http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...gious_strife_3
I'm beginning to think the situation in India is not so much a religious matter, as it is a poverty matter.
Printable View
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...gious_strife_3
I'm beginning to think the situation in India is not so much a religious matter, as it is a poverty matter.
Oh Whacking DayQuote:
Oh Whacking Day
Oh Whacking Day
Our hallowed snake skull-cracking day
We'll break their backs
Gouge out their eyes
Their evil hearts, we'll pulverize
Oh Whacking Day
Oh Whacking Day
May God bestow His grace on thee
Why would anyone even consider listening to what this idiot [Falwell] has to say?
Some idiot in the US opens his mouth and declares his truth as absolute.
Inocent people on the otherside of the world die. Because the intolerance of others (religious racism) comes from a religious / political leader fuels the resulting media frenzy.
What else is new?
no religion is free of violence.. For example the christanity in its early days was very violent.... And i do agree that in Gujarath the violece was bad.. I am a Hindu and i condem the killings.. and i condem both sides for their animal instincts.... And no one has a right to say anything about another religion.. I believe all religions are equal.... I also think that the Muslims in India have equal right as any one else here... Just because some freakin *******s do sometin.. it does not reflect the attitude of an entire country.. For example even during the violence no other situation was reported any where in India.. They are other parts of india where there is a greater muslim population.. but nothing happened.. Hindus and Muslims in the other parts tayed calm.. So it is absolutely wrong to say that the entire population in India is doing it......
It's real sad to see such things when someone says something and others die for it. Why can't people turn a deaf ear to such statements and forget it. I know, such blasphemic statements are real provocative and creates paranoia in many, but killing others just to releive the anger on some one else does not make sense at all. Just because a christian (Falwell) stated something stupid, triggered violence between hindu and muslim communities is something i'm still not able to comprehend why, not saying that the clash should have been between christian and muslims, but only shows the hatred between these two communities in here.
Because he is God!Quote:
Originally posted by vcv
Why would anyone even consider listening to what this idiot [Falwell] has to say?
Dean, I thought you were GOD? Are you two the same person?
Falwell can bench press 500lbs. I'm not quite that tough.
That makes me wonder when we will see a picture of you TK?
Lamaism is in no aspect violent
>>For example the christanity in its early days was very violent....
and nothing has changed, look at what they did in Srebrenica.
vasanth, I think that the blame is with Falwell. He should follow the tenents of his religion more. (Turn the other cheek, the meek will inhert the earth ect)
Not that someones words should be able to incite violence. Others should be able to tell that he is an idiot just trying to get his face on TV and ignore him.
I just think you should not taunt / denegrate others as he did.
Don't tell God what to do!
>>For example the christanity in its early days was very violent....
I don't think so...
Chistianity in its first several centuries was totally nonviolent. They made Ghandi look beligerant. It wasn't until the first crusade, pricipitated by the desecration of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by the Moslem ruler of Jerusalem, that organized violence occurred. And apart from the crusades, which were more politically motivated than religious, Christian violence has been mostly directed inward. (Sectarian, heresy, etc.)
I personally don't care for Falwell. He has very little tact. But he was comparing the founder of Islam with the founder of Christianity, and the differences are striking. I won't try to convince anyone here. But do read some history. From the very beginning Islam was very different.
So are you trying to say that your religion is superior when compared to Islam...:):):):):)
Have any of you read the story about the three coins?
Anybody who believes in their religion is going to think
that it's superior.
well i agree.. thats the whole problem.. Each peson thinks his religion is superior.. The world would be of less problem if everyone treated other religions with respect..
No, I was pointing out the gross inacuracy of the idea that early Christianity was violent. I then went on to compare early Christianity and early Islam, as Falwell did. I am not a big fan of Falwell, but he often makes a valid point if you listen to what he actually says.
As to the violence in India, it is largely political, a question of Indian nationalism. There was an exellent documentary on PBS recently, on "Frontline" I believe. Mixed in is the long standing Islamic history of building mosques on the ruins of other people's temples, after having destroyed the temples.
Blaming Falwell's comments for the recent outbreak of violence in India is very naive. Yes, it was the excuse, but they would have found some other reason if he hadn't given his statement.
Well your historical facts are right.. But every kingdom in those era conquered other kingdoms.. And ues islamix rulers destroyed temples to build mosques.. but we cant balme the present day muslims for doing it..... (Note i am a hindu who worships in a temple...)...
You are quite right that most religions have built on other people's religious sites, but Islam has carried this to an extreme. At least in my opinion. For example, the temple mount in Jerusalem. Also, arguably the most magnificent christian cathedral every built is now a mosque in Istanbul.
