Christian forums

[Frigidus]

My comment? That Islam is a religion which, dissociated from its historical influence, is ideologically totalitarian, unable to compatibilize with the spiritual/temporal divide, and naturally, furthermore intrinsically militarily expansionist in its proselytization, which, in opposition to the clear cultural/identitary dichotomy found in Christianity, imposes uni-dimensional cultural and governmental structures? That, in essence :

Islam = Fascism, in its crassest, basest, most despicable form.

If you want to look beyond simple ideology, and compare XPian and Islamic in praxis, I also have an albeit more tenuous theory concerning an essential raprochement evident between many of the less savoury examples of Islam in practice and its theology.

What are we supposed to say to this exactly. You express your opinion without any evidence to back it up. We can't disprove it. Let's say I said "Hinduism encourages greed and violence." I add no supporting argument and then ask you to disprove me. What would you do?

[Napoleon Ier]

Question, how is this description of Islam any different from Xianity?

My comment? That Xianity is a religion which, dissociated from its historical influence (any and all controversial scientific debates made during the church's power)--which are examples of the imperfect praxis, the application if you will, of Christian ideology, not the ideology in ipse, is ideologically totalitarian (promoting slavery, male dominance)--again, you've missed the point that specific reference to ideological precepts based on Mohammad's life and teachings, not those applied later are the subject of contention, unable to compatibilize with the spiritual/temporal divide, and naturally, furthermore intrinsically militarily expansionist in its proselytization (colonization of India, australia, New World)--As before, not quite answering the question of ideology vs. praxis, and of course, spiritual temporal divide is clearly recognised by Catholicism and mainstream Christanity, "render onto Caesar what is Caesar's", which, in opposition to the clear cultural/identitary dichotomy found in Atheism, imposes uni-dimensional cultural and governmental structures? -- wrong, as oppsed to Islam which is designed to be have societal base, taking the Yathrib community for example, Christianity is a religion founded upon the government of the "Kingdom of God" (spiritual) and is compatible to the extent that they are moral with governments (Romans 13)[/quote]

[Napoleon Ier]

My comment? That Islam is a religion which, dissociated from its historical influence, is ideologically totalitarian, unable to compatibilize with the spiritual/temporal divide, and naturally, furthermore intrinsically militarily expansionist in its proselytization, which, in opposition to the clear cultural/identitary dichotomy found in Christianity, imposes uni-dimensional cultural and governmental structures? That, in essence :

Islam = Fascism, in its crassest, basest, most despicable form.

If you want to look beyond simple ideology, and compare XPian and Islamic in praxis, I also have an albeit more tenuous theory concerning an essential raprochement evident between many of the less savoury examples of Islam in practice and its theology.

What are we supposed to say to this exactly. You express your opinion without any evidence to back it up. We can't disprove it. Let's say I said "Hinduism encourages greed and violence." I add no supporting argument and then ask you to disprove me. What would you do?

Islam exists as a ideology which is societal, and totalitarian, (imposition of Sharia, jizyah...), as opposed to Christianity's clear divide between the Kingdom of God and temporal government.

[Frigidus]

[/b], is ideologically totalitarian (promoting slavery, male dominance)--again, you've missed the point that specific reference to ideological precepts based on Mohammad's life and teachings, not those applied later are the subject of contention

I really wish I could contribute an argument to this conversation but, unfortunately, having never read the New Testament I honestly can't give any arguments for or against this. However, I would hardly try to seperate the teacher from the students.

That aside, Jesus was, to my knowledge, a chauvinist. Pretty much everyone back then was. I remember hearing about a passage from the Bible (Don't expect an exact quote or even an approximate location, I don't have one) where Mary walks up while he's talking to his apostles and Jesus, pretty upset, tells her to go back inside since he was in the middle of men's business. Does this mean that women shouldn't be reading the Bible? Should they just listen to men's interpretation? Those were the precepts of Jesus' teachings, were they not?

[Napoleon Ier]

[/b], is ideologically totalitarian (promoting slavery, male dominance)--again, you've missed the point that specific reference to ideological precepts based on Mohammad's life and teachings, not those applied later are the subject of contention

I really wish I could contribute an argument to this conversation but, unfortunately, having never read the New Testament I honestly can't give any arguments for or against this. However, I would hardly try to seperate the teacher from the students.



That aside, Jesus was, to my knowledge, a chauvinist. Pretty much everyone back then was. I remember hearing about a passage from the Bible (Don't expect an exact quote or even an approximate location, I don't have one) where Mary walks up while he's talking to his apostles and Jesus, pretty upset, tells her to go back inside since he was in the middle of men's business. Does this mean that women shouldn't be reading the Bible? Should they just listen to men's interpretation? Those were the precepts of Jesus' teachings, were they not?

