Afghan convert going to get death sentence?
-
A religion is nothing but its followers. A religion without followers, is not a religion. It is not an abstract concept, but a very real concept. Ask any devout believer in any religion if what he or she believes is just an abstract concept. What I'm saying is that if you let crazy ideas such as "God demands X" on the loose, and people believe in it, bad shit will happen. It has happened, it does happen, and it will happen.
ahz wrote:
But, as espeir said, Mormonism[^] has not viloated anybodys rights.
I'm not going argue against you, because I don't know Mormonism that well. But I do know that if the USA was under Mormon law, and you objected to its teachings, you and I would not be arguing about anything. You'd most likely be dead. -- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
I'm not going argue against you, because I don't know Mormonism that well. But I do know that if the USA was under Mormon law, and you objected to its teachings, you and I would not be arguing about anything. You'd most likely be dead.
That's very idiotic. I'm not Mormon, but Mormonism is a very American religion. They've never forced anybody to join. Sure they try really hard to convince you, but it's not like the secular EU or anything where they repeatedly force you to vote on a constitution (against their own rules) until you finally give in.
-
And yet history says just the opposite. The only Christian violence you can name is either very isolated or very, very old. The secular violence is very prevelant and very recent (and current).
-
espeir wrote:
Funny. I thought it was Pearl Harbor.
Well, it wasn't...
espeir wrote:
Huh? America took Hitler down. Why would we plan on being his trading partner? Ask your grandfather how effective he was planting bombs. Ask him if his little bombs would have gotten anywhere without America's big bombs. Ask him if he's grateful and if he's proud of his ungrateful little snot of a grandson.
I can't, he's dead. Remember my young friend, this was in the last century. Anyway, he was a communist, so I think he would actually have appreciated being 'liberated' by the USSR.
espeir wrote:
It's hardly alternate. Expansion was the USSR's goal. Why do you think NATO was formed? Ever hear of Vietnam? Afghanistan? Denmark was on the list. America just kept the USSR at bay. Prague made it through for one reason...America. You're welcome.
During the cold war every nation was a valid victim for the expansion either USA or USSR. While I appreciate the marshall help, I'm glad that we had Britain and France to keep the USSR at bay while you guys were meddling in the Asia region. As to the collapse of the USSR: that was inevitable, allthough very few would have guessed that it would come that soon. The USSR had it's finest days during the cold war, dictatorships thrive in an athmosphere where national values are attacked from external sources. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
jan larsen wrote:
Well, it wasn't...
:laugh: OK. I suggest you pick up a history book sometime. BTW, Germany sank US ships because the US was supplying allied forces before joining the war. America knew the risks involved beforehand.
jan larsen wrote:
I can't, he's dead. Remember my young friend, this was in the last century.
We were also both born last century. This century is 6 years old...
jan larsen wrote:
Anyway, he was a communist, so I think he would actually have appreciated being 'liberated' by the USSR.
Why am I not surprised! Do you like gray?
jan larsen wrote:
During the cold war every nation was a valid victim for the expansion either USA or USSR. While I appreciate the marshall help, I'm glad that we had Britain and France to keep the USSR at bay while you guys were meddling in the Asia region. As to the collapse of the USSR: that was inevitable, allthough very few would have guessed that it would come that soon. The USSR had it's finest days during the cold war, dictatorships thrive in an athmosphere where national values are attacked from external sources.
Britain was a good partner. Not France. We were the ones with the military to match the USSR's. Without our complete superiority, you would have been 'liberated' long ago. You would now be half-starved waiting for your stale bread.
-
Islam is the same crap as Judaism and Christianity. The main difference is that the middle east has become so saturated with Islam, there's nothing but Islam. Islam has got a powerful hold over the population. And what can you do, but abide to idiocy, if you can't go against God?! Why is it so hard to see that if you don't keep religion on a short leash, bad shit will happen!? It's so obvious! :sigh: -- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Why is it so hard to see that if you don't keep religion on a short leash, bad sh*t will happen!? It's so obvious!
Good point. But i dont necessarily think that religion is the only thing at play when people commit acts of violence in the name of a certain religion. People use religion as an excuse for violence. There will always be human nature, regardless of the religion, but when a religion encourages violence, it makes the problem worse.
-
You need to get an edumacation.
espeir wrote:
You need to get an edumacation.
You sure got him with that one. :doh:
-
espeir wrote:
You need to get an edumacation.
You sure got him with that one. :doh:
Being American, I would expect you to pick up on that. "Edumacation"...It's intentional.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Why is it so hard to see that if you don't keep religion on a short leash, bad sh*t will happen!? It's so obvious!
Good point. But i dont necessarily think that religion is the only thing at play when people commit acts of violence in the name of a certain religion. People use religion as an excuse for violence. There will always be human nature, regardless of the religion, but when a religion encourages violence, it makes the problem worse.
