Jesus Christ!

[kingprawn]

I think an interesting point was made earlier that most people are rather more concerned about Catholic priests buggering boys in the very recent past.

I was raised as a Catholic but all that kneeling and bending, standing up, sitting down got on my nerves. I wish the priest would have just picked a position and bummed me.

[unriggable]

I wish the priest would have just picked a position and bummed me.

No...no you don't (you could never shit right again)

[Napoleon Ier]

The problem however is that you have repeatedly used examples as a justification. Like that girl who got stoned for getting raped? You act like you only base your ideas on the ideological basis, but it's pretty clear you actually don't.

When? Where? I have maybe given examples, but never as a justification unless I refered to an actual point of dogma alongside the example.

In fact, it would be impossible to do that. I mean, you wouldn't be saying all this shit if the islamic community didn't do any of the things you keep on ranting about.

No, but they do, and they are strong in number, making Islamofascism a relevant and important danger to our society. If some other community proposed equally abhorrent things with the same vociferity as the Islamic community and Islam do, I would condemn them just as harshly.

NO YOU DIPSHIT! It's not my warped world view, it's the fucking truth. Are you saying that christians haven't been unbelievably violent in the past? Or were they not true christians? (Despite using scripture to justify their actions?)

I'm saying that it doesn't matter so long as I can show that they had a warped understanding of Christianity.

Also, Hitler wasn't an atheist. I think you need to read moar books.

Debatable, but whatever, Pol-Pot, Mao, Stalin...the examples do not lack: all atheists, but I'm not (inlike you) fooktarded enough to say all atheists or indeed that atheism (since, after all, it is ideology being discussed here) are by extension of the actions of said atheists evil.

The simple fact of the matter is that you can justify anything using scripture. It's why many christians support the death penalty and don't seem to believe in charity.

You'd be wrong to though. I'm sure I could use The Origin of Species to justify all sorts of things (Hitler, as it happens, did), but that doesn't make all evolutionists/evolutionism wrong by any means.

Honestly, you can justify the weirdest shit, you don't need the ideological basis for it.

Yes you do. You can brainwash fools, granted, but to justify something requires a lot more.

In conclusion, Islam as a religion (or set of beliefs), is at heart (as is Christianity) an ideology. However, Islam has many elements within it that lead me to believe that it endorses a politico-proto-fascisto-socialo-theocratic system of belief, and that it is a cancer on the modern world no less threatning than Communism once was.

[comic boy]

I think an interesting point was made earlier that most people are rather more concerned about Catholic priests buggering boys in the very recent past.

1/Find me a single study suggesting that Cathlolic clergymen are any more likely to be involved in sexual abuse than any other cross-section of society.
2/Find me a single case in which they attempted to justify their actions using Catholic doctrine.

I think the point being made is that if you wish to associate paedophilia with a particular religion then most people would be more concerned with what happened in the last 50 years, rather than 1500 years ago. You have attempted to broaden the issue but in terms of religious groups it is the Catholic church that has been responsible for recent scandals and not the followers of Islam.

[Napoleon Ier]

Oh and by the way: all hose who think Islam is a lovely-dovely religion of peace, tolerance and so forth has yet to show me in what measure their beliefs are philosophically falsifiable, leading to believe that your contentions are irrational and a product automatic, ill-thought-out mental processes.

[unriggable]

Napoleon, if Islam was in fact a violent religion then there would much, much more violence in the world, not only in the Middle East as you suggest but in North Africa, India, Siam, and Indonesia.

[Napoleon Ier]

Napoleon, if Islam was in fact a violent religion then there would much, much more violence in the world, not only in the Middle East as you suggest but in North Africa, India, Siam, and Indonesia.

Which there is. In North Africa, Khadaffi rules Libya, in Algeria Christians are stabbed in the street or jailed for praying, in Inida, hindus and muslims fight incessantly, in Indonesia, Al-Qaeda have networks and training camps.

Besides, I'm saying Islam is evil and abhorrent, not, I repeat not, misguided 'muslims'.

[comic boy]

Has anybody got a view on a link between celibacy and paedophilia ?

[Guiscard]

politico-proto-fascisto-socialo-