That isn't in the Gospels that I've read , though certainly, men's business or roles, though equal, are different to womens, therefore whywomen can be nuns and men priests, so I can see how that quote could be misinterpreted.
Jesus was revolutionnary in women's rights at the time. Talking to the Samaritan woman, letting off the woman caught in aduletry in John 8...

[got tonkaed]

napoleon, if you are going to make the abstract argument about the relationships between the perfect ideological differences between either one of the religions and claim during that argument you are not talking about imperfect applications of said ideology....

then you cannot eventually bring that argument back down to describe why adherents of a particular religion are therefore better or worse than any other. In essence if you are going to argue the difference in the abstract you cannot therefore use that as your evidence to the practice, as it is essentially two different things.

In essence, if you feel the theology of christianity is better than islam, that of course is your perrogative. However, to claim current islam is more dangerous to society as a result of that theology is cheating and not allowed.

[Napoleon Ier]

napoleon, if you are going to make the abstract argument about the relationships between the perfect ideological differences between either one of the religions and claim during that argument you are not talking about imperfect applications of said ideology....

then you cannot eventually bring that argument back down to describe why adherents of a particular religion are therefore better or worse than any other. In essence if you are going to argue the difference in the abstract you cannot therefore use that as your evidence to the practice, as it is essentially two different things.

In essence, if you feel the theology of christianity is better than islam, that of course is your perrogative. However, to claim current islam is more dangerous to society as a result of that theology is cheating and not allowed.

Interesting, but I argue both, seperate and connected. The dangerous and authoritarian nature of Islam and its application are connected, though obviously affected by external factors.

[got tonkaed]

that may or may not be true of islam, but the problem is i think your trying to do too much with your argument. Essentially you end up making large qualitative statements about the nature of the religions using evidence that is more complex that the boiled down statement that you make. While this is necessarily true of any argument (the evidence must be more complex than the statement seemingly) when looking at issues of policy or even looking at current events to take broad statements without elaboratly laying out the groundwork (as you are attempting to do, even if i dont agree with you) then you inevitably err in judgement.

I understand that you are trying to balance the argument and evidence to make your claim. It is in my estimation that you havent done it yet.

[Frigidus]

[/b], is ideologically totalitarian (promoting slavery, male dominance)--again, you've missed the point that specific reference to ideological precepts based on Mohammad's life and teachings, not those applied later are the subject of contention

I really wish I could contribute an argument to this conversation but, unfortunately, having never read the New Testament I honestly can't give any arguments for or against this. However, I would hardly try to seperate the teacher from the students.



That aside, Jesus was, to my knowledge, a chauvinist. Pretty much everyone back then was. I remember hearing about a passage from the Bible (Don't expect an exact quote or even an approximate location, I don't have one) where Mary walks up while he's talking to his apostles and Jesus, pretty upset, tells her to go back inside since he was in the middle of men's business. Does this mean that women shouldn't be reading the Bible? Should they just listen to men's interpretation? Those were the precepts of Jesus' teachings, were they not?

That isn't in the Gospels that I've read , though certainly, men's business or roles, though equal, are different to womens, therefore whywomen can be nuns and men priests, so I can see how that quote could be misinterpreted.
Jesus was revolutionnary in women's rights at the time. Talking to the Samaritan woman, letting off the woman caught in aduletry in John 8...

Of course back then both the man and woman were stoned for adultery. I always wondered what happened to the guy...

[Napoleon Ier]

Yeeeees. Which is what makes Jesus ruling all the more controversial as the woman was according to the pharisees the one who was responsible for seducing the man.

[Guiscard]

http://duggmirror.com/comedy/100_Greatest_Quotes_from_fundamentalist_christian_chat_rooms/?OTC-ig

This is by far the most vile and disgusting and ignorant shit I've ever read online. Check it out

Yeah, ok, well done. I can find just as many ridiculous atheist quotes, like "religion is the root of all evil" (televised series on channnel 4 by Dorkins).

well, that isn't quite as stupid. without religion, how many fewer wars would have been fought?

Wars are fought over land and resources. Very few wars have ever been fought over religion, and most of them were started by muslims.

30 years war? Crusades? Neither were started by Muslims, and both are some of the largest conflicts in European history. I'm a Christian and proud of it, but that's no reason to distort historical fact.

Ambrose, the First actual crusade was done by the Byzantines in the 7th century I believe, because of the invading Turks/Muslims. And the Crusades, in part, were started by the Turkish Muslims, by their continous attacks against the Byzantines, and thus the Emperor called for help from the Pope. One must also remember that it was the Muslims that stopped the pilgrimages, and it wasn't until Saladin that they were (in part at least) able to continue, so to say that the Crusades are entirely at the fault of Christians isn't true.

