|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
I really don't see much to respond to in your post.
Basically, you've just responded with argumentative opinion to everything I've said. And you respond with speculations, speculating that I'M speculating.
You have your opinion, and have a right to it.
The one thing that annoys me is this statement:
Quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
As I've said elsewhere, all extremists are crazy. I generally look more towards the middle ground, because it's there that you'll most often find the people that have actually weighed both sides.
Implying that I'm an extremist, and that because I more strongly support one side (even though I've also repeatedly voiced criticism of aspects of Bush's current Middle East policy, and acknowledged the shortcomings of Western and American culture as well) that I'm an "extremist", and that I'm closed-minded and haven't "actually weighed both sides".
I've said repeatedly that I initially bought the liberal proaganda, and it was only as I continued to see more coverage of events that the liberal perspective (or in this case, the pro-Muslim portion of the liberal perspective) increasingly rang untrue.
I get really annoyed with the arrogance and presumptuousness of liberals, who dismissively box-categorize those who disagree with them, as "not having weighed" or "extremist".
I, and others, have an equally valid perspective, whether or not you agree with it. Your need to label me and others makes your opinion inherently and pointlessly antagonistic. Slapping labels on the opposition is not detailing, or helping, your case.
____________________________
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
I get really tired of liberal rhetoric on these boards that relentlessly bashes conservatives, and consistently bypasses these facts.
What constitutes "freedom" or "repression" for conservatives and liberals, really depends on which side best represents your views.
As a conservative, I find the liberal advances repressive on MY beliefs.
And I am deeply annoyed by a news media that favors liberals, and relentlessly and biasedly portrays Conservatives as the repressors. It cuts both ways.
Best. Post. Ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Whoah whoah whoah. I was not implying you were an extremist. I wasn't even thinking about that, it was just about the farthest thing from my mind. I was referring to the far left-wing European groups you mentioned.
Just wanted to clear that up. Otherwise, I'm not sure what else you expect of me. You make some pretty strong comments, and seem to draw a very distinct line between liberals and conservatives in this matter. For example, when you refer to "liberals", you call them simply that, making no seperation between the media, the extremists or the plain, average, everday middle-area people. Please understand, that's not intended as an insult, I just think it's a lot more grey than black or white. That's not to say you think it's a black and white issue, I'm just getting that kind of impression from your posts.
Last edited by Animalman; 2004-01-30 5:31 AM.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
P.S-you stole my signature bit, there.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
P.S-you stole my signature bit, there.
No, I responded to it.
I find it a presumptuous bit of arrogance that presumes if someone holds an opinion you don't like, that they must be this and that, and if they only believe what YOU believe, they'd be a fulfilled and intelligent person.
It's an arrogant slap in the face you attach to every one of your posts.
Your arrogant, presumed superiority.
Quote:
signature, Animalman:
Until you stop hating things and stop picking them apart, until you realize and embrace the quality of things around you, you'll just be an unhappy man. Until you are happy with your own life you can never see the greatness and potential in things and people. You will continue to judge them in through the eyes of a bitter, cynical nitpicker. For your own sake come out of those nature shadows and free yourself, embrace individuality and the unique voice within yourself.
best.post.ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I find "simplistic" a rather insulting characterization for a view that is so widely held among pundits, scholars and Journalists writing about the situation in Europe and the Middle East.
So these pundits, scholars and journalists believe that Europe opposes U.S action simply because they want to usurp our position there?
I'd image they would find that insulting, unless I'm misinterpreting you.
Actually, on second look, this annoys me too.
It assumes, again, insultingly, that I've either misinterpreted or deliberately misrepresented what they've written and said, and adding to the insult, that they'd be pissed off by the context in which I quoted them.
Read their writings !
More presumptuous, insulting arrogance on your part.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
There are other side issues, sure. But that's what it ultimately boils down to.
Ah, ok then, so why is the suggestion that these "side issues"(as you call them) exist so insulting, when even you, yourself, admit they do?
Because you can get lost in the details and miss the major thrust of what is occurring between Europe, the Middle East, and the United States. Which I attempted to focus on.
The side issues themselves are not insulting, your dismissing my evaluation of the core issue as "simplistic" is what's insulting.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I actually mean both.
What "self serving" reasons would the general civilian population have to be opposed to U.S action?
I believe I'd focused in my comment on European anti-American opinion originating from liberal activist groups and liberal governments in Europe, a popular attitude cultivated to support attempts of the European Union to strengthen itself by usurping U.S. diplomatic influence in the Middle East.
But if you insist, on the smaller issue of what "selfish motivation" Europeans in the streets have for anti-Americanism, it's to scapegoat the U.S. to rationalize the failures they see in their own government, and believe in the superiority of their own system. Everyone wants to believe their culture is the best culture.
But anti-Americanism is less something the European population chooses, it is more something that is fed to them, by their media and government, and activists.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
But more so in my comment, I was referring to leftist activist groups, and the left-leaning media, and the many pro-Muslim voices in The Guardian and elsewhere, which are obviously not leftist, but combine in a shared song of slanted anti-Americanism, that absolutely refuses to even give passing counter-perspective to the fact that the United States has a case for its war on terror, and an equal case for invading Iraq.
How exactly could they "give passing counter-perspective"? If you have an opinion on something, that's your opinion. Sometimes it just isn't going to coincide with someone elses. Would you expect them to be swayed by your argument, because you might think the war was justified? I don't see either side backing down here, and probably rightfully so. If this was such a clearcut issue, it wouldn't be one of the most heavily debated topics in the world today.