What troubles me most about Islam is that it has as a basic theological tenant that spreading itself by force is acceptable. This is not to say that other religions, such as Christianity haven't, but most don't accept this as theologically ok. Even in the heyday of the Conquistadores an honest priest would have had to admit that this runs counter to the teachings of Jesus. The Quaran and Muhammed are all over the place on this issue.
I may be biased, I probably am. But Islam seems to me to have a very schizophrenic theology. When I originally posted to this thread, I intended to correct a glaring factual error, not get into a protracted religious debate. Understand that I find violence in God's name blasphemous, revolting and stupid, regardless of the name the perpetrators use for God.
kevinalm. Let me guess you are an active christian.
>>What troubles me most about Islam is that it has as a basic theological tenant that spreading itself by force is acceptable.
So you think a religion that follows it tenants is worse than one that proports to be pacifist but is not?
Islam says an eye for an eye, Christianity says turn the other cheek.
Which one is the western world following with Iraq?
See, I can pick single pieces of these 'works of fiction' to justify my beliefs / argument. (and discard the ones that I don't like)
Thats what troubles me about modern religion (apart from the type of people that seem to be atracted to its service)
Novacain.
Actually, I tend to be more in line with Pascal's wager.
There is a difference between a religion holds up a moral ideal that is imperfectly followed by its followers and one that upholds an immoral ideal.
Iraq is about eliminating a murderous lunatic before he kills a lot more people than he already has.
Works of fiction usually contain important ideas, especially in morality and ethics. The trick is not to take things out of context.
Sounds like your missing out on meeting a lot of good, decent people.
This thread is getting way off topic. The original theme was Falwell's comment about Mohammed not being a man of peace. I don't like Falwell. His comments are politicall incorrect and ill timed. They are also historically accurate. It is a fact that the spread of Islam in its first few centuries starting during Mohammed's lifetime was largely a military operation. This is in stark contrast to the first few centuries of Christianity.
PS From the lines in your signature in see you haven't considered the implications of free will.
I think that Falwell is Jesus because he chose the way of God Almightly. Either that, or else he is Moses.
>>Iraq is about eliminating a murderous lunatic before he kills a lot more people than he already has.
One could say that the real murderer is the one that supplied him with the means to murder.
How does it go?
"Let he that is without sin cast the first stone"
Ahh, Pascal, how fitting he was a gambler.
For those who are not fimilar
"Which will you choose then? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is." Pascal
Pity his 'wager' is flawed. As there are more than two choices, that is the world is not only black and white. Pascal himself admits that god is 'infinitely incomprehensible'.
Also you do lose if wager for god and there is no god. To say otherwise is to admit there is no price / value to faith, worship and virtue.
I think the world today, more than ever, needs our undivided, moral and rational attention.
Pascal was a mathematician. That particular quote isn't the entire "wager", just an oversimplified version.
You have taken the quote about casting the first stone out of context. It is about tempering justice with mercy, in the case of an individual whose crime was what would be called today "victimless". It's quite a strech to apply it to Saddam Hussein.
>>I think the world today, more than ever, needs our undivided, moral and rational attention.
That's what I've been saying, it's just not what you've been hearing.
No way to fit the entire 'wager' here, and Pascal was a gambler, a type of person I have alot of experience with.
>>It is about tempering justice with mercy,
Its also about looking at your own experiences and actions. How can you judge someone if you to have commited / aided his crimes?
How do you justify wars and capital punishment and the commandment 'thou shall not kill'?
Easy, religion is not rational. Total belief in something that has no factual basis is irrational.
For example;
My religion states that the sun was created in a fight between a kangaroo and an emu. The sun is the emu's egg that the kangaroo threw into the sky. Rivers are where the Rainbow Serpent crawled across the desert.
Any less rational than yours? Any less likely to be true?
>>That's what I've been saying, it's just not what you've been hearing.
My mind is open to all new ideas even if they contadict beliefs I have held since childhood. I had had my epiphany on the Sarawak River in Nepal with the 'crazy baba of Singapore' but that is another story.
As FN said 'Europes two great narcotics, alcohol and Christianity'
Actually I thought the Crusade was fomed by Pope Urban II against the Sejuk Turks? :? The Roman Catholic chruches was, until the Reformation, one of the more corrupt non-cult religiouns.Quote:
Originally posted by kevinalm
>>For example the christanity in its early days was very violent....
I don't think so...
