Islam is taken over

[Lord Tammerlain]

Remarks like yours always make me chuckle. Underlying every religious myth is a grain of truth. No reasonable human believes a serpent convinced Eve to taste the forbidden fruit and convince Adam to do the same, but we must admit knowledge is both a blessing and a bane for humanity. Ignorance is bliss.

In the absence of social structures, religions supplied rules and regulations for how to live, the basis of morality. Rules for eating healthy and how to respect the land, flora and fauna. Sensitivity toward other creatures and their needs. And answers, right or wrong, as to why we exist. None need religious structures to be moral, however from where else would our visions of moral behavior have come from?

Showing a bit of respect for the beliefs isn't so terrible, regardless of your own evaluations, but your elitist arrogance is another matter.

Our visions of moral behavior come from being pack animals. All pack animals develop social structures that govern how the group operates. Including behaviors to other in the pack, allowing all in the pack to work and live with the pack. Individual animals that do not follow the "rules of the pack" are pushed out.

Hence we as humans can kill others from other packs without retribution from our pack, but killing members of our own pack leads to punishment. Religion is just an evolution of the social structures that were developed for hundreds of millions of years as pack animals evolved

 

[Manc Skipper]

In Pakistan, a Christian was sentenced to death for allegedly saying, "My Jesus died for me. What did your Mohamed ever do for you?"

Is that "complete" enough for you?

In Brunei, the government just one month ago upped the ante by declaring that gays and adulterers will be stoned to death.

Is that "complete" enough for you?

What the hell is your point?

In America. puritans would slit peoples' noses for dancing on a Saturday, or slit a tongue for singing on the Sabbath. Theocracy is bad. You tried to fudge "some degree" into a yes/no equation.

 

[Omega Man]

That's an incomplete list. I gave you the full list of 47 countries that follow sharia to varying degrees. You have to know it's more than 8, so again I have to wonder what the hell are you doing trying to defend an attempt to return to the 7th century.

AND it's NOT just the number that matters. It's the increase in severity in places like Pakistan and Brunei that matter. It's the fact that Christians are being driven out of the ME and north Africa that matters. Give your head a shake.

It's a complete list from an authoritative source. Only 8 countries. Again, I wouldn't start wringing my hands and gnashing my teeth quite yet.


OM

 

[Omega Man]

Our visions of moral behavior come from being pack animals. All pack animals develop social structures that govern how the group operates. Including behaviors to other in the pack, allowing all in the pack to work and live with the pack. Individual animals that do not follow the "rules of the pack" are pushed out.

Hence we as humans can kill others from other packs without retribution from our pack, but killing members of our own pack leads to punishment. Religion is just an evolution of the social structures that were developed for hundreds of millions of years as pack animals evolved

Bingo. That's precisely it; the foundations of human morality are based upon evolution and intuitive primacy. Superstition came first; religion much later.


OM

 

[OldFatGuy]

Our visions of moral behavior come from being pack animals. All pack animals develop social structures that govern how the group operates. Including behaviors to other in the pack, allowing all in the pack to work and live with the pack. Individual animals that do not follow the "rules of the pack" are pushed out.

Hence we as humans can kill others from other packs without retribution from our pack, but killing members of our own pack leads to punishment. Religion is just an evolution of the social structures that were developed for hundreds of millions of years as pack animals evolved

Another theory without substantiation. Anthropologists who have studied other primates have observed killing for domination and sport within the tribes, organized killing for obtaining territory and females, not quite near supportive of your evolutionary claims for moral social structures.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Another theory without substantiation. Anthropologists who have studied other primates have observed killing for domination and sport within the tribes, organized killing for obtaining territory and females, not quite near supportive of your evolutionary claims for moral social structures.

We have the same thing, do we not

Jousts, sporting competitions, fighting competitions. We have just for the most part stopped the killing aspects of social domination competitions. We have men killing for territory and females.

 

[stevecanuck]

In America. puritans would slit peoples' noses for dancing on a Saturday, or slit a tongue for singing on the Sabbath. Theocracy is bad.

"Would", yes. Now, not so much. But, more importantly, what did Jesus ever do or say to condone such punishment? Nothing, you say? Correct. Nothing. In fact his entire (albeit mythical, but not to Christians) life was dedicated to forgiveness. How "Christians" managed to twist his example to include the sort of thing you describe is beyond me.

