I should have said, "read her posts where she said 'atheists don't care about other people'". I truly don't recall her saying that. The majority love it. Go into almost every household, and you'll see Ayatollah Khomeini's picture hanging on the wall. The people who don't like the system are the richer class who liked the Western lifestyle of the Shah. Of course I was taught these things. However, as you would imply, I had no "fear of repercussions" when I argued my point, or asked why such and such was the way things in Islam were. I feel bad for you. Religion is the greatest aspect of my life, perhaps because of how it was introduced to me. I cannot discredit your personal experiences, so I will end this part of the discussion now. In Islam, you are only forgiven if you don't commit the crime again.
Yep. Would your family have been as accepting and forgiving if you had declared yourself to be an atheist or a homosexual (as examples). Yes, I'm sorry. But that does not wash with me at all. You are basically saying that a person of the Islamic faith could slaughter his whole family or even 100 people and he/she would be forgiven if they never committed the same crime again. It's like telling a rapist that 'it's ok if you just don't do it again'.
Depends on who in my family you're talking about. I'm not going to bullshit you: no, my family (in general) would not be okay with me becoming an atheist or a homosexual. I will note that many atheists/non-Muslims would feel the same way if their children converted to Islam. Ask lucifer's angel, if you'd like. The two groups simply abhor having their kindred join the "other side". If they know that what they have done is wrong, if they do all in their power to make the situation better, and if they never do anything of the like ever again, then they are forgiven. Of course, this is between them and God. They must still fulfill their punishment on Earth (unless the victim chooses to forgive him/her).
SAM: And every religion encourages this human failing. Every religious group already values itself above people of other religions. Unbelievers (defined as anybody who doesn't believe the specific flavour of the particular religion being espoused) are dismissed as godless heathens or infidels, at the least, and actively persecuted at the worst. Religion is a way of defining an in-group and an out-group. If you're "in", you're saved, God loves you, you'll go to paradise after death etc. etc. If you're out, you have no rights and God will send you to burn in Hell for eternity for daring not to believe. Nonsense. Many many millions of people spend their whole lives searching for something that does not exist. Just look at the hundreds of religious notions that you, SAM, personally do NOT believe in. I assume you don't place much stock in the ancient Greek religion of Zeus and Athene etc., in Scientology, Seventh Day Adventism, Chinese ancestor worship, Hinduism, neo-paganism,... the list goes on and on. But many millions of people do, and they don't believe in the god of Islam. How can you be so sure that you're on the One True Path, while all those millions of others are deluded and misguided? Sure it is. Do you know what the number one predictor of a person's religious affiliation is? It is the religious affiliation of his or her parents. Do you really think that if you had been born in Greece instead of in India you would not today be pontificating on the wonders of Greek Orthodox Christianity, instead of the wonders of Islam? What religion are your parents? I'm guessing Muslim. Right? No. I don't see it. All of those nations have robust democracies, generally good human rights records, civil liberties, well-developed social programmes, strong economies, etc. People who live there are, on the whole, as happy as any who live in theocratic states.
By claiming love your neighbor and there is a morality attached to your actions? Which religion says that people of other religion should be destroyed? The justice system does that everyday, ie creates an in group and an out group. Should we dismantle it? We've had this discussion before. There are many ways to reach one goal and everyone is free to choose the path they want to choose, everyone is also free to not have a goal nor take any path at all. Actually I come from a diverse family and we get more diverse with every generation, we have Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Zoroastrians. And I believe that 1400 years ago, there were very few Muslim parents than there are today. Why is that, do you think? Of course they are. After all, up until 60 years ago, they were colonising the rest of the world, fighting world wars and had just finished a holocaust. Now they are arming conflicts while practising the secular philosophy of "do as I say, not as I do". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! However, socially they are not as cohesive and are unravelling with the passage of time. I predict you'll see an increase in right wing conservative movements in these places.
IIRC one of the, if not the, most respected of the original founding clerics has been quoted as regretting creating a theocracy in Iran, and putting political power in the ultimate hands of religious leaders - he said it was a mistake, and the political realm should have been secular. We also have the various signs of unrest, etc, only subsiding in the face of the US threat of violence. Again IIRC, the polls were showing Ahmadinejad and the hardline clerics facing electoral defeat up until the US invaded Iraq next door. And to the point: running into pictures of Fearless Beloved Leader on everybody's wall is not that great sign, in my own opinion, of devotion or even legitimately supported governance. It's a sign of trouble, bad things. No, not like that - although that's often part of the setup. What religions claim they "say" is not of ultimate significance. What adherents do in the name of the religion is of greater significance. If it degenerates to doing it arbitrarily and without appeal or curb, as religion does, then we should dismantle it and start over. If so, with them will come the religious adherence and the "social cohesion" you find so appealing. And people will tell stories of a golden age of the past - if allowed to.
It is the same people who fought the Shah and depended on the Ayatollahs to rescue the country who are the ones vastly disappointed. Yeah, one always looks to Republicans when thinking of Jesus. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Could I see the quote? Regardless, one man's opinion doesn't change the overall mood. Ahmadinejad is certainly not popular or well-liked by Iranians, but that is not because of his foreign policies, or because of the theocracy. It's simply because he's an idiot (or so I've heard from Iranians) when it comes to the domestic stuff. Iranians consider him one of the greatest people to ever walk the Earth. They hang pictures to remember his cause and devotion to his people. I do not consider this a "bad" thing. To me, it signifies that the majority of Iranians like their system. Iranians are not stupid, passive people, you see - if they come to the realization that this theocracy is not serving its people well, they well revolt by themselves. They did it three decades back, remember?