I was speaking of the European news media, not individuals. It is their job to provide both sides. Editorials or public forums are another issue.
But my own samplings of BBC, DW News, The Guardian, and other Euro-news, is that it's one-sided and anti-American, and the argument for war in Iraq is never even made. I feel it is barely made in the liberal press of the United States, and how much less so, in Europe and the rest of the world ? No wonder so much of the world opposes the Iraq war. They've been given virtually no counter-argument.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
As Kagan said in an earlier interview(based on his observation, working in Europe), the case for invasion of Iraq is not even given token mention in European news, so of course the European public has a negative opinion of the Iraq War.
I can't testify to what is and isn't given credence in European news(I doubt anyone could really determine that, not even Kagan), but Europe isn't made up of third world countries. Information is available to those who wish to find it. Who's to say that the European case is given mention here in America? We're certainly no more or less guilty of media slanting than they are. The fact is, non-partisan reporting doesn't exist, despite what those reporting might say.
Well, I can't testify with absolute authority on European media and popular opinion. But I do have some idea, from watching BBC and other European sources I mentioned, and hearing panel discussions of scholars and journalists and leaders who frequent these places, that I see interviewed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I find it a presumptuous bit of arrogance that presumes if someone holds an opinion you don't like, that they must be this and that, and if they only believe what YOU believe, they'd be a fulfilled and intelligent person.
It's an arrogant slap in the face you attach to every one of your posts.
Your arrogant, presumed superiority.
Huh?
I'm afraid you're way off base here. That signature came from my dealings with Pig Iron's alternate ID, Rue De Nocturne. He showed up out of the blue one day and started insulting several people(namely me, Uschi, Jaburg, and a few others) on the off topic/offensive post board, for no apparent reason. When I responded to him, he gave me that little diatribe, which was actually a lot longer than what I posted(the signature space is limited, though, so I had to edit to fit). I was so baffled at how somehow could take what we said on the off topic/offensive post forum so seriously(when the entire point of that forum is to goof off and say anything), I assumed it must be some trollish alternate ID of MrJLA, or someone like that. So, to get back at him, I put his post in my signature, figuring that if I rubbed it in his face enough he'd go away eventually and stop harrassing me, which he did. I kept it because I'm too lazy to change it, just like I'm too lazy to repick my avatar(which I'm assuming was reset during the move).
So, no, it's not my presumed superiority, it's just a simple, harmless, inside joke. I doubt Pig Iron takes offense, though if he does I'll gladly remove it. I think we've all moved on.
Quote:
Actually, on second look, this annoys me too.
It assumes, again, insultingly, that I've either misinterpreted or deliberately misrepresented what they've written and said, and adding to the insult, that they'd be pissed off by the context in which I quoted them.
Read their writings !
More presumptuous, insulting arrogance on your part.
What the hell?
Ok, Dave, I've tried really hard to be diplomatic here. I've chosen my words extremely carefully, I've been as unforthcoming as I know how, and I've even backtracked to give you the benefit of the doubt by specifically stating that I don't mean or intend to assume something about you(see the post before my "you stole my signature" joke).
Yet, time and time again, you say I'm insulting you, or implying that you're trying to spin things. It seems that we can't have an intelligent, adult conversation without it somehow turning into a personal attack. I don't know why you're so quick to assume that I'm assuming, but believe me, I try very hard not to do that.
I'm not insulting you. I'm not assuming anything about you other than what you specifically state. I'm not claiming moral superiority here. I'm sorry if you're taking it that way, but I really dont' know what else to say. I'm not going to just agree with everything you say word for word, simply to avoid confrontation and the possiblity that I might offend you. Unless you come right out and say something about me, as you're doing here, I never assume you're implying something, and so I'm rarely, if ever, insulted by the suggestion of an opposing view. I'm not taking what you claim about Islam as something to form an opinion of you on. They're just opinions(just words, really), and this is just a message board. Therefore, I have no reason to belittle you.
To be honest, I like debating with you because you're clearly intelligent, well read, and you don't back down from your stance on an argument. I respect that. As long as it's well stated, I have no problem disagreeing with somebody. It's only when the opinion is unfounded, and ignorant that my tolerance shortens. In that sense, yes, I suppose I do have some small inherent belief of superiority, but I think we all do. You wouldn't accept that the Klu Klux Klan or the Nazis were morally justified, right(I think you've already said that you didn't, otherwise I wouldn't assume)? Neither would I. And why is that? Because the only justification they ever give is something along the lines of "because we're better than the blacks, jews, hispanics and asians", which, by the values of our society is clearly wrong. So, we disregard them.
...anyway, I'm getting way off track here. Back to my statement. All I was trying to say was that there might be another interpretation to what scholars might say in regards to Europe's stance on U.S action. Not that you had misinterpreted them, and certainly not that you were deliberately misrepresenting them. Only that there might be more to it than what you had described.
Why did I feel bringing that up was necessary? Because, in your argument, you didn't say that "one of the reasons why Europe opposes America" or even "the main reason why Europe opposes America", you just listed it as the reason. Do I assume when reading that that you don't consider other reasons? No. You just didn't mention it, so I wanted to. I didn't really understand what was so insulting about that, but I apologize if you took it as an insult. It was certainly not my intention.
