correctness that "there is no compulsion in Religion (Islam)", reads the Holy Qur'an. It is proper to judge the actions of someone against what they say they believe in. The HQ says that it is abhorrent to say one thing and do another. So if one were to condemn any action it should be done based upon the principles that have been professed and not from our own perspective; 'judge a man on what he says he believes' - Prophet Muhammad, pbuh.
Should an "ancient" Buddhist statue be destroyed? When I first read the passage, it did not agree with me on the face of it. It seemed against what I believe and what my scholarship tells me is proper conduct. But what are the circumstances under which Bob Noel is speaking? It is unknown at this juncture. With the help of our friend Google, we find this (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-11/they-were-destroyed-taliban-now-giant-buddha-statues-bamiyan-have-returned-3-d). I assume this is to what he was referring, an incident that occurred in 2001. Certainly, a turbulent time in Afghanistan and many other parts of the world where antiquities were destroyed (ancient Iraqi libraries and museums, anyone?).
In thought, I likened the situation to a question of would I destroy an ancient Madonna. It depends upon the circumstances. It may also depend upon if one would consider 1500 years to qualify as "ancient" or the fact that the man Siddhata Gotama, known as the Buddha was alive only 2,500 years ago. This is recent from my vantage point.
As I stated in a previous post, I have purchased property and subsequently whatever was left behind was my choice to with the contents as I saw fit. I think there is no error in the rightful owner, inhabitant or controller of a parcel of land or property to do as they please with the remains. However, it may be preferable that if one finds something that may be of value (even if sentimental) to gift it to someone who would appreciate it, assuming that it's transportable. But it is not required.
In the case of the Taliban, they considered they were the absolute ruling party of the land and had the authority to establish religious rule there. If the religion was declared something that is in conflict with the statue, then it would be lawful to remove the relic, as in the case of the story of Prophet Muhammad removing 360 idols from the Kahbah (I have been unable to corroborate if they were removed or destroyed, but destroyed seems much more likely and no one have since missed the idols).
If however, you are on a military campaign and you are the invading force, according to the precepts of the Islamic laws of conduct of war, it is NOT appropriate to destroy or target religious relics in the land that you are invading. This is in keeping with a Hadith regarding respect for your enemy's property, livestock and crop - you may not destroy or harm it (intentionally), not even a single tree. Every effort is to be made so that if peace can be brokered and hostilities ceased, peace will not be disturbed by deep-seated resentment causing the peace to be broken.
Lastly, religion has been corrupted. This includes Islam. There are some symbols that SHOULD come down that worship in this day will only be for The Creator, Lord and Sustainer of all the Worlds. This is a video (https://www.facebook.com/hakeemkhaaliq/videos/10153844353279354/) that I saw recently of a Christian preacher discussing how religion and religious idolatry has become an obstacle for True worship. I hope that you get something of value from it.
Peace.
-
In his religion, women and minor children are "things."
Do not presume to speak for me.
-
I want to address this and it took me some reflection to figure a way to properly communicate to the audience here.
I first want to say that the over-arching principle should be respect for the property of others and their beliefs, even if one doesn't agree. In Islam, forced conversion is not condoned. Nevermind what we hear on the news, I'm telling you from my scholarship and from principles of correctness that "there is no compulsion in Religion (Islam)", reads the Holy Qur'an. It is proper to judge the actions of someone against what they say they believe in. The HQ says that it is abhorrent to say one thing and do another. So if one were to condemn any action it should be done based upon the principles that have been professed and not from our own perspective; 'judge a man on what he says he believes' - Prophet Muhammad, pbuh.
Should an "ancient" Buddhist statue be destroyed? When I first read the passage, it did not agree with me on the face of it. It seemed against what I believe and what my scholarship tells me is proper conduct. But what are the circumstances under which Bob Noel is speaking? It is unknown at this juncture. With the help of our friend Google, we find this (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-11/they-were-destroyed-taliban-now-giant-buddha-statues-bamiyan-have-returned-3-d). I assume this is to what he was referring, an incident that occurred in 2001. Certainly, a turbulent time in Afghanistan and many other parts of the world where antiquities were destroyed (ancient Iraqi libraries and museums, anyone?).