Informed by the information sciences and buddhist epistemology, life has always been artificial, the nature-city distinction as well as the virtual-artificial are false. Indeed, he imagines a future where the physical will be seen as virtual and the ideational seen as real. Technology will play a pivotal role in showing us what is maya, and what is real. The future then is quite likely to see quite dramatic shifts in the boundaries of what we consider the self, said the author of The Future of the Self, Walter Truett Anderson. While history has been considered "given" created by God or nature, the future is being increasingly made, we are directly intervening in evolution, creating new forms of life. Instead of a world populated only by humans and animals, the long-term future is likely to be far more diverse. There will be chimeras, cyborgs, robots and possibly even biologically created slaves. Our future generations may look back at us and find us distant relatives, and not particularly attractive ones
Pat Robertson believes the OT god did. Audience Participant: "I've been reading through the Book of Numbers recently, and come across that passage in Chapter 31 about the destruction of the Midianites. How do you explain that apparent travesty of the destruction of that people with the just and holy God?" Pat Robertson: The wars of extermination have given a lot of people trouble unless they understand fully what was going on. The people in the land of Palestine were very wicked. They were given over to idolatry. They sacrificed their children. They had all kinds of abominable sex practices. They were having sex apparently with animals. They were having sex men with men and women with women. They were committing adultery and fornication. They were serving idols. As I say, they were offering their children up, and they were forsaking God. God told the Israelites to kill them all: men, women and children; to destroy them. And that seems like a terrible thing to do. Is it or isn't it? Well, let us assume that there were two thousand of them or ten thousand of them living in the land, or whatever number, I don't have the exact number, but pick a number. And God said, "Kill them all." Well, that would seem hard, wouldn't it? But that would be 10,000 people who probably would go to hell. But if they stayed and reproduced, in thirty, forty or fifty or sixty or a hundred more years there could conceivably be ... ten thousand would grow to a hundred, a hundred thousand conceivably could grow to a million, and there would be a million people who would have to spend an eternity in Hell! And it is far more merciful to take away a few than to see in the future a hundred years down the road, and say, "Well, I'll have to take away a million people, that will be forever apart from God because the abomination is there." It's like a contagion. God saw that there was no cure for it. It wasn't going to change, and all they would do is cause trouble for the Israelites and pull the Israelites away from God and prevent the truth of God from reaching the earth. And so God in love -- and that was a loving thing -- took away a small number that he might not have to take away a large number. Now that's a long answer, but I think that's closer to it. Danuta? Danuta Soderman: "Well, my question would be, Pat, why didn't He just save them all? I mean, why didn't He say, "I forgive you, I save you," and save them that way? Why obliterate them?" Robertson: A righteous God, just like a righteous judge -- if a man comes into court who has committed murder, the judge can't say, "Well I'm a merciful kind of judge, and the jury has found you guilty of premeditated, first degree murder, but I'm such a nice guy, you can just go ahead and I forgive you." He can't do that and uphold the law. They would impeach him. A judge has to keep the law and God has certain laws in the universe which must be upheld. The only way He fulfilled those laws was to die himself in the person of His son on the cross. And he is not going to force anybody to accept him. It has to be a free choice. And they had freely chosen to reject him and it doesn't get any better. It gets worse. -- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, May 6, 1985, justifying and celebrating the wholesale genocide allegedly committed by the early invading Israelites.
And this was the same justification that Jesuit priests used in south America when they would baptize indian infants, then immediately smash their head against a rock. By killing the infant, they were saving the child's immortal soul. If the child were allowed to grow up among his people, that child would have been contaminated by the native religion, which was inspired by Satan no doubt, and certainly condemned to burn in hell for eternity. If you truly believe as they did, you cannot fault their logic. And how would you argue against them?
Same way you would consider -death squads, supporting dictators and toppling of democracies, occupation and "liberation" of people, preemptive wars and building weapons of mass destruction, destabilising undeveloped societies, -aid as a tool for manipulating economies of third world countries and -endorsing trade practices that increase world hunger as signs of a progressive society. As strategists to improve personal position in the balance of power, human beings are clearly without equal. Which is why all legal systems are derived from religion. By educating yourself in the religion instead of taking other people's word for it.
Both Pat Robertson and Jesuits are as educated about Christianity as anyone. Do you think the inquisitors didn't understand their religion?
So when the inquisitors were hanging Jews upside down and burning their feet with live coals or stretching them out on a rack, they were doing this because they were 1. emulating Jesus's teachings, or 2. worried about the fate of the Jews' souls, or 3. using the fact that Isabella was supporting them to clamp down on Moorish culture and values and using fear to consolidate their power? What do you think?
Irrelevant. The important part is that they were using their religion as justification for what they were doing. If you had attempted to tell them that they didn't understand their own religion, I don't think you would have been received warmly.
Yup, sorta like telling the above that what they were doing wasn't democratic. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Might land you in a secular Gitmo as a terrorist supporter or get you a liberation army. :shrug:
