The effect of religion
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Where did I ever support sucide bombing?
Which part of this don't you understand?
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote to Tamimi:
This is the first time I've seen somebody on CP openly support suicide bombing.
Cheers, Vikram.
"But nowadays, it means nothing. Features are never frozen, development keeps happening, bugs never get fixed, and documentation is something you might find on wikipedia." - Marc Clifton on betas.
Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybobThe title- I don't understand why are you bringing me in the middle. I ask again what's relation of my point of view with the other guy?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Not by definition, but they certainly can. In fact many seem to resent Christians and therefore probably Jesus by proxy. By contrast, it would be completely against Christian beliefs to have disdain for Jesus and doing so would make you decidedly unchristian.
That's all besides the point. The point is that we know he attended church and accepted Jesus in a religious sense of being divine (an athiest would not). He may not have "loved Jesus" but his interpretation of him was decidedly non-athiest. He was religious and attended a Presbyterian church where he worshipped the lord. That makes him Christian.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's all besides the point
Nope. That is the point. Per your own admission, his parents made him go to church (which means against his will). He didn't "accept" Jesus because per his own words, Jesus was a symbol for the weak and defenseless and nothing more. But I'm not surprised that you're eager to paint him as something other than an atheist since you guys have such a horrible track record when it comes to violence.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
It sounds to me he looks at Jesus with utter disdain.
Ah, but it also sounds like he believes in Jesus, and therefore cannot be atheist. The way he talks about him is very different to how an atheist would. Sounds to me like he was twisted enough to believe Jesus had caused him grievance. That is impossible for an atheist.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
Ah, but it also sounds like he believes in Jesus, and therefore cannot be atheist. The way he talks about him is very different to how an atheist would.
Anybody with half a brain (atheist or not) believes in Jesus. Christians specifically believe in Jesus as the son of God and their savior. Given that he referred to Jesus as a symbol for the weak and as one who "raped his soul" (obviously in a symbolic sense), then he isn't Christian. The decidedly symbolic attributes he assigns to Jesus and the fact that he revered and emulated fellow atheists clearly demonstrates his atheism. You know, it would be much healthier if you just admitted to your religions flaws so that your people stop doing this kind of thing.
-
I hate to say it, but he can't be an atheist if he believes Jesus raped his soul. First off, he's believing in Jesus, just not in the Christian way, secondly, he believes he has a soul. Now, I wouldn't claim he's a Christian, but he is not atheist.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I hate to say it, but he can't be an atheist if he believes Jesus raped his soul.
I hate to say it, but that's obviously a figurative statement coming from an English major. How could Jesus literally rape his soul? In fact, atheists seem eager to claim that Christianity is responsible for the world's ills, so that's perfectly consistent with atheist dogma.
-
do what? My forefathers laid the foundation to strenghthen Islam in world and now followers doing great job. Neocons like you who are not willing to follow your Own bible, keep making fruitless effort to deal with Islam. You guys make sissy attempts by labeling it "Terrorist religion","fascism" etc while you guys know yourself that your enemies and their faith[Islam] is getting penetrated in American land day by day. Is it not lame to compare Islam with COmmunism? you guys are utter idiot to deal Islam like Communism. The Rand Report to deal with Islam by funding so called LIberal muslims and seculers[Muslim lefts] by Christian and Zions right[Neocons and Freemasons] is a funny thing. So far you guys have earned nothing because you guys following a policy which is not fruitful. I just laugh at your elders who make silly policy to deal with Islam. That britist lawrence of ARabia was infinite times better than you dumbass Americans. Learn some lesson from him to deal with Islam otherwise one day your own son will become a Muslim infront of your eyes and that day you might prefer to commit suicide. :rolleyes:
Damn, I agree with everything you just said. However, that doesn't change the fact that my forefathers sacrificed to give me liberty while yours gave you a totalitarian state and a dark age tribalistic culture precisely because they, like you, were not men enough to stand up with backs straight and heads held high to strive for anything more. And even if it succeeds in its goal to destroy the west, Islam will collapse from its own inability to control its urge to destroy. Islam has become nothing but a dark force for death and destruction and if it ever succeeds at destroying everything else it will then turn and destroy itself. It has no future because it has too few men worthy of the name.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Judah Himango wrote:
e state of Israel and Muslims that don't want Israel to exist.
Even JEWS Don't want Israel to be existed. I hope yo know the difference between zions and real jews.
-
Judah Himango wrote:
Vik
Vikram. Please. :)
Judah Himango wrote:
Vik, there are no Christian bombings in Israel.