First off, thank you for being reasonable and understanding what I'm trying to say.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
People use religion as an excuse for violence. There will always be human nature, regardless of the religion, but when a religion encourages violence, it makes the problem worse.
I won't argue with you on that. But I would like to point out that even if a certain religion isn't encouraging violence, its followers aren't slow to pick up the noose and root out the "evil" - something which is of higher purpose. I'm fairly confident sure that if a religion X has a "bible" containing only the sentence "You must love everyone", that religion will at one point, given enough power and opportunity, will start killing those who doesn't love everyone. My main point is that in the middle east, Islam has gained so much power, that it has engulfed almost everything. The religion has become law. As such, it is impossible to expect anything but crap in such areas. And just to clarify, probably not needed for you, but definately for others in this forum; I am not justifying atrocities made by secular governments and/or philosophies. Anybody who thinks that is just asking for my nonparticipation in debate. :) -- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip. -- modified at 4:35 Saturday 25th March, 2006
-
First off, thank you for being reasonable and understanding what I'm trying to say.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
People use religion as an excuse for violence. There will always be human nature, regardless of the religion, but when a religion encourages violence, it makes the problem worse.
I won't argue with you on that. But I would like to point out that even if a certain religion isn't encouraging violence, its followers aren't slow to pick up the noose and root out the "evil" - something which is of higher purpose. I'm fairly confident sure that if a religion X has a "bible" containing only the sentence "You must love everyone", that religion will at one point, given enough power and opportunity, will start killing those who doesn't love everyone. My main point is that in the middle east, Islam has gained so much power, that it has engulfed almost everything. The religion has become law. As such, it is impossible to expect anything but crap in such areas. And just to clarify, probably not needed for you, but definately for others in this forum; I am not justifying atrocities made by secular governments and/or philosophies. Anybody who thinks that is just asking for my nonparticipation in debate. :) -- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip. -- modified at 4:35 Saturday 25th March, 2006
The problem is clear. You're equating an inherently violent religion with Christianity (and most other religions) which is inherently non-violent. As I previously asked (which you conveniently ignored), why don't you provide examples of Christian violence that are both widespread (i.e. actually part of the religion and not isolated incidents) and recent (say...within 100 years).
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
And just to clarify, probably needed for you, but definately for others in this forum; I am not justifying atrocities made by secular governments and/or philosophies. Anybody who thinks that is just asking for my nonparticipation in debate.
You can't argue one without the other. If your claim is that religiosity is violent, then you need a benchmark with which to compare it. That's why I'm comparing it to secularism (which is apparently your viewpoint). And the religious clearly trump the secular in the competition.
-
And yet history says just the opposite. The only Christian violence you can name is either very isolated or very, very old. The secular violence is very prevelant and very recent (and current).
All history says is that there have been fewer religious governments recently than secular. Christian desire to repress others is in fact tempered in large part by secular government, and that still doesn't stop them from wanting to legislate or coerce rights away from others based solely on their beliefs. Totalitarianism breeds violence. The demand that people accept an institutionalized belief system without question breeds violence. Violence is not inherent in secular or religious government, but religion is more likely from the start to demand acceptance without question. Name a religious democracy, one that is democratic more than just in name.
-
All history says is that there have been fewer religious governments recently than secular. Christian desire to repress others is in fact tempered in large part by secular government, and that still doesn't stop them from wanting to legislate or coerce rights away from others based solely on their beliefs. Totalitarianism breeds violence. The demand that people accept an institutionalized belief system without question breeds violence. Violence is not inherent in secular or religious government, but religion is more likely from the start to demand acceptance without question. Name a religious democracy, one that is democratic more than just in name.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Name a religious democracy, one that is democratic more than just in name.
Try to keep up. The comparison is not religious government vs. secular governments. The comparison is religion-backed violence vs. secular-backed violence. Oh, and just to add...Secular governments rose to power based on the secular movements behind them. The reason there haven't been any theistic governments lately is because religion (unlike its secular counterpart) has not been driven to acquire power through violence. Islam is the exception, of course. -- modified at 15:58 Friday 24th March, 2006
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Name a religious democracy, one that is democratic more than just in name.
Try to keep up. The comparison is not religious government vs. secular governments. The comparison is religion-backed violence vs. secular-backed violence. Oh, and just to add...Secular governments rose to power based on the secular movements behind them. The reason there haven't been any theistic governments lately is because religion (unlike its secular counterpart) has not been driven to acquire power through violence. Islam is the exception, of course. -- modified at 15:58 Friday 24th March, 2006
espeir wrote:
Try to keep up. The comparison is not religious government vs. secular governments. The comparison is religion-backed violence vs. secular-backed violence.
Actually, you snarky jackass, look back a few messages and you will find:
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Name as many religions you can which haven't violated basic human rights at some point in time.