Chistianity in its first several centuries was totally nonviolent. They made Ghandi look beligerant. It wasn't until the first crusade, pricipitated by the desecration of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by the Moslem ruler of Jerusalem, that organized violence occurred. And apart from the crusades, which were more politically motivated than religious, Christian violence has been mostly directed inward. (Sectarian, heresy, etc.)
I personally don't care for Falwell. He has very little tact. But he was comparing the founder of Islam with the founder of Christianity, and the differences are striking. I won't try to convince anyone here. But do read some history. From the very beginning Islam was very different.
Coming form a Christian's point of view, I think Falwell is a complete redneck. Just my NSHO.
Nice Baptist impersonation.Quote:
Originally posted by Troll_King
I think that Falwell is Jesus because he chose the way of God Almightly. Either that, or else he is Moses.
Wasn't aware that Blaise Pascal was known for gambling. I'll have to read up on that. But then, since he was one of the half dozen or so most brilliant mathmeticians in history I'm not surprized. He was probably rather good at it, calculating odds and all.
Who ever said religion should be rational. Human behavior is about half reasoned and half instinctive. Religion is a guide to channel human behavior into acceptable productive patterns.
Is my religion more rational than your example. Yes. But...
You have no idea what my personal beliefs are.
Early on, you jumped to conclusions about my beliefs based on my having corrected you and others on erroneous ideas you had regarding the behavior of the early Christians and Falwell's statement about Mohammed not being a man of peace. And also based on the fact that I do know a lot about the Bible.
You need to do a lot more reading. May I suggest the Bible, the Quaran, Plato and Socrates, John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, and The Art of War for starters. Add a few dozen works of philosophy and religion choosen at random. Science fiction often explores intriguing aspects of morality and ethics. And read something just for fun sometimes. You take things way too seriously. The fact is, what your or my belief system is has very little chance of mattering in the grand scheme of things.
You'll probably think I'm being sarcastic or insulting. I honestly don't intend it that way. Your understanding of religion in general and Christianity in particular is somewhat limited. You also seem to have the notion that by picking at the frayed edges of a religion/philosophy system and finding a flaw that you invalidate the entire system. Many people make this mistake. It leads to being very closed minded, even when the individual intends to be openminded. This "fatal flaw" method works in physical science and math but not in philosophy/religion. Linear philosophical reasoning is an illusion. There is only an underlying pattern of interlocking ideas that makes "sense" or not. And I'm not refering to the superficial miraculous and supernateral aspects of religion. To me, these are are irrelavent. What's significant in a religion or philosophy is Man's place in the universe and Man's relation to Man.
>>Actually I thought the Crusade was fomed by Pope Urban II against the Sejuk Turks?
There were a number of reasons, mostly political, for the first crusade. But the "causus belli" was the desecration of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Islamic ruler at the time was basically a nut case. The muslims got rid of him themselves and helped rebuild but the damage had already been done. There were several crusades. Things degenerated into all out bilateral Christian/Muslim holy war. Got really ugly. Didn't really end untill Europe was strong enough to stop the Islamic advance into the continent and Islam recaptured Jerusalem and the holy land.
>>The Roman Catholic chruches was, until the Reformation, one of the more corrupt non-cult religiouns.
Yes.
>>Coming form a Christian's point of view, I think Falwell is a complete redneck. Just my NSHO.
Very yes. I was only pointing out that what he said about Mohammed in this instance was essentially true.
>> You need to do a lot more reading.
I do? I think experience is a better teacher.
I think you need more REAL world knowledge.
>>May I suggest the Bible,
Studied it when I spent over 1 hour a day for 12 years in a church. Then did a few more hours in religious studies looking at religions.
for example from 2 Kings 2
' 23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!"
24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD . Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. '
What a friendly god you have. (this is of cource after he has roasted a couple of hundred people)
>>the Quaran,
Skimmed it as it is not the easiest of reads
>>The Art of War
Sun Tzi, one of my favorites.
>> Add a few dozen works of philosophy and religion choosen at random.
I like Friedrich Nietzsche. Have you read him?
'Which is it: is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's blunders?'
Or Thomas Paine,
'The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and admits of no conclusion.'
thru Frank Zappa
'The essence of Christianity is told us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the Tree of Knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your f***ing mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions.'
>>Science fiction often explores intriguing aspects of morality and ethics.
Like 'Contact' by C Sagan
>>You also seem to have the notion that by picking at the frayed edges of a religion/philosophy system and finding a flaw that you invalidate the entire system.
I'm sorry. I must have heard / read / seen too many 'holy men' who prove their point with a quick quote. I feel if they can re-enforce thier stand with a quick quote, why can't I? What else is there to support Christianity other than the Bible?
i'm wondering if less poverty would temper the violence there.