I recall reading somewhere about Hamas and other groups in the ME - a study showed that the number of radical Muslims amongst suicide bombers was not as high as most people think. A few were Christians, and some were Muslims, but not high on the 'militant Islam' scale. I'll be the first to admit I could easily be wrong though. :)
Judah Himango wrote:
the war going on in Israel is between the state of Israel and Muslims that don't want Israel to exist
To a large extent, I agree, but 30 seconds of googling turned up this[^] Doesn't exactly look like the best site for unbiased information, though.
Cheers, Vikram.
"But nowadays, it means nothing. Features are never frozen, development keeps happening, bugs never get fixed, and documentation is something you might find on wikipedia." - Marc Clifton on betas.
Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybobOk Vikram. :) You're right that a small minority of Palestinians are Christians; same goes for Israelis. However, we know the people doing the bombings are Islamic radicals; the whole "Allah ahkbar" thing is a sure giveaway. ;) The groups primarily carrying out the suicide bombings are Hamas, the newly elected Islamic organization whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel, replacing it with an Islamic theocracy, and Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, another happy-happy-fun-gang of Palestinian peaceniks. :rolleyes:
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Virginia Tech Shootings, Guns, and Politics The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Judah Himango wrote:
Vik, there are no Christian bombings in Israel.
OK, I found the link[^]. I got the wrong country, though.
In Lebanon in the 1980s, of those suicide attackers, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were Communists and Socialists. Three were Christians.
Cheers, Vikram.
"But nowadays, it means nothing. Features are never frozen, development keeps happening, bugs never get fixed, and documentation is something you might find on wikipedia." - Marc Clifton on betas.
Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybobYeah Lebanon used to be a Catholic nation, believe it or not. Unfortunately, after the last 20 some years of civil war, the nation has been hijacked Islamic fundamentalists, and is now strong-armed by the Party of Allah (Hezbollah).
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Virginia Tech Shootings, Guns, and Politics The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Judah Himango wrote:
e state of Israel and Muslims that don't want Israel to exist.
Even JEWS Don't want Israel to be existed. I hope yo know the difference between zions and real jews.
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Even JEWS Don't want Israel to be existed. I hope yo know the difference between zions and real jews.
That's simply not true, Adnan. I'm a real Jew, and I want Israel to exist. I speak for a vast majority of Jews. There are s tiny minority of anti-semitic Jews who hate the Jewish idea, Jewish principles, and the Jewish state. The world never seems short of dumb people. But don't add yourself to that list by claiming such people represent a majority of Jews. We Jews *want* Israel to exist. Understand? We will fight to keep our independence and freedom from your Islamic theocracy and oppressive dhimmitude.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Virginia Tech Shootings, Guns, and Politics The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
While my views are largely on Tamimi's blather the same as yours, I find this ridiculous:
Shog9 wrote:
They are wicked enough to kill for what they believe in
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, George Washington, and those who opposed Hitler by fighting him were wicked men? :wtf: I think it's honorable to kill for what you believe in, as long as the ones you kill are legitimate targets - a soldier of an occupying nation, a ruthless dictator, and the like. The problem with suicide bombers is that they consider people buying stuff in markets or travelling in buses legitimate targets.
Cheers, Vikram.
"But nowadays, it means nothing. Features are never frozen, development keeps happening, bugs never get fixed, and documentation is something you might find on wikipedia." - Marc Clifton on betas.
Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybobVikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, George Washington, and those who opposed Hitler by fighting him were wicked men?
I never really thought about it that way. Possibly because we don't really talk about it that way. I mean, when's the last time you heard someone say, "democracy survived because it's supporters killed enough people"... I get what you're saying - at some point, it does boil down to killing for your beliefs or being killed for them. But i think there's more to it than just "picking legitimate targets". The people we're talking about aren't killing to protect themselves or their families, no matter how much they might think so. The fact that they are not just willing, but determined to die in the process proves that - kinda hard to say you've protected your beliefs if you're dead. As for Washington... it's not quite apt, but i think there's more to the analogy than i'm willing to get into in this thread. Another day...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
Just wanted to come back and say I enjoyed the discussion.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Thanks, me too! I often worry people are going to take comments personally, which is not what I intend; I'm glad you enjoyed it too.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I hate to say it, but he can't be an atheist if he believes Jesus raped his soul.
I hate to say it, but that's obviously a figurative statement coming from an English major. How could Jesus literally rape his soul? In fact, atheists seem eager to claim that Christianity is responsible for the world's ills, so that's perfectly consistent with atheist dogma.
Its not consistent at all. To be atheist, you'd have to deny Jesus, not blame him.
This statement was never false.
-
I never came to any of those conclusions. What I specifically said is that, given my personal experience, I will continue to oppose legalized marijuana. That's its use or restriction are subject to the democratic desires of the public. Personally, I believe its detrimental to the nation and to individuals. Your experience, being different than mine, might lead you to a different conclusion. That's where democracy comes into play. Of course, since potheads are too lazy to vote, I'll probably always win.
Not a very "conservative" position considering the amount of money this costs and how ineffective it is. I'm thinking that the term conservative here is a misnomer.
This statement was never false.
-
please don't mix the facts................... what iam talking about is just like what the iraqi people do against the foreign enemies. killing women and children is a crime and have no honor in doing that, what happened in University of Virginia is a damn crime. iam not talking about these things.
When you get mad...THINK twice that the only advice Tamimi - Code
Tamimi - Code wrote:
please don't mix the facts................... what iam talking about is just like what the iraqi people do against the foreign enemies.
Hmmmm...Iraq. Like today[^] where 13 Iraqis were killed in a bomb and 32 others wounded? Yes, clearly I'm mixing up my facts. And obviously it's noble for you cavemen to blow up our soldier who's sole goal is to keep you from blowing up eachother. You're pathetic and will get what you deserve.
-
I never came to any of those conclusions. What I specifically said is that, given my personal experience, I will continue to oppose legalized marijuana. That's its use or restriction are subject to the democratic desires of the public. Personally, I believe its detrimental to the nation and to individuals. Your experience, being different than mine, might lead you to a different conclusion. That's where democracy comes into play. Of course, since potheads are too lazy to vote, I'll probably always win.
Red Stateler wrote:
That's where democracy comes into play.
Democracy. You mean when the tobacco and cotton lobbyists pushed for its criminality in the early 30s and the then drug czar joining in since he was having such trouble going after the real drugs? And the point that since mostly ethnic groups would be affected it in effect kills two birds with one stone. They made it schedule 1 in that process, and there was nothing democratic about it. Now another point of federalism verses the states is Health Care. 13 states or something like that, have medical laws concerning cannabis that passed democratically, but the federal govt won't allow the states to legislate. This is akin to your Roe vs Wade debate in that democracy is being usurped. So, in the case of Cannabis, Democracy is absent. And the central federal govt has usurped the power from the states.
This statement was never false.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, George Washington, and those who opposed Hitler by fighting him were wicked men?
I never really thought about it that way. Possibly because we don't really talk about it that way. I mean, when's the last time you heard someone say, "democracy survived because it's supporters killed enough people"... I get what you're saying - at some point, it does boil down to killing for your beliefs or being killed for them. But i think there's more to it than just "picking legitimate targets". The people we're talking about aren't killing to protect themselves or their families, no matter how much they might think so. The fact that they are not just willing, but determined to die in the process proves that - kinda hard to say you've protected your beliefs if you're dead. As for Washington... it's not quite apt, but i think there's more to the analogy than i'm willing to get into in this thread. Another day...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
Shog9 wrote:
I never really thought about it that way.
Glad I was able to give you a different POV. :)
Shog9 wrote:
I mean, when's the last time you heard someone say, "democracy survived because it's supporters killed enough people"...
Simply because most people don't think like that. Just reflect on it, though - how many independence movements succeeded by peaceful means, esp. before 1940? Your own country fought for its independence. Mexico did. All the states of Indo-China did. Indonesia did. Bangladesh did. The countries of South America did. The Arab states did. Those of Africa, by and large, fought for their independence. The only exceptions that come to mind are India from the UK, and South Africa from apartheid. Even Mandela was a Gandhian...
Shog9 wrote:
The fact that they are not just willing, but determined to die
I read that samurai went into battle looking to die - they thought a man looking to escape alive would fight poorly. To reiterate, I think it's honorable to be willing to die for your beliefs, but not if you're going to take down a dozen people shopping for vegetables along with you.
Shog9 wrote:
As for Washington... it's not quite apt, but i think there's more to the analogy than i'm willing to get into in this thread. Another day...
Well, today is another day, and I'd be glad to actually learn something in the SB. :-D
Cheers, Vikram.
"But nowadays, it means nothing. Features are never frozen, development keeps happening, bugs never get fixed, and documentation is something you might find on wikipedia." - Marc Clifton on betas.
Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybob -
Yeah Lebanon used to be a Catholic nation, believe it or not. Unfortunately, after the last 20 some years of civil war, the nation has been hijacked Islamic fundamentalists, and is now strong-armed by the Party of Allah (Hezbollah).
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Virginia Tech Shootings, Guns, and Politics The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
Yeah Lebanon used to be a Catholic nation
As did Syria. But then, the boundaries of Lebanon and Syria are pretty blurred. An Indian friend of mine living in Oman said most of the countries of the ME were just 'lines drawn in the sand' by the colonial powers. Heck, Syrian Catholicism is big in India.