You tried to fudge "some degree" into a yes/no equation.

No I didn't. Sharia is applied in 47 countries. I notice you ignored the fact that Pakistan and Brunei are heading straight for the 7th century. Sharia is GAINING GROUND, and you know it.

 

[stevecanuck]

It's a complete list from an authoritative source. Only 8 countries. Again, I wouldn't start wringing my hands and gnashing my teeth quite yet.


OM

Wow. Whatever helps you through the day. Bye.

 

[stevecanuck]

Our visions of moral behavior come from being pack animals. All pack animals develop social structures that govern how the group operates. Including behaviors to other in the pack, allowing all in the pack to work and live with the pack. Individual animals that do not follow the "rules of the pack" are pushed out.

Hence we as humans can kill others from other packs without retribution from our pack, but killing members of our own pack leads to punishment. Religion is just an evolution of the social structures that were developed for hundreds of millions of years as pack animals evolved

Nice and concise. If you want to see the perfect example of this, just read the Qur'an. It is US vs. THEM from stem to stern.

To demonstrate the highlighted statement above, Mohamed said, "Never should a believer be put to death for killing an unbeliever".

 

[Omega Man]

Wow. Whatever helps you through the day. Bye.

I'm not the one making chicken little assertions.


OM

 

[OldFatGuy]

We have the same thing, do we not

Jousts, sporting competitions, fighting competitions. We have just for the most part stopped the killing aspects of social domination competitions. We have men killing for territory and females.

Thanks for supporting my point.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Irrelevant to my statement, where there is smoke, there is fire.

And my statement shows that accumulated knowledge has often disproven the belief that 'where there's smoke there's fire'. I thought that was clear enough.

Today our shamans are on twitter, facebook, etal and being unfriended makes for tabloid headlines and social death. Worse the shamans of DC are now also in the twitterverse. I bow down to the Oracle of Omaha.

Shamans are everywhere ~ even the churches.

Natural or not, whatever natural may mean, the laws of kasruth, observation and sensitivity.

I'm talking about the evolution of morality and ethics and the development of such concomitant with the expansion of a sedentary lifestyle.

Yes, because your elitist claim of accumulated knowledge doesn't translate to answers as to why we are here, nor does your arrogance mean you are smarter.

You assume there is a reason why we are here. Did I say I am smarter? No. My point being that now we merely have access to more information.

I choose to believe the beauty of life along with its suffering is not an accident. Who are you to disrespect my belief with your arrogance, elitist claim to superiority?

That is your choice. I'm free to disrespect whatever and whomever I like (as you exercised with your later sneer regarding 'certified ancient historian'), for gods are the invention of men and the scam has been fostered long enough. If you choose to believe this is arrogant and elitist, so be it. It is of little consequence.

You fail miserably in making your case, as your own fears humiliate you.

If you say so, but I don't remember trying all that hard to make a case. I will if you can discuss the subject rationally, but somehow, I don't see that as forthcoming.

You will not admit to those fears but they are evident to any who read your words.

Please, these infantile projections are unnecessary.

There is no rational thought, only our own excuses for claiming superior reason.

Supercilious nonsense. Of course there is rational thought and your puerile ad hominem attacks won't change that. There is no evidence for the existence of a god or gods, therefore there is no reason tho believe in the existence of said beings. Gods are the invention of men ~ men who used ignorance and superstition in order to dominate others. This is not some 'excuse', so your ad hominem attack is of no merit or relevance.

 

[NWO_Spook]

In your not so humble opinion, yet anthropologists repeatedly point out that shamanistic powers are greater than any other tribal powers, witness the power of a Pope for declaring divine rule underlying European politics for centuries, the priests of Jupiter over ruling Caesars.

Certified ancient historian? Uh huh. :doh

The Caesars were the head of all religion in the Roman Empire, therefore they were not answerable to any priesthood in the pantheon. The acronym 'P.M.' in the nomenclature on inscriptions and coins denotes the term 'Pontifex Maximus' which translates into 'The Great Priest', which was the title awarded to all Imperators. Caesar directed religious thought and dogma and he controlled the entire pantheon. This was the power that gave Constantine authority over the Council of Nicea etc.

