You're concentrating on semantics, which is is opposition to my father's interpretation. This is unimportant because the actual following points are the important bits. I presented them as a positive (ex) muslim's perspective on your original question. I just thought it was interesting because, as I have brought up before, I consider understanding an important step to a resolution.
What should be the Western Reaction to Islam?
- Thread starter Wintermute
- Start date
-
Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
For what it is worth, and I realise it is probably a very inflammatory viewpoint, I consider all religions, and the monotheistic ones in particular, to be merely instruments of control, designed to subdue the "lumpen masses".
Islam and Christianity in particular are religions more applicable to the world of 1000 or more years ago than the current world we live in. You can argue about "semantics" all you want, but the plain fact of the matter is:
When Islam & Christianty were at their strongest and most powerful, they were/are both quite unequivocal about the message they were trying to get across:
If you don't believe in this, then you are going straight to hell for ever and ever. Oh, and other people have the "god given" right to be totally shitty to you, simply because they believe in something you don't.
Christian and Islamic scholars today try to argue that "wrong or alternative" translations of their holy books paint a false view of those religions. IMHO, this is utter mince. They are simply embarassed by their respective religions' long history of torture, repression, bloodshed and autocratic hierarchical control methods which most modern, educated people rightly revile as an affront to humanity.
As societies became increasingly secular, and religious power began to be separated from the organs of state, Christianty found it necessary to tone down the message of the Old Testament, which was positively bloodthirsty, in order to retain enough sheep^H^H^H^H^H^H followers to keep a bunch of fat old men in fine purple robes and catamites.
Islam is no different at all. The fact that it has an insane hatred of alcohol, yet actively encourages the consumption of tobacco/pot and the sexual abuse of children only serves as one of the most obvious examples to show the basic hypocrisy inherent in its teachings.
No doubt there are plenty of fine, conscientious Muslims and Christians out there. But they should really come clean about what their books are basically about, instead of, as wint puts it "trying to weasel out by using alterative definitions of words, or arguing that the stories are metaphorical in nature".
Christianity, Islam, Judaism - all can be boiled down to the same basic message:
"Believe in this, and you will go to paradise. Don't believe in this, and you will suffer for ever and ever."
No matter how much their scholars beat about the bush, this is the basic message of most, if not all religions.
And that message has been used to justify more evil and atrocity over the past 2000 years than anything else.
Islam and Christianity in particular are religions more applicable to the world of 1000 or more years ago than the current world we live in. You can argue about "semantics" all you want, but the plain fact of the matter is:
When Islam & Christianty were at their strongest and most powerful, they were/are both quite unequivocal about the message they were trying to get across:
If you don't believe in this, then you are going straight to hell for ever and ever. Oh, and other people have the "god given" right to be totally shitty to you, simply because they believe in something you don't.
Christian and Islamic scholars today try to argue that "wrong or alternative" translations of their holy books paint a false view of those religions. IMHO, this is utter mince. They are simply embarassed by their respective religions' long history of torture, repression, bloodshed and autocratic hierarchical control methods which most modern, educated people rightly revile as an affront to humanity.
As societies became increasingly secular, and religious power began to be separated from the organs of state, Christianty found it necessary to tone down the message of the Old Testament, which was positively bloodthirsty, in order to retain enough sheep^H^H^H^H^H^H followers to keep a bunch of fat old men in fine purple robes and catamites.
Islam is no different at all. The fact that it has an insane hatred of alcohol, yet actively encourages the consumption of tobacco/pot and the sexual abuse of children only serves as one of the most obvious examples to show the basic hypocrisy inherent in its teachings.
No doubt there are plenty of fine, conscientious Muslims and Christians out there. But they should really come clean about what their books are basically about, instead of, as wint puts it "trying to weasel out by using alterative definitions of words, or arguing that the stories are metaphorical in nature".
Christianity, Islam, Judaism - all can be boiled down to the same basic message:
"Believe in this, and you will go to paradise. Don't believe in this, and you will suffer for ever and ever."