By the way, if you'd like me to read some of those writings, I'd certainly give them a look. I looked through my old Time magazines for that article, but it seems that it was after I cancelled my subscription, so I'll have to go to the university library.
Quote:
But if you insist, on the smaller issue of what "selfish motivation" Europeans in the streets have for anti-Americanism, it's to scapegoat the U.S. to rationalize the failures they see in their own government, and believe in the superiority of their own system. Everyone wants to believe their culture is the best culture.
But anti-Americanism is less something the European population chooses, it is more something that is fed to them, by their media and government, and activists.
I suppose I can agree with that. I also think there are those who look at how much American culture has invaded other nations, "Americanizing" them(especially third world countries), and resent that. And, of course, I think there are simply those who believe that war is always wrong, and that by invading Iraq, America is just "sinking to their level"(the "two wrongs don't make a right" thinkers).
I, myself, can see where someone might be coming from with some of those viewpoints. While I certainly don't hate America, I do regret the number of people we've assimilated into our culture, at the cost of theirs.
Quote:
I was speaking of the European news media, not individuals. It is their job to provide both sides. Editorials or public forums are another issue.
Do you think our media provides both sides? Honest question, here, not a loaded one. I'm not sure we do. Afterall, the media is just a bunch of people, and people have biases and slants like everyone else.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
Animalman, I appreciate your polite and sincere response. And as has often been said, it's sometimes difficult to tell whether a posted written statement is made with a sentiment of sincerity, sarcasm, contempt or whatever.
If you say you meant no insult, that's good enough for me, and I apologize for perhaps over-reacting.
I hope you can see, looking through your previous comments that I specified, how I was able to interpret them the way I did.
Particularly this one:
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I find "simplistic" a rather insulting characterization for a view that is so widely held among pundits, scholars and Journalists writing about the situation in Europe and the Middle East.
So these pundits, scholars and journalists believe that Europe opposes U.S action simply because they want to usurp our position there?
I'd image they would find that insulting, unless I'm misinterpreting you.
I mean, to say that these journalists would find my comments insulting... normally I would have asked you for clarification, but that seemed pretty clear in its harshness.
But you've already answered that, and I don't want to continue to rake you over the coals for something you've already clarified and said was not meant as insult. I only repeat it to clarify my own reaction, and hope you can see my point of view on it, why I interpreted it as I did.
Regarding your signature quote, I see it as less confrontational now, after you explained the story behind it.
It certainly wasn't related to me.
The "stole my signature" joke you made, I actually didn't get at all previously that it was intended as a joke.
Again, it's sometimes difficult to see the tone with which something was said. If you said that in the "Superhero Sex" topic, I might have gotten that it was a joke.
But this has been a more consistently serious topic, and in the context of your other remarks, I wasn't expecting humor. Again, clearer now, with explanation.
Quote:
Animalman said:
...anyway, I'm getting way off track here. Back to my statement. All I was trying to say was that there might be another interpretation to what scholars might say in regards to Europe's stance on U.S action. Not that you had misinterpreted them, and certainly not that you were deliberately misrepresenting them. Only that there might be more to it than what you had described.
Why did I feel bringing that up was necessary? Because, in your argument, you didn't say that "one of the reasons why Europe opposes America" or even "the main reason why Europe opposes America", you just listed it as the reason. Do I assume when reading that that you don't consider other reasons? No. You just didn't mention it, so I wanted to. I didn't really understand what was so insulting about that, but I apologize if you took it as an insult. It was certainly not my intention.
Okay, that's much clearer than in your previous posts, and the point is well taken.
I thought of posting the Charles Krauthammer article from TIME, to save you the trouble of going to the library. I used to just click-and drag stuff from www.time.com , but now you have to pay for archived articles, which is a pain. But if I feel energetic, I'll manually type and post his one-page editorial here.
Quote:
Animalman said:
I also think there are those who look at how much American culture has invaded other nations, "Americanizing" them(especially third world countries), and resent that. And, of course, I think there are simply those who believe that war is always wrong, and that by invading Iraq, America is just "sinking to their level"(the "two wrongs don't make a right" thinkers).
Well, I see your point in the first part of this statement. That America can be resented not only for it's military policy, but also for its economic trade policy, and for its exports of culture that can threaten the native culture of places it is exported to.
An example of that is syndicated television programs. It's actually cheaper for a place like, say, India, to inexpensively purchase big-budget Hollywood programs, that are arguably not only cheaper, but better quality than anything India can natively produce.
And there was a period for several decades where India and many other third-world countries had a very high ratio of American TV programs, and that definitely stifles the preservation of native Indian culture, or other third-world nations where American programs dominate. India has since enacted laws that a certain percentage of programs broadcast now have to be natively produced in India.
So again, your point is made, that there are many factors that influence European thought, at the E.U. policy level, at the national level in each European country, and at the man-on-the-street level. And those factors can be military, economic, or cultural.
But having said that, I still think this is the dominant factor in French/German/Russian defiance of U.S. policy in Iraq, that they are playing to Arab resentment of U.S. policy, while simultaneously seeking to expand their own economic and diplomatic interests.
Quote:
Animalman said:
I, myself, can see where someone might be coming from with some of those viewpoints. While I certainly don't hate America, I do regret the number of people we've assimilated into our culture, at the cost of theirs.
At the cost of culture lost by U.S. culture exports that dominate in their own countries?
Or that they lose by immigrating to the United States?