Actually it was against the Sassanid Persians.

Can I save the waffle and just tell you your a little wide of the mark here (as to the whole 'actual' first crusade thing)? I'd like to cite myself as an expert source if that's OK

[Neoteny]

http://duggmirror.com/comedy/100_Greatest_Quotes_from_fundamentalist_christian_chat_rooms/?OTC-ig

This is by far the most vile and disgusting and ignorant shit I've ever read online. Check it out

Yeah, ok, well done. I can find just as many ridiculous atheist quotes, like "religion is the root of all evil" (televised series on channnel 4 by Dorkins).

well, that isn't quite as stupid. without religion, how many fewer wars would have been fought?

Wars are fought over land and resources. Very few wars have ever been fought over religion, and most of them were started by muslims.

30 years war? Crusades? Neither were started by Muslims, and both are some of the largest conflicts in European history. I'm a Christian and proud of it, but that's no reason to distort historical fact.

Ambrose, the First actual crusade was done by the Byzantines in the 7th century I believe, because of the invading Turks/Muslims. And the Crusades, in part, were started by the Turkish Muslims, by their continous attacks against the Byzantines, and thus the Emperor called for help from the Pope. One must also remember that it was the Muslims that stopped the pilgrimages, and it wasn't until Saladin that they were (in part at least) able to continue, so to say that the Crusades are entirely at the fault of Christians isn't true.

Actually it was against the Sassanid Persians.

Can I save the waffle and just tell you your a little wide of the mark here (as to the whole 'actual' first crusade thing)? I'd like to cite myself as an expert source if that's OK

I'll allow it.

[Guiscard]

you still sore from the homosexuality one?

What, that thread where the entire forum handed your ass to you and revealed you to be a cross-dresser?

Nah, not sore at all little boy... how about you?

You're shit scared at the fact a barely 15 year old person debating in a language that isn't even his own is ripping you to shreds.

I think you've failed to grasp the meaning of 'ripping you to shreds', Nappy. We know you have a very good grasp of English, but perhaps the lexical subtleties elude you sometimes.

In other news, I'm gonna avoid the Muslim debate here. I've made my arguments countless times in other threads. Nappy has no ability to comprehend any argument which isn't a) cut and pasted from right-wing e-mail forwards (re. Homosexuality thread) or b) spouted by some xenophobic and bigoted French journalist or other. There's really very little point, is there.

[Napoleon Ier]

Come along Guiscard this is amusing.

My grasp of english isn't that good, I never claimed it anyway....I've only entertained this facetious little exchange with dancing retard

At least copy and paste your posts where you make your points...

[Neoteny]

Nappy! I'm here to help you with your debating! I think your first problem is that you are arguing too many points at once. When debating, you must narrow down the discussion to a very clear, distinct idea, and then post relevant information (evidence) to support your view of it. For example:

My comment? That Islam is a religion which, dissociated from its historical influence, is ideologically totalitarian, unable to compatibilize with the spiritual/temporal divide, and naturally, furthermore intrinsically militarily expansionist in its proselytization, which, in opposition to the clear cultural/identitary dichotomy found in Christianity, imposes uni-dimensional cultural and governmental structures?

Pick one of those. Let's start with a fun one. You assert that Islam is ideologically totalitarian. This is our current thesis:

Islam is totalitarian in nature.

Before we get started, we must understand what that means.

Any group of people who subscribe to the Islamic faith, will tend toward a totalitarianistic government, ie one that is in control of both public and private aspects of personal behavior. This also means that in a number of Muslim populations, a majority of them will be totalitarian.

For evidence, you need not cite a scholarly article (though they help) or a journalist whose bias might be more than slightly visible, but might point your arguer to look at current governments in contemporary "Muslim" countries, relative to non-Muslim countries, particularly those that are considered secular. This might lead to a discussion of whether such-and-such country is really totalitarian. And the discussion continues.

My point, in short, is that this:

My comment? That Islam is a religion which, dissociated from its historical influence, is ideologically totalitarian, unable to compatibilize with the spiritual/temporal divide, and naturally, furthermore intrinsically militarily expansionist in its proselytization, which, in opposition to the clear cultural/identitary dichotomy found in Christianity, imposes uni-dimensional cultural and governmental structures?

is too much for you to handle so early in a discussion. It contains many areas that can be highly contested and leave your arguments looking (particularly as a whole) ragged, and tired, weak, and full of fuzzy logic,and opinion. I say this not because disagree with you entirely (though I do on many points), but because I kinda feel bad for you when you get gang-raped by so many people on here. It's like watching a snuff porn. It's not fun for anyone. And I do actually agree with you on some things. But watching your arguments get smacked around is mildly unnerving for me, and should be for you as well.