No matter how much their scholars beat about the bush, this is the basic message of most, if not all religions.
And that message has been used to justify more evil and atrocity over the past 2000 years than anything else.
I pretty much agree with an indefensible (by me) caveat which is that the most constructive and spiritual interpretations of each aspire to somethng other than a fundamentalitist approach, whereby the dictates relate to personal law and revelation that have nothing to do with worldly matters, thereby eschewing concerns regarding property, other 'religions' and international politics. I'm not prepared to give examples because I'm simply unqualified and lack the unconfidence to do so.
My only reason for guessing at that is the number of personal contacts who DON'T regard the fundamentalist approach as being the correct one. If they take this perspective then...why? I therefore choose to see it as an (easily misinterpreted) archaic blueprint for sprirituality rather than the alterntative: a rulebook for incompatability and war.
If this IS the case then there are a number of people with the best iintentions who are mystified at the common misinterpretations of both 'bibles'. I've met some of them and they make sense.
Having said that, why they don't pursue a personal program outside these contentious religious tenetss I don't know. BUt it's easy to sit back and play UT, be cynical and not offer anything ourselves. In fact, I'm pretty sure (barring UT) it's the default position.
My only reason for guessing at that is the number of personal contacts who DON'T regard the fundamentalist approach as being the correct one. If they take this perspective then...why? I therefore choose to see it as an (easily misinterpreted) archaic blueprint for sprirituality rather than the alterntative: a rulebook for incompatability and war.
If this IS the case then there are a number of people with the best iintentions who are mystified at the common misinterpretations of both 'bibles'. I've met some of them and they make sense.
Having said that, why they don't pursue a personal program outside these contentious religious tenetss I don't know. BUt it's easy to sit back and play UT, be cynical and not offer anything ourselves. In fact, I'm pretty sure (barring UT) it's the default position.
Speaking for myself, my own view is:
Lead your own life, stand on your own two feet and carry your own weight. Don't try to tell other people how to lead their lives. Try to be nice whereever possible, because nothing prevents dispute resolution more than emotion. Oh, but cross me, and you'd better be doing so from a position of unassailable power.
___
Codicil: Oh yeh, and argue like hell with Dog on the forums whenever the opportunity arises!
Lead your own life, stand on your own two feet and carry your own weight. Don't try to tell other people how to lead their lives. Try to be nice whereever possible, because nothing prevents dispute resolution more than emotion. Oh, but cross me, and you'd better be doing so from a position of unassailable power.
___
Codicil: Oh yeh, and argue like hell with Dog on the forums whenever the opportunity arises!
Thuringwethil said:
"Yes we will stand on our own two feet and carry our own weight! We are all individuals!"
Bastardising Life of Brian there but I trust the irony isn't lost on you.
Thuringwethil said:
"Ooh! Scary Scary don't we look mean? You can't see me but I can see you!"
Spot the connection between my two quotes and win a prize.
citizenship in an EU state should be a privilege .. not a right ... impose it the sameway you do with driverslicenses for a while ... if u behave badly .. u get fined ... if u behave verry badly ... u loose your "license" and get sent home again .. if your a minor .. you are your parents responsabilety .. therefore if an minor behaves badly, him and 1 parent gets sent back. If u Proove to be a good citizen .. the you get a permanent citizenship
You should also have a course in integration and learning to appreceate the country that is taking you in .. and ofcourse .. LEARN the language.
Fell free to practise whatever religion you choose, what you do in your house is your thing. But do NOT try to impose it in other circumstances.
Or...
Send em all back to Arabia ... nuke it .. and make it all in to a big Parkinglot.
You should also have a course in integration and learning to appreceate the country that is taking you in .. and ofcourse .. LEARN the language.
Fell free to practise whatever religion you choose, what you do in your house is your thing. But do NOT try to impose it in other circumstances.
Or...