The latter case, I fully expect them to assimilate within a generation, and have their first loyalty be to the culture of the United States.
For example, I am of English, Irish, Scottish, Dutch, German and Cherokee ancestry, and I have a level of pride in my heritage from each of these. But I'm first and foremost an American.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I was speaking of the European news media, not individuals. It is their job to provide both sides. Editorials or public forums are another issue.
Do you think our media provides both sides? Honest question, here, not a loaded one. I'm not sure we do. After all, the media is just a bunch of people, and people have biases and slants like everyone else.
I actually think for American media, our news perspective is heavily influenced by foreign views of the U.S.
Especially up until 9-11, the media (which I've clearly said repeatedly is very liberal-dominated, about 80% liberal, according to every study I've ever seen of reporters) was almost apologetic about saying anything patriotic. I do feel that whether conservative, liberal or arguably neutral, the media tends to choose a "good side" and a "bad side" on a given issue reported, and consistently portray one side as favorable and right, and the other side as wrong, on just about any given story.
But despite that bias, you can still look through many sources and, with a little digging to find the less popular perspective, find perspectives of both sides.
You can read the New York Times and see one side, and read the Wall Street Journal and get the other, even though, in the specific example of news regarding Bush and Iraq, I think it's a very disproportionately small number of media sources in the U.S. --reporting about our government, our President !-- that give a pro-U.S. perspective.
What I object to is that as small a representation of the pro-Bush perspective is here, the pro-argument is virtually non-existent outside the U.S. Except for Blair's government in the U.K., I never hear ANYONE outside the U.S. argue the American perspective in Iraq. Not even the BBC.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
From TIME magazine, January 12, 2004 issue:
A FAREWELL TO ALLIES
Now they are neutrals. America can stand tall without them.
by Charles Krauthammer
Within days after Saddam's capture, France Germany and Russia announced their willingness to consider relieving Iraq's crushing debt burden.
This was no burst of conscience about repayable billions lent Saddam to squander on grotesque palaces and grotesque weapons. This was the wind shifting America's way in Iraq --and the neutrals adjusting course accordingly.
But this is not the beginning of a Great Conciliation. These countries were no help before the war, during the war, or after the war. France tried to rally the world to stop the U.S. from deposing Saddam. Russia was sending night-vision goggles to Saddam. Not one lifted a finger to help the postwar reconstruction.
Some Americans are bitter about this, others merely confused. Democrats think it's our fault. They charge Bush with mishandling relations with the allies. Theirs is an etmological problem.
Events have overtaken vocabulary.
These countries are not allies.
It is sheer laziness that counts France and Germany as old allies, sheer naivete that counts Russia as a new one.
It should not surprise us. Countries have different interests. For a half-century, anti-communism papered over these differences, but communism is gone.
Europe lives by Lord Palmerston's axiom: nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests.
Alliance with America is no longer a permanent interest. The postwar alliance that once structured and indeed defined our world is dead. It died in 2003.
To be sure, there are some countries that see their ultimate security as dependent upon the international order maintained by the U.S. These are not insignificant countries, and over time they may become the kernal of an entirely new alliance system. They include Anglo-Saxons, (Britain, Australia), and a few Europeans (Italy, Spain, Poland, and other newly-liberated East European countries). They understand that the sinews of stability --free commerce, open sea lanes, regional balances of power, non-proliferation, deterrence-- are provided overwhelmingly by the American collossus.
They understand that without it, the world collapses into chaos and worse. They believe in the American umbrella, and are committed to helping the umbrella holder.
As for the rest, they are content to leave America out there twisting in the wind. They do not wish us destroyed -they are not crazy-- but they are not unhappy to see us distracted, diminished, and occasionally defeated.
When the Iraq war began, the French Foreign Minister refused a reporter's question, as to which side he wanted to win. This was not a mere expression of pique. When the existential enemy was Nazism or communism, the world rallied to the American protector.
But Arab-Islamic radicalism is different.
Its hatreds are wide, but its strategic focus is America. Its monument is Ground Zero.
Ground Zero is not in Paris.
The neutrals know that perhaps in the long run they too will be threatened. For now, however, they are quite content to see the U.S. carry the fight against the new barbarians. The U.S. was attacked, it will carry the fight regardless.
For much of the world, the war on terrorism offers not just a free ride, but a strategic bonus: American diminishment.
France unabashedly declares that American dominance is intolerable, and the world should by right be not unipolar, but multipolar.
Much of the rest of the world believes it, but does not have France's nerve to say it.
The hard fact is that war on many fronts is consuming and containing American power.
While America spends blood and treasure in faraway places like Baghdad, China builds the economic and military superpower of the future.
Europe knits itself into another continental collosus.
And the rest of the world goes about its business.
Meanwhile, the Americans take on the axis of evil one by one.
In the 1990's, containment of America took on a different form. With the acquiescence of the Democrat administration uncomfortable with American power, silk ropes were fashioned to tie down Gulliver: a myriad of treaties, protocols and prohibitions on everything from carbon emissions to land mines to nuclear testing. With the advent of the Bush administration, contemptuous of these restraints, that would no longer work.
Enter al-Qaida.
The neutrals may wax poetic about America's sins, but they do not hate us. The problem is not emotion, but calculation. At root, it is a matter of interests. Interests diverge. No use wailing about it. The grand alliances are dead. With a few trusted friends, America must carry on alone.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
Quote:
Top Saudi Cleric Assails Terrorists
42 minutes ago
By RAWYA RAGEH, Associated Press Writer
MOUNT ARAFAT, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia's top cleric called on Muslims around the world Saturday to forsake terrorism, saying those who claim to be holy warriors were an affront to the faith.