Judah Himango wrote:
Unfortunately, after the last 20 some years of civil war
Did the civil war last that long? I thought it lasted 12-15 years, not 20+. I happen to know a bit about Lebanon - it's a beautiful country. Unfortunately, it's been torn apart both from within and outside. I'm not a scholar of Gibran's works, but I like some of his writings. Lebanese is the only ME cuisine I find palatable - because they have a LOT of vegetarian dishes. Where'd that drool smiley go?
Cheers, Vikram.
"But nowadays, it means nothing. Features are never frozen, development keeps happening, bugs never get fixed, and documentation is something you might find on wikipedia." - Marc Clifton on betas.
Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybob -
Ok Vikram. :) You're right that a small minority of Palestinians are Christians; same goes for Israelis. However, we know the people doing the bombings are Islamic radicals; the whole "Allah ahkbar" thing is a sure giveaway. ;) The groups primarily carrying out the suicide bombings are Hamas, the newly elected Islamic organization whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel, replacing it with an Islamic theocracy, and Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, another happy-happy-fun-gang of Palestinian peaceniks. :rolleyes:
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Virginia Tech Shootings, Guns, and Politics The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
However, we know the people doing the bombings are Islamic radicals
In today's world, the vast majority absolutely are. Israel/the Occupied Territories, Jammu and Kashmir, Sept 11 attacks, London, you name it. The only exception I can think of is the LTTE, whose suicide bombers are primarily Tamil socialists from Hindu families.
Cheers, Vikram.
"But nowadays, it means nothing. Features are never frozen, development keeps happening, bugs never get fixed, and documentation is something you might find on wikipedia." - Marc Clifton on betas.
Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybob -
Shog9 wrote:
I never really thought about it that way.
Glad I was able to give you a different POV. :)
Shog9 wrote:
I mean, when's the last time you heard someone say, "democracy survived because it's supporters killed enough people"...
Simply because most people don't think like that. Just reflect on it, though - how many independence movements succeeded by peaceful means, esp. before 1940? Your own country fought for its independence. Mexico did. All the states of Indo-China did. Indonesia did. Bangladesh did. The countries of South America did. The Arab states did. Those of Africa, by and large, fought for their independence. The only exceptions that come to mind are India from the UK, and South Africa from apartheid. Even Mandela was a Gandhian...
Shog9 wrote:
The fact that they are not just willing, but determined to die
I read that samurai went into battle looking to die - they thought a man looking to escape alive would fight poorly. To reiterate, I think it's honorable to be willing to die for your beliefs, but not if you're going to take down a dozen people shopping for vegetables along with you.
Shog9 wrote:
As for Washington... it's not quite apt, but i think there's more to the analogy than i'm willing to get into in this thread. Another day...
Well, today is another day, and I'd be glad to actually learn something in the SB. :-D
Cheers, Vikram.
"But nowadays, it means nothing. Features are never frozen, development keeps happening, bugs never get fixed, and documentation is something you might find on wikipedia." - Marc Clifton on betas.
Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybobVikram A Punathambekar wrote:
To reiterate, I think it's honorable to be willing to die for your beliefs, but not if you're going to take down a dozen people shopping for vegetables along with you.
Well, being willing to die is one thing, killing yourself is another. It's a fine distinction, perhaps... but to me, the former sees his own death as an acceptable cost, while the latter sees death as a noble goal. And yes i'm aware that this belief isn't uncommon, but i don't agree with it at all. If your plan to change the world involves leaving it, then your plan sucks. :rolleyes:
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Well, today is another day, and I'd be glad to actually learn something in the SB.
Fair 'nuff then, this leads into your earlier comments quite nicely. Trite answer: the winners write the history books. Our country was founded by terrorists and insurgents. But, they persevered and won. Our constitution reflects these origins, with specific allowances for the sort of things that we are all too ready to outlaw elsewhere, and specific prohibitions for things that we do elsewhere. Make no mistake - i'm not equating the founders of my republic to the vile dogs that kill innocents in misguided tribute to a false ideology... but there are some similarities; certainly more than our current Gov't would care to reflect on. So, was it worth it? The bloodshed and loss of life, was this a fair price for the nation it bore? I'm not entirely convinced that it was. Certainly there were those at the time who thought it wasn't, and they were driven out. Indeed, our inability to ask or answer this question, apart from "if you enjoy the freedoms you have, then it was worthwhile", strikes me as profoundly sad. But our nation has rarely gone a time without knowing war, and often the reasons for war are far more practical and far less idealistic than those so often ascribed to The Revolution. Perhaps then, i am being unfair to state that it is wrong to kill for your beliefs. After all, you might say that killing an attacker to protect yourself or your family is simply killing for the belief that you and your family should not be dead... Killing to gain or protect land is but killing for the belief that the land should be yours... ...but that's not what i meant, and i apologize if i was trite there as well. When your land is occupied, you attack those occupying it. When your comrade is imprisoned,