Send em all back to Arabia ... nuke it .. and make it all in to a big Parkinglot.
Hector said:
I have some ideas on this... it's prejudice, pure and simple. Sheeple who have been part of a faith find it very hard to get rid of the basic assumptions of the faith - I know a couple of ex christians who still retain pretty homophobic views - until confronted with it - when they realise it's a religious overhang!
The thing is... Secular Society has a much higher moral standard than the World Religions - as Thur says, these belief systems are mired in their history of hack and slash - and claiming supernatural divine influence, they can't simply hold their hands up and say "god was wrong".
In our society, we value tolerance, freedom of speech, equal rights for all, democracy... These are all human ideas and contructions, and someone who has been raised in a western secular environment will not easily accept the bigotry and hatred of Religion - I think this is where the modern "fluffy" viiew of Islam and Christianity comes from - these people are more moral than "true believers", so they change the offensive bits of the faith (hatred of gays, no rights for women etc)
And that's another source of conflict - because the "true believers" can see that the moral people are wrong - they are not following the religion, they are corrupting it into some sort of fusion with secular morality.
It's one of the reasons why I dislike religious apology so much - these people defend a religion based on their own incorrect view of it, and in doing so help to validate the hardcore nutters that follow the thing to the letter.
Here's hoping another hundred years of technical, industrial and scientific development, combined with comprehensive science based education finally eradicates this mental ilness once and for all !!
Hector said:Bwahaha...but not how to write it, eh?
huh !?
anyways .. if u regarded to MY spelling .. i could have written it in Swedish, German or French .. but i doubt that you would have understood it then ..........
Last edited:
I think ian hits the nail smack on the head, as to why these religious fanatics spring forth, and why even the moderate religious people should be considered a threat, now as to how secular our societies really are, I am not gonna go into that deep, suffice for now, to just think about it. I know at least here in .dk we have a lot of structures and morals build around the lutherian(sp?) believes, now tho a lot of the direct powers the church used to have in these, have been severed, the basic structures are still there, remnants of a theocratic society and as such, in direct opposition as to how a completely secular society would build such structures...
And again I find myself agreeing with Hec here, we have had a lot of the same political BS about integration here in denmark, and it always makes me wonder, how well the indigenous would stand up to the same strict rules, I think they would do very badly... You don't have to completely agree and love the structure of society to live and work within it, I know I for one most definitely do not and I would like anyone who believes I don't belong to challenge that...
The problem is too complex, to be solved by integration camps and two strikes you are out laws, the problem will always comes back to the Haves and the Have Nots... I don't percieve islamic fundamentalists any different to the right wing nutters using them as leaverage to once again spew racial and religiously biased bullshit... And people unfortuanally will listen these days it seems
And again I find myself agreeing with Hec here, we have had a lot of the same political BS about integration here in denmark, and it always makes me wonder, how well the indigenous would stand up to the same strict rules, I think they would do very badly... You don't have to completely agree and love the structure of society to live and work within it, I know I for one most definitely do not and I would like anyone who believes I don't belong to challenge that...
The problem is too complex, to be solved by integration camps and two strikes you are out laws, the problem will always comes back to the Haves and the Have Nots... I don't percieve islamic fundamentalists any different to the right wing nutters using them as leaverage to once again spew racial and religiously biased bullshit... And people unfortuanally will listen these days it seems
Hector said:
indigenous louts:
see it like this m8 ... Imagine if your a father in a family ( dont know if u r) .. and u have a son that doesnt appreciate u and basicly dont respect u whatsoever ... yeah thats a prob right ... but if someone that you dont know, whos having a hard time, and u offer help .. doesnt care about you or the way u do things in your house... puts his feets up on your table .. tells you to fuck off in a tot. different language that you dont understand ... and expects u to serve him ..
courses in integration an appreciation:
Well .. basicly .. learn how we do things .. why we do them ... our history etc. and how to fucking say THANK YOU.