AP Photo
Two Million Complete Muslim Pilgrimage
(AP Video)
In a sermon that was remarkable not only for its strong language but also its timing — at the peak of the annual hajj — Sheik Abdul Aziz al-Sheik told 2 million pilgrims that terrorists were giving their enemies an excuse to criticize Muslim nations.
"Is it holy war to shed Muslim blood? Is it holy war to shed the blood of non-Muslims given sanctuary in Muslim lands? Is it holy war to destroy the possessions of Muslims?" he asked.
A large number of the victims of suicide attacks in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq (news - web sites) and elsewhere have been been Muslims.
Al-Sheik, who is widely respected in the Arab world as the foremost cleric in the country considered the birthplace of Islam, spoke at Namira Mosque in a televised sermon watched by millions of Muslims in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
The mosque is close to Mount Arafat, where the pilgrims converged Saturday for the climax of their annual trek. This year's hajj has been carried out amid heightened security after a year of terror attacks in the kingdom.
In speaking of terrorists who killed fellow Muslims, al-Sheik was clearly referring to the Prophet Muhammad's final sermon, delivered on Mount Arafat 14 centuries ago.
It contained the line: "Know that every Muslim is a Muslim's brother, and the Muslims are brethren. Fighting between them should be avoided."
Al-Sheik also criticized the international community, accusing it of attacking Wahhabism, the sect whose strict interpretation of Islam is followed in Saudi Arabia.
"This country is based on this religion and will remain steadfast on it," he said.
"Islam forbids all forms of injustice, killing without just cause, treachery ... hijacking of planes, boats and transportation means," he said.
Saudi Arabia came under Western pressure after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens.
The Saudi government conducted a crackdown on extremist groups after suicide bombers attacked housing compounds inhabited by foreigners in May. Saudi and U.S. officials blamed the attack, and a similar suicide bombing in November, on groups linked to al-Qaida, which is led by the Saudi-born Osama bin Laden (news - web sites).
On Thursday, suspected terrorists shot dead six Saudi security personnel in a shootout in a house in suburban Riyadh.
In total last year, bombings in Saudi Arabia killed 51 people, including eight Americans. Saudi and U.S. officials have blamed the bin Laden's al-Qaida network. Bin Laden is a Saudi exile.
U.S. officials have been encouraging Saudis to crack down on financing for terrorism via religious charities and curtail teaching of religious extremism in schools as well as mount a campaign to undercut popular support al-Qaida.
Liberal intellectuals in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also called for such revisions in the teaching of Islam in schools and mosques.
Governments in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan have taken steps toward purging school books of terms offensive to other religions, and reformers argue that change should start by lessening the religious grip on education.
Al-Sheik warned against "changing the religion's basics" in school curricula.
"The minds of youth in the Islamic nation need to be shielded with Islamic sharia (law) and good manners and deeds. The nation's future generations will only be reformed by what reformed the past generations," he said.
Pilgrim Mustafa al-Shawwaf, a Canadian of Syrian origin, said he agreed that terrorists had tarnished Islam. He criticized Muslim fundamentalists, including the Wahhabis, for practicing an exclusive form of the faith.
"Such rigidity of thought needs to be changed," he said.
The pilgrims arrived at Mount Arafat in the early hours of Saturday. Worshippers of all ages and origins, moving slowly, shoulder-to-shoulder, shaded themselves from the sun with white umbrellas, chanting in unison "at thy service, at thy service, oh God."
Emergency workers directed the crowd as it converged 12 miles southwest of Mecca, in a ritual believed to represent the Day of Judgment, when Islam says every person will stand before Allah, or God, and answer for his deeds.
Temperatures approached 86 degrees. The sunshine made parasols a popular purchase at $1.30 each, and street vendors sold fruit, prayer mats and drinks. Along the path to Mount Arafat, sprinklers mounted on poles cooled worshippers. Free water and milk were handed out.
"This is the worst day for the devil, when he sees thousands of Muslims gathered in such a show of force and piety," said Egyptian Abdel Aziz al-Jezairi.
Fatima Farouk, a Nigerian, said that despite the demanding journey, she was thrilled "because after Mount Arafat, you're almost promised heaven."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
GREAT MOMENTS IN THE ANCIENT TRADITION OF ISLAMIC LAW:
-- IranPressNews
14 year old boy died on Thursday, November 11th, after having received 85 lashes; according to the ruling of the Mullah judge of the public circuit court in the town of Sanandadj he was guilty of breaking his fast during the month of Ramadan.
Someone in their personal web-log attempted to tabulate all the foreign civilians killed in Iraq, in the name of Islam:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/055212.php#more
That gives some idea that this is more than a backlash against the "evil imperialist" United States.
These are names from all over the world, many from Islamic countries.
Especially self-incriminating is their murder of Margaret Hassan, a European woman married to an Iraqi, who devoted 25 years of her life to helping and improving the condition of the Iraqi people. Brutally murdered.
The list also doesn't include the roughly 1200 U.S. soldiers who have been killed (to date) since March 2003, and the 20,000 Iraqi citizens the al Qaida/Iraqi-resistance have killed.
The list also doesn't include the roughly 500 videotaped beheadings of Russian soldiers and civilians in Chechnya, already going on before al Qaida became active in Iraq.