Human rights, not just violence.
espeir wrote:
Oh, and just to add...Secular governments rose to power based on the secular movements behind them. The reason there haven't been any theistic governments lately is because religion (unlike its secular counterpart) has not been driven to acquire power through violence. Islam is the exception, of course.
So what is religion's "secular counterpart"? Wait, let me guess...COMMUNISM!!! The reason there haven't been any theistic governments lately is because technology, travel, and education are making populations more diverse, and diversity precludes monotheism.
-
I think the best point to be made is that ANY form of power will be corrupted and abuses will happen. Cloak it how you want its just mankind being mankind. Some people take more offense if it is cloaked in religiosity than if it is cloaked in motherland statist symbolism but it is still all about controlling those you have power over. And mankinds track record on that isn't what you would call stellar. Enough said. (At least by me!) (Or until I can make another joke!) I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
When did W invade France? :confused:
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
When did W invade France?
Yeah, WTF, when did W invade France?
-
Jon Newman wrote:
Sorry, I'm British...we don't have as much experience with nukes as you.
We know. That's partially why we're still a super power and you're not.
-
Jesus preached violence? That's news to me.
espeir wrote:
Jesus preached violence? That's news to me.
Hmm, have you never read the bible? Here are a few examples of Jesus quotations from the new testament. Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. Matthew 13:41-42 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 24:51 And I shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
-
espeir wrote:
Jesus preached violence? That's news to me.
Hmm, have you never read the bible? Here are a few examples of Jesus quotations from the new testament. Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. Matthew 13:41-42 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 24:51 And I shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you. Doesnt that seem to be a contradiction? I dont understand why that the bible would say two things at once like that. I think it may be that there some inaccuracies in the translation.
-
espeir wrote:
Jesus preached violence? That's news to me.
Hmm, have you never read the bible? Here are a few examples of Jesus quotations from the new testament. Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. Matthew 13:41-42 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 24:51 And I shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.Meaning that His teachings, although peaceful in what they call us to do, will cause divisions and enmity, and even violence against those who follow them.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Matthew 10:39
He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.Not sure how this one could be taken to have anything to do with violence... but perhaps what you're thinking about is how people talk about soldiers giving their lives for a cause. Soldiers don't just give their lives; they take lives as well. This isn't what Jesus was talking about. He was talking about being willing to give up everything we have if necessary, to gain true life in Him.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Matthew 13:41-42
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.This is talking about God's final judgement of evildoers (those who choose, as a way of life, to violate His commandment to love one another). It is not talking about anything that we should do here on earth.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Matthew 24:51
And I shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.Again, having to do with the judgement of evildoers at the end. You can see the verse in its context here[^].
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Luke 19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.This is taken from a story[^] that Jesus told, and does not have to do with anything that Jesus
-
espeir wrote:
You need to get an edumacation.
You sure got him with that one. :doh:
IIRC, it is a line from "The Simpsons" ColinMackay.net Scottish Developers are looking for speakers for user group sessions over the next few months. Do you want to know more?
-
Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you. Doesnt that seem to be a contradiction? I dont understand why that the bible would say two things at once like that. I think it may be that there some inaccuracies in the translation.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Doesnt that seem to be a contradiction? I dont understand why that the bible would say two things at once like that.
The two clauses are variations on the same theme. First, love your enemies means to personally forgive those who do you wrong. This applies on a personal level, i.e. to your neighbors, relative and acquaintances. Second, pray for those who persecute you means to ask God to forgive those who do you wrong. This applies on an impersonal level, i.e. to the Romans and others who persecuted the followers of Christ.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.Meaning that His teachings, although peaceful in what they call us to do, will cause divisions and enmity, and even violence against those who follow them.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Matthew 10:39
He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.Not sure how this one could be taken to have anything to do with violence... but perhaps what you're thinking about is how people talk about soldiers giving their lives for a cause. Soldiers don't just give their lives; they take lives as well. This isn't what Jesus was talking about. He was talking about being willing to give up everything we have if necessary, to gain true life in Him.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Matthew 13:41-42
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.This is talking about God's final judgement of evildoers (those who choose, as a way of life, to violate His commandment to love one another). It is not talking about anything that we should do here on earth.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Matthew 24:51
And I shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.Again, having to do with the judgement of evildoers at the end. You can see the verse in its context here[^].
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Luke 19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.This is taken from a story[^] that Jesus told, and does not have to do with anything that Jesus
J. Dunlap wrote:
Ed Gadziemski wrote: Matthew 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. Not sure how this one could be taken to have anything to do with violence... but perhaps what you're thinking about is how people talk about soldiers giving their lives for a cause. Soldiers don't just give their lives; they take lives as well. This isn't what Jesus was talking about. He was talking about being willing to give up everything we have if necessary, to gain true life in Him.
"He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." That statement has been used to recruit soldiers for Christian holy wars throughout history. It is not much different than the Muslim statement that someone who loses his life while battling infidels achieves martyrdom.