In thought, I likened the situation to a question of would I destroy an ancient Madonna. It depends upon the circumstances. It may also depend upon if one would consider 1500 years to qualify as "ancient" or the fact that the man Siddhata Gotama, known as the Buddha was alive only 2,500 years ago. This is recent from my vantage point.
As I stated in a previous post, I have purchased property and subsequently whatever was left behind was my choice to with the contents as I saw fit. I think there is no error in the rightful owner, inhabitant or controller of a parcel of land or property to do as they please with the remains. However, it may be preferable that if one finds something that may be of value (even if sentimental) to gift it to someone who would appreciate it, assuming that it's transportable. But it is not required.
In the case of the Taliban, they considered they were the absolute ruling party of the land and had the authority to establish religious rule there. If the religion was declared something that is in conflict with the statue, then it would be lawful to remove the relic, as in the case of the story of Prophet Muhammad removing 360 idols from the Kahbah (I have been unable to corroborate if they were removed or destroyed, but destroyed seems much more likely and no one have since missed the idols).
If however, you are on a military campaign and you are the invading force, according to the precepts of the Islamic laws of conduct of war, it is NOT appropriate to destroy or target religious relics in the land that you are invading. This is in keeping with a Hadith regarding respect for your enemy's property, livestock and crop - you may not destroy or harm it (intentionally), not even a single tree. Every effort is to be made so that if peace can be brokered and hostilities ceased, peace will not be disturbed by deep-seated resentment causing the peace to be broken.
Lastly, religion has been corrupted. This includes Islam. There are some symbols that SHOULD come down that worship in this day will only be for The Creator, Lord and Sustainer of all the Worlds. This is a video (https://www.facebook.com/hakeemkhaaliq/videos/10153844353279354/) that I saw recently of a Christian preacher discussing how religion and religious idolatry has become an obstacle for True worship. I hope that you get something of value from it.
Peace.
Let me summarize: you tap dance and tap dance and can't admit that it was wrong to destroy antiquities. You give this lame ass excuse about stuff "left behind". Well, everything over 100 years old has been "left behind" because the original owners are now dead. Would it be ok with you if I took some pages from a koran "left behind" and flushed them down the toilet?
-
I want to address this and it took me some reflection to figure a way to properly communicate to the audience here.
I first want to say that the over-arching principle should be respect for the property of others and their beliefs, even if one doesn't agree. In Islam, forced conversion is not condoned. Nevermind what we hear on the news, I'm telling you from my scholarship and from principles of correctness that "there is no compulsion in Religion (Islam)", reads the Holy Qur'an. It is proper to judge the actions of someone against what they say they believe in. The HQ says that it is abhorrent to say one thing and do another. So if one were to condemn any action it should be done based upon the principles that have been professed and not from our own perspective; 'judge a man on what he says he believes' - Prophet Muhammad, pbuh.
Should an "ancient" Buddhist statue be destroyed? When I first read the passage, it did not agree with me on the face of it. It seemed against what I believe and what my scholarship tells me is proper conduct. But what are the circumstances under which Bob Noel is speaking? It is unknown at this juncture. With the help of our friend Google, we find this (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-11/they-were-destroyed-taliban-now-giant-buddha-statues-bamiyan-have-returned-3-d). I assume this is to what he was referring, an incident that occurred in 2001. Certainly, a turbulent time in Afghanistan and many other parts of the world where antiquities were destroyed (ancient Iraqi libraries and museums, anyone?).
In thought, I likened the situation to a question of would I destroy an ancient Madonna. It depends upon the circumstances. It may also depend upon if one would consider 1500 years to qualify as "ancient" or the fact that the man Siddhata Gotama, known as the Buddha was alive only 2,500 years ago. This is recent from my vantage point.