 

[OldFatGuy]

And my statement shows that accumulated knowledge has often disproven the belief that 'where there's smoke there's fire'.

"A man with much knowledge and no wisdom is more dangerous than any immoral murderer." - Tolstoy

 

[OldFatGuy]

The Caesars were the head of all religion in the Roman Empire, therefore they were not answerable to any priesthood in the pantheon. The acronym 'P.M.' in the nomenclature on inscriptions and coins denotes the term 'Pontifex Maximus' which translates into 'The Great Priest', which was the title awarded to all Imperators. Caesar directed religious thought and dogma and he controlled the entire pantheon. This was the power that gave Constantine authority over the Council of Nicea etc.

Yes, for the later Caesars. You neglect that it was Augustus who, taking a page from Solomon, had the Priests of Jupiter assassinated, replaced with his own followers, and then assumed the title "Pontifex Maximus." Problem was, for him and Caesars afterwards, that title never gained traction outside the military and sycophants. The military did what it was paid to do, by those who paid them. The vernacular "Empos Quoros" or the Emperor's Coins, inferred "buy beer, wine and salt."

 

[PersianCavalry]

Washington post
Islam will take over the USA just like did with Europe



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The have 4 wifes and with each the make in average 6-9 kids.

I'm confused by this post. The article you linked to discredits your own point as "conspiracy theory" nonsense. Is this intentional? Or did you just not read it? Why are you linking something you haven't read? Or you did read it, but misunderstood it?

Also, Europe has not been taken over by Islam. Even the Middle East isn't ruled by Islam, as several nations there are officially secular. Aside from which, there isn't a single definition of Islam anyway and never will be. Shia? Sunni? Wahhabi? Sufi? Who decides? Which school of thought? (There are four different Sunni schools of thought and three Shia schools of thought)? And each individual judge has their own opinion on how each specific point should be interpreted. Who decides what is and isn't Islamic?

You haven't really thought this through, have you...

 

[stevecanuck]

I'm confused by this post. The article you linked to discredits your own point as "conspiracy theory" nonsense. Is this intentional? Or did you just not read it? Why are you linking something you haven't read? Or you did read it, but misunderstood it?

Also, Europe has not been taken over by Islam. Even the Middle East isn't ruled by Islam, as several nations there are officially secular. Aside from which, there isn't a single definition of Islam anyway and never will be. Shia? Sunni? Wahhabi? Sufi? Who decides? Which school of thought? (There are four different Sunni schools of thought and three Shia schools of thought)? And each individual judge has their own opinion on how each specific point should be interpreted. Who decides what is and isn't Islamic?

You haven't really thought this through, have you...

Theoretically the Qur'an has already decided. Of all those schools of Islamic jurisprudence, I suspect the overlap is very large. Is there one of those that does not hold that:

- There is only one god. He has no equals or partners.
- God sent Gabriel to Mohamed and revealed the Qur'an through him.
- God begets no children, therefore Jesus is NOT the son of God.
- The OT stories of all the prophets are true.
- Mohamed is the last and best prophet (A very small percentage called Ahmadiyas do claim a later prophet.)
- Those who obey Mohamed, and therefore God, by following the dictates of the Qur'an go to Heaven.
- All others are unbelievers who go to Hell.
- Every description of good vs. evil in the Qur'an is given in terms of belief vs. unbelief, which in effect pits Muslims against unbelievers forever.

 

[PersianCavalry]

Theoretically the Qur'an has already decided. Of all those schools of Islamic jurisprudence, I suspect the overlap is very large. Is there one of those that does not hold that:

- There is only one god. He has no equals or partners.
- God sent Gabriel to Mohamed and revealed the Qur'an through him.
- God begets no children, therefore Jesus is NOT the son of God.
- The OT stories of all the prophets are true.
- Mohamed is the last and best prophet (A very small percentage called Ahmadiyas do claim a later prophet.)
- Those who obey Mohamed, and therefore God, by following the dictates of the Qur'an go to Heaven.
- All others are unbelievers who go to Hell.
- Every description of good vs. evil in the Qur'an is given in terms of belief vs. unbelief, which in effect pits Muslims against unbelievers forever.