Most disconcerting to me is how much of the Muslim world endorses these tactics and cheers them on. From Saudi clerics encouraging the jihad slaughter of Americans, to Al Jazeera distortedly whipping up anti-American anger in the Arab world, to the 30% to 50% population of Islamic countries who are boycotting American products and businesses.
I leave it to others to determine how well this reflects on the inherently benevolent and peaceful nature of Islam.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236 Likes: 15
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236 Likes: 15 |
Quote:
was so baffled at how somehow could take what we said on the off topic/offensive post forum so seriously(when the entire point of that forum is to goof off and say anything), I assumed it must be some trollish alternate ID of MrJLA, or someone like that.
Good grief.
Some of you guys really do obsess over me.
"Are you eating it...or is it eating you?" [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg) [/center] [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg) [/center]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
I know this is rather old news, but I was just re-reading the thread and came upon this:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
The Inquisition, under the Roman Catholic Church, was an abberation and temporary corruption of the church, where the average Christian didn't have access to Bible teachings themselves, and had to rely on the interpretation of a corrupt clergy,
This isn't true. Whilst you're correct regarding the corruption of the Church through the inquistions, their main problem wasn't false doctrine. It was their uses of torture and silencing enemies of the Papist (a certain one who's name escapes me) that made it shady and amoral. Other than that, however, most inquisitions (and I stress the word "most") were used legitimately for teaching for people. There's no evidence or reason to believe that the inquisitors taught false Biblical knowledge. The corrupt nature of the Vatican, at the time, involved Greed, not manipulation.
You see, the real problem with the Vatican back then wasn't actually religous-based in nature. Before the inquisitions became Vatican jurisdicted, The Spanish Inquisition, plus a few others I can't remember, were mainly the only true cases of religious fanaticism. The other officially Catholic founded inquisitions were used more to actually convert heretics rather than torture them—And I do mean that in the honest sense of the word. Torquemada wanted to hurt people, this wasn’t the case with every inquisition. Most were used for counseling and teaching, the closest thing that came to torture in the other inquisitions was actually pretty standard discipline for the modern times according to secularists and Christians alike. I’m not justifying their use of coerciveness mind you, but whatever form of torture used by the inquisitions not run by Torquemada in any inquisition at the time was a far cry from the SI’s methods. Lashings, water, stuff of that nature. Although there did remain acts of torture that were indeed heinous for select inquisitions--Only one I know of was endorsed by the Church. Moreover, those acts weren't monopolized by the Catholic Church, the methods were used by government secularists and Catholic Inquisitors alike. The difference here is that the Church founded Inquisitions were actually more merciful. Again though, the point is not to say the Church should be given amnesty, but to show that it was the sway of the times rather than a mere fanatical movement. Stones in a glass house.
Simply stating the intent of some inquisitions and using the ad hominem argument of 'They made people suffer! They're the scourge of the 10-15th century' is a propagandist knee-jerk that fails to dispel the existence of the Vatican's peers in terms of corporate power. All other governments had resorted to torture, and, in fact, are the ones who gave the inquisitors lessons. The only difference between the policy of each of those corporations was the Church's more merciful codes of conduct. And as far as executions go, burning heretics was a way of expelling corporate enemies; in reality, true religion didn't really have anything to do with these atrocities except that they were used as a smoke-screen. Furthermore, I’d like to reitterate that the majority of inquisitors were not only more tame in their practices of coerciveness, but also in their intent. While I’m sure inquisitors existed that had a passion for hurting people, the more consuming use of the inquisitions carried honest intent to convert heretics for the well-being of those held civilians and restraint in their painful process of interrogation/rehabilitation. Does that make it right? No. But by large margins, that makes the situation better for their case rather than the malicious intent of the parallel governments seeking to execute violators under false pretenses of law.
So in the end, the problem wasn't merely religion, but the sway of the times and its penchant for brutal interrogation. With the Vatican being more of a governing body than strictly a religious leader, it fell victim to secularism.
Okay. I got really off-track. Sorry. I wanted my reference to the inquisitions to be brief, but then I realized it lacked a bit of necessary detail and then it snow-balled. In any event, my main point is that it's flawed reasoning to label the teachings of the Church, in the middle ages, as faulty simply because the Church only allowed admittance after being given dowaries and because of the injustice of a numerous amount of the inquisitions.
Quote:
which led to the Reformation, begun my Martin Luther in 1517, and other reformers.
The reformation of the Catholic Church? That was spear-headed by Ignatius I believe. Not Luther......Luther wasn't even Catholic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
The reformation of the Catholic Church? That was spear-headed by Ignatius I believe. Not Luther......Luther wasn't even Catholic.
Luther was an ordained Catholic Priest, A member of the Order of St. Augustin.
Luther was ordained to the priesthood in 1507. The precise date is uncertain. A strange oversight, running through three centuries, placed the date of his ordination and first Mass on the same day, 2 May, an impossible coincidence. Kostlin, who repeated it (Luther's Leben, I, 1883, 63) drops the date altogether in his latest edition. Oerger fixes on 27 February. This allows the unprecedented interval of more than two months to elapse between the ordination and first Mass. Could he have deferred his first Mass on account of the morbid scrupulosity, which played such a part in the later periods of his monastic life?
Source: The Catholic Encyclopedia
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Ah. I see.