As I stated in a previous post, I have purchased property and subsequently whatever was left behind was my choice to with the contents as I saw fit. I think there is no error in the rightful owner, inhabitant or controller of a parcel of land or property to do as they please with the remains. However, it may be preferable that if one finds something that may be of value (even if sentimental) to gift it to someone who would appreciate it, assuming that it's transportable. But it is not required.
In the case of the Taliban, they considered they were the absolute ruling party of the land and had the authority to establish religious rule there. If the religion was declared something that is in conflict with the statue, then it would be lawful to remove the relic, as in the case of the story of Prophet Muhammad removing 360 idols from the Kahbah (I have been unable to corroborate if they were removed or destroyed, but destroyed seems much more likely and no one have since missed the idols).
If however, you are on a military campaign and you are the invading force, according to the precepts of the Islamic laws of conduct of war, it is NOT appropriate to destroy or target religious relics in the land that you are invading. This is in keeping with a Hadith regarding respect for your enemy's property, livestock and crop - you may not destroy or harm it (intentionally), not even a single tree. Every effort is to be made so that if peace can be brokered and hostilities ceased, peace will not be disturbed by deep-seated resentment causing the peace to be broken.
Lastly, religion has been corrupted. This includes Islam. There are some symbols that SHOULD come down that worship in this day will only be for The Creator, Lord and Sustainer of all the Worlds. This is a video (https://www.facebook.com/hakeemkhaaliq/videos/10153844353279354/) that I saw recently of a Christian preacher discussing how religion and religious idolatry has become an obstacle for True worship. I hope that you get something of value from it.
Peace.
Under what circumstances would you destroy an ancient Madonna?
-
Would it be ok with you if I took some pages from a koran "left behind" and flushed them down the toilet?
Why, yes it would. Jaybird has made that clear.
-
Under what circumstances would you destroy an ancient Madonna?
The circumstances under which I would condone it: it would have to be established that the person has rightful ownership (and authority) over the item.
It's not likely that I would ever find myself in such a position to destroy a Madonna. If I were to find myself in such a position, as a student of theology, anthropology and history I believe that I have a duty of preservation, so that we can learn as much as possible about it, it's makers and the conditions under which it was crafted that possibly it influences our views on what we think we know of ancient civilization.
-
Let me summarize: you tap dance and tap dance and can't admit that it was wrong to destroy antiquities. You give this lame ass excuse about stuff "left behind". Well, everything over 100 years old has been "left behind" because the original owners are now dead. Would it be ok with you if I took some pages from a koran "left behind" and flushed them down the toilet?
Tap dance isn't something that I'd do. If my attempt to explain in a way that allows comprehension still escapes you, then next time I will try and simplify further. Becky got it, why can't you seem to catch on? Were you the slow kid in school? -:)
ha ha ha ha
-
Tap dance isn't something that I'd do. If my attempt to explain in a way that allows comprehension still escapes you, then next time I will try and simplify further. Becky got it, why can't you seem to catch on? Were you the slow kid in school? -:)
ha ha ha ha
I was being kind to you, giving you the benefit of the doubt and also a way out.
-
I don't think it's amusing that you are so blind to the error (if not evilness) of destroying historical artifacts.
Let me summarize: you tap dance and tap dance and can't admit that it was wrong to destroy antiquities. You give this lame ass excuse about stuff "left behind". Well, everything over 100 years old has been "left behind" because the original owners are now dead.
I was being kind to you, giving you the benefit of the doubt and also a way out.
Bob,
Perhaps I missed your "kindness", it was disguised as coy/crass, my mistake. I am a somewhat sentimental person, but I don't revere objects and cannot arrive at a conclusion of "evil" for destroying a statue hewn of stone, while people are suffering all over the world without the basic necessities of life and without the basic security of hope that they will live to see their children or grandchildren grow up.
Which brings to the next point - "over 100 years old..." should be left as inheritance for they become the rightful owners. If the inheritors (for example) do not take care of it and abandon (a house or land) then anyone may make claim to it as fair game.
I think we've beat this topic to death. I'm ready to move on.