Pretty much all correct, kudos from me as that's a quite impressive list. All of these I think are accurate, except for point 7 which is contradicted by Quran verse 2:62.

"Those who believe, and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

I'm not really interested in getting too caught up on religious texts though as I get bored easily. But yeah there is as I understand it some dispute over the meaning; I quickly looked at 7 translations of that verse and they all agree with what I quoted above, except there is one that translates it differently, in such a way that it only applies to those who belonged to those religions before Muhammad. But this view is in the minority - 6 sources against and 1 in favour. Regardless, I don't really care either way.

Your last point is very accurate and insightful. That is a great observation, and I think you're right. If I may state it in my own way, I would say that the Quran simply does not envisage a situation where any righteous person would disagree. It holds its own point of view as self-evidently true and beyond question; therefore by definition, the only person who could possibly oppose its message would be a bad person.

Now, from the perspective of what? 1400 years later? and people looking at this from the perspective of continents that weren't even discovered back then (Americas, Australia, etc), that perspective seems a little naiive, especially from outside. But then we have to remember, we are dealing with a text that was written for 7th century AD Arabians, and not for 21st century people like us.

That's why I believe personally in Secularism. The only guarantee for rights and freedoms for all of us in the modern world. States that attempt to legislate religion are never a good idea; it is a matter of conscience. Even if you believed that any particular religion was broadly "correct", that still doesn't solve anything in the real world as from what I've studied of legal matters, you still end up with endless disputes over everything anyway. Let them sort it out among themselves. And let the rest of us get on with our lives. That's what I think, anyway.

 

[Omega Man]

Now, from the perspective of what? 1400 years later? and people looking at this from the perspective of continents that weren't even discovered back then (Americas, Australia, etc), that perspective seems a little naiive, especially from outside. But then we have to remember, we are dealing with a text that was written for 7th century AD Arabians, and not for 21st century people like us.

Wait! What? Are you saying that ancient authors had specific target audiences; people within their own times and cultures? You mean they aren’t soothsayers? Say it ain’t so!


OM

 

[Mustachio]

I know you posted this over a week ago, but this is like an advertisement for moving to Sweden. It has no content about Islam and shows how their worst area is about as dangerous as living in a large suburb of any US city. 11 murders a year and they usually have 1 or 2?

If that's Islam taking over, maybe we should give it a go, eh?

 

[stevecanuck]

Pretty much all correct, kudos from me as that's a quite impressive list. All of these I think are accurate, except for point 7 which is contradicted by Quran verse 2:62.

"Those who believe, and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

I'm not really interested in getting too caught up on religious texts though as I get bored easily. But yeah there is as I understand it some dispute over the meaning; I quickly looked at 7 translations of that verse and they all agree with what I quoted above, except there is one that translates it differently, in such a way that it only applies to those who belonged to those religions before Muhammad. But this view is in the minority - 6 sources against and 1 in favour. Regardless, I don't really care either way.

Your last point is very accurate and insightful. That is a great observation, and I think you're right. If I may state it in my own way, I would say that the Quran simply does not envisage a situation where any righteous person would disagree. It holds its own point of view as self-evidently true and beyond question; therefore by definition, the only person who could possibly oppose its message would be a bad person.

Now, from the perspective of what? 1400 years later? and people looking at this from the perspective of continents that weren't even discovered back then (Americas, Australia, etc), that perspective seems a little naiive, especially from outside. But then we have to remember, we are dealing with a text that was written for 7th century AD Arabians, and not for 21st century people like us.

That's why I believe personally in Secularism. The only guarantee for rights and freedoms for all of us in the modern world. States that attempt to legislate religion are never a good idea; it is a matter of conscience. Even if you believed that any particular religion was broadly "correct", that still doesn't solve anything in the real world as from what I've studied of legal matters, you still end up with endless disputes over everything anyway. Let them sort it out among themselves. And let the rest of us get on with our lives. That's what I think, anyway.

It looks like we're on the same page with everything except the final disposition of Christians. Verse 2:62 (and if memory serves, one other that says the same thing) is wildly out of step with the rest of the Qur'an. For example, 5:72 says, "They are unbelievers (kafars) who say, 'God is the Messiah, Mary's son.'" And of course we're told hundreds of times that Hell is prepared specifically for al kafareena.

Anyway, thanks for the response.