Still though, I'm not sure if Dave meant the reformation of the Vatican or simply creation of the Protestant sect.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Ah. I see.
Still though, I'm not sure if Dave meant the reformation of the Vatican or simply creation of the Protestant sect.
I mean the Protestant Reformation that Luther began, when he broke away from the Catholic Church.
You make some good points, Pariah, about the bloody times in which the Inquisition occurred. Where it was not just the Catholic Church that used these methods of torture, but the (more secular) provincial rulers, and the invading Muslims as well.
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
The Inquisition, under the Roman Catholic Church, was an abberation and temporary corruption of the church, where the average Christian didn't have access to Bible teachings themselves, and had to rely on the interpretation of a corrupt clergy,
Clarifying my own statements about Catholic leadership "corrupting scripture", it is a simple fact that there were not a lot of Bibles in that period, since Bibles were handwritten in that era, and largely inaccessible to the average person in Europe.
It was not until creation of moveable type, printing and the Gutenberg Bible that the Bible became accessible to the average person, and Catholic Church's representation of scripture could be weighed for accuracy. And allow Catholics to put an end to corruption among their own.
Some specific examples of "corruption" as I refer to it include extorting sums of money out of people, threatening to cause a dead or dying relative to remain in purgatory for eternity unless it was paid. (Pergutory is not something listed in the Bible, Protestants do not beleive in it.)
Or accusing a person of heretical crimes to seize their property.
Likewise, many other things said to be "in the name of God" to direct people in service to the Catholic Church were not necessarily true to Biblical scripture.
In the absence of easily accessible mass-produced Bibles, the accuracy of such doctrine was difficult for the average person to know, and they could more easily be misled.
No doubt there were corrupt Catholic clergy who manipulated people for power and profit, and simultaneously also Catholic leaders who were true to the Bible and their faith as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
The issue of moderate Islam has come up again in the press following the attacks in London. Politicians have been pressing moderate Muslims to rein in extremists.
Tony Blair had to remind Britons that the vast majority of Muslims in Britain were peace-loving and law-abidng, fearing a backlash against Britain's Muslim community following the bombings.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Burger King restaurants in the UK were forced to remove and replace ice cream containers across the country because a Muslim man said the swirly image too closely resembles the inscription for Allah and is therefor sacreligious, reports the Scotsman. Burger King said the image on the lid of an ice cream desert is supposed to look like a spinning ice cream cone. But Rashad Akhtar of High Wycombe said he wants to put a Jihad on BK for the snafu, or at the very least a boycott. "This is my jihad. How can you say it is a spinning swirl? If you spin it one way to the right you are offending Muslims," he said.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Then go back and live in the Middle East, dude!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Would-Be FDNY Chaplain Resigns After Sept. 11 RemarksNEW YORK — An imam who was scheduled to be sworn in Friday as the second Muslim chaplain in the New York Fire Department's history resigned that day after he made headlines for questioning whether 19 hijackers really were responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks (search), FOX News has confirmed.
The imam, Intikab Habib, had suggested a broader conspiracy may have brought down the World Trade Center, put a hole in the Pentagon and left about 3,000 people dead.
"The fire department this morning received the resignation of Imam Intikab Habib from his position as FDNY chaplain," the FDNY commissioner said in a statement Friday. "Based on comments he made to Newsday, Imam Intikab Habib would have been unable to effectively serve in the role he was appointed to."
An hour before Imam Intikab Habib was to be officially sworn in, Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta told reporters: "It became clear to him that he would have difficulty functioning as an FDNY chaplain. ... There has been no prior indication that he held those views."
In a telephone interview with Newsday Thursday, Habib, 30, a native of Guyana who studied Islam in Saudi Arabia, said he doubted the U.S. government's official story blaming 19 hijackers associated with Al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden
His doubt apparently stemmed from video and news reports widely disseminated in the Muslim community.
"I've heard professionals say that nowhere ever in history did a steel building come down with fire alone," he told Newsday. "It takes two or three weeks to demolish a building like that. But it was pulled down in a couple of hours. Was it 19 hijackers who brought it down, or was it a conspiracy?"
Some have blamed the destruction of the trade center on a U.S. or Israeli plot designed to whip up support for attacks on Muslim countries. In 2003, New Jersey eliminated Amiri Baraka's position as poet laureate after he wrote a poem suggesting Israel had advance knowledge of the attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Muslims win toy pigs ban.
NOVELTY pig calendars and toys have been banned from a council office — in case they offend Muslim staff.
Workers in the benefits department at Dudley Council, West Midlands, were told to remove or cover up all pig-related items, including toys, porcelain figures, calendars and even a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet.
Bosses acted after a Muslim complained about pig-shaped stress relievers delivered to the council in the run-up to the Islamic festival of Ramadan. Muslims are barred from eating pork in the Koran and consider pigs unclean.
Councillor Mahbubur Rahman, a practising Muslim, backed the ban. He said: “It’s a tolerance of people’s beliefs.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
That seems fair since they are so tolerant of christianity and western sociiety.... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Religion in general doesn't breed tolerance (not counting Buddhism, as its aligned more with general spirituality). It assumes that they possess information vital to the survival of the human race, and that they have a limited time in which to tell everyone.
The general view of the Middle East as a somewhat backwards part of the world only sheds light on our assumptions about another culture. If you disregard either cultures glaring problems--overconsumption in the West versus adherence to dogma in the East, to name two--there wouldn't be all that much that separates them. Both sides believe they are superior, right, and have the right to enforce their views by most any means.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
PJP said:
That seems fair since they are so tolerant of christianity and western sociiety....
actually, they acknowledge Jesus as a prophet of Islam (just not a divine being in his own right).