Oh, and listen to tonka for Christ's sake. The man's like friggin' Ghandi.

[got tonkaed]

actually i think one of the political compass tests i took a while back claimed i was essentially his holiness the dalai lama

[Neoteny]

actually i think one of the political compass tests i took a while back claimed i was essentially his holiness the dalai lama

I like Ghandi more. Take a fucking complement.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm not arguing all "muslims" are totalitarian, just that Islamic principles are. The distinction exists, though you could if you wanted(nb usage of conditional) argue that the totalarian states of the modern mid-east back this up, but hey. There you are.

[got tonkaed]

actually i think one of the political compass tests i took a while back claimed i was essentially his holiness the dalai lama

I like Ghandi more. Take a fucking complement.

lol hard for me to do these days.

anyway so that i dont get accused of jacking.

There is some idelogical background for why napoleon could make the totalitarian comment (though i disagree with it). Islam in many ways above many other precepts stress the primacy of a single god, Allah, to the point they get on xians for the trinity. You could possibly argue this in some way would lead them to follow hiearchys of religious leaders more than religions with mulitple version of or Gods, but given the transformative elements of sharia law, which hinges on each additional interpretation being added to the previous ones, it seems more democratic in that sense.

[Neoteny]

I'm not arguing all "muslims" are totalitarian, just that Islamic principles are. The distinction exists, though you could if you wanted(nb usage of conditional) argue that the totalarian states of the modern mid-east back this up, but hey. There you are.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm giving you a suggestion. And I didn't say "Muslims are totalitarian," I said "Islam is totalitarian." Just a suggestion.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm not arguing all "muslims" are totalitarian, just that Islamic principles are. The distinction exists, though you could if you wanted(nb usage of conditional) argue that the totalarian states of the modern mid-east back this up, but hey. There you are.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm giving you a suggestion. And I didn't say "Muslims are totalitarian," I said "Islam is totalitarian." Just a suggestion.

That I shouldn't argue all points at once? fairs. But I'm presenting all of my case...

[got tonkaed]

I'm not arguing all "muslims" are totalitarian, just that Islamic principles are. The distinction exists, though you could if you wanted(nb usage of conditional) argue that the totalarian states of the modern mid-east back this up, but hey. There you are.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm giving you a suggestion. And I didn't say "Muslims are totalitarian," I said "Islam is totalitarian." Just a suggestion.

That I shouldn't argue all points at once? fairs. But I'm presenting all of my case...

it just helps if your focus of discussing things on the forums is clarification of your stances if you extrapolate them over time rather than putting them out there all at once (though you can you just have to be a bit more careful to get to everything)

if your goal is to win internet debates, then you might as well flood every prospective opponent with as many ideological arguments as possible.

[Neoteny]

actually i think one of the political compass tests i took a while back claimed i was essentially his holiness the dalai lama

I like Ghandi more. Take a fucking complement.

lol hard for me to do these days.

anyway so that i dont get accused of jacking.

There is some idelogical background for why napoleon could make the totalitarian comment (though i disagree with it). Islam in many ways above many other precepts stress the primacy of a single god, Allah, to the point they get on xians for the trinity. You could possibly argue this in some way would lead them to follow hiearchys of religious leaders more than religions with mulitple version of or Gods, but given the transformative elements of sharia law, which hinges on each additional interpretation being added to the previous ones, it seems more democratic in that sense.

It does seem a bit democratic, but who is doing the interpreting? Is it Joe Schmo down on the streets of Tehran, or is it an elected leader? Even so, is that elected leader interpreting things in a non-totalitarian manner?

[got tonkaed]

as best as i understood the concept at the time, it was typically done by religious professionals, and only the most qualified of those were accepted into whatever amounted to the offical interpretation.

Therefore its obviously subject to an immense amount of sociocultural distortion, but at least on a theorectical level does not diminsh the potential for democratic style.

[Neoteny]

as best as i understood the concept at the time, it was typically done by religious professionals, and only the most qualified of those were accepted into whatever amounted to the offical interpretation.

Therefore its obviously subject to an immense amount of sociocultural distortion, but at least on a theorectical level does not diminsh the potential for democratic style.

Hmm... so does the potential, however great or small, for democracy take away from the society's overall totalitarian nature? I suppose a democracy could possibly be totalitarian according to my definition, but I don't think that's really how it came about. The religious professionals weren't chosen by the many, they were indoctrinated (admitted opinion) and set free to decide the Sharia. That, to me, is not democracy, even if their beliefs are representative of the whole.