Islamic people generally have a problem with Western countries over the religion. but since people like Bush insist on making us a christian country they see it as a religious war.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Public school officials in Tampa are poised to remove religious holidays from the official school calendar altogether rather than honor a request from local Muslims to add an Eid-themed holiday, reports the St. Pete Times. In the interest of church-state separation, school board members want to eliminate vacation days coinciding with Yom Kippur, Good Friday and Easter Monday and replace them with time off on Presidents Day and later in the spring. But board member Jennifer Faliero, who believes the secular calendar "waters down our values" by suppressing religious expression, has offered up an alternative. Hers would give students a day off for the Eid al-Fitr instead of the Monday after Easter. Faliero also wants the holidays called what they are instead of the current term "nonstudent days." Debate over the holidays started when local Muslims asked for a holiday like everyone else. They said removal of all religious holidays was the last thing they wanted. "This is not what we asked for," said Ahmed Bedier, Florida director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "We were simply asking for equal representation."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 480
At Risk Youth 400+ posts
|
|
At Risk Youth 400+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 480 |
Quote:
Beardguy57 said:
Well I have had both Christian AND Muslim
taxi drivers try to convert me.
My cousin actually did missionary work for Presbyterians in multiple South American and Pacific Island countries under the guise of a teacher. He is actually considering immigrating to China or North Korea to quietly spread the word of Jesus in there which everyone in the family just thinks is insane and suicidal.
And for you Good Christians out there, here are some inspirational quotes:
Quote:
"A man or woman who calls upon spirits or fortune-tellers or magicians shall be put to death by stoning; their blood is upon them... anyone who turns to mediums and fortune-tellers or magicians prostitutes himself by following them, I will set my face against him, and will cut him off from the people"... (Leviticus:20: 6,27)
Quote:
Ex.21:15 "He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death."
Quote:
# Lev.20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
Quote:
9These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. (Leviticus 11:9-12)
Quote:
9
Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother.
10
What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too. (Gen 38:9-10)
By looking at this only, Christianity is no better than Islam. You may say that I'm Christian bashing because it's cool but why are you Islam bashing?
Current Muslim states are as much representative of the Islamic religion as Nazi Germany to Lutherans. This is why I maintain a "pussy" neutral viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Anonymous, I got a question for you:
If God were here today and He regularly spoke to the people and veritably proved His existence each day instead of having us be put through the test of faith, what do you think law should be composed of? Secularity? Or His law?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 480
At Risk Youth 400+ posts
|
|
At Risk Youth 400+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 480 |
Good question, I think people should try to follow his way as much as possible to avoid our destruction. After all he is our heavenly father and supremely devine, though he gave us minds to think we should be grateful and listen to his enlightened POV.
But I also refuse to bow down to any being, you guys go follow him while I go to hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Even from a conceptual viewpoint, there's no pride in hell Anonymous (I really should start saying AO).
Anyway, my point is that those people in the time of Moses didn't have to rely on faith as much as we do. The fact of the matter is, they had God Himself to prove to them that he wasn't screwing around. It's one thing to break His law under the burden of faith, it's quite another to break it so flagrantly in front of His confirmed presence. The punishment for such actions now isn't going to be propotional to the punishment of back then--Especially not in the eyes of Christians (the ones who aren't radical anyway). So your example doesn't really work.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Anonymous, I got a question for you:
If God were here today and he regularly spoke to the people and veritably proved his existence each day instead of having us be put through the test of faith, what do you think law should be composed of? Secularity? Or His law?
that's like saying if Vulcans were here walking around everyday should star trek fans get more respect.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
A) The Vulcans didn't create us.
B ) The Vulcans aren't all powerful.
C) We could kick the Vulcans' asses up and down the block if we really wanted to.
D) You ain't got nuthin' on the Trekkies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 480
At Risk Youth 400+ posts
|
|
At Risk Youth 400+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 480 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
A) The Vulcans didn't create us.
I can prove vulcans with as much real proof that you can prove god.
Quote:
B ) The Vulcans aren't all powerful.
nerve pinch, dude.
Quote:
C) We could kick the Vulcans' asses up and down the block if we really wanted to.
Vulcans are several times stronger than humans, have telepathic powers, and a vastly superior stamina.
Quote:
D) You ain't got nuthin' on the Trekkies.
Trekkies are a notch higher than most religious people, because no one's ever been murdered in the name of Star Trek.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
But quite a few Star Wars fans have been pwn3d!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
I can prove vulcans with as much real proof that you can prove god.
The vulcans have an historical basis?
Quote:
Vulcans are several times stronger than humans, have telepathic powers, and a vastly superior stamina.
So do gorillas.
Quote:
Trekkies are a notch higher than most religious people, because no one's ever been murdered in the name of Star Trek.
Well, people have gotten violent over disagreements involving the number of eps in the Star Trek series.
Last edited by Pariah; 2005-10-16 12:44 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
|
|
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Well, people have gotten violet over disagreements involving the number of eps in the Star Trek series.
They turned PURPLE?!
"Ah good. Now I'm on the internet clearly saying I like tranny cleavage. This shouldn't get me harassed at all." -- Lothar of the Hill People
|
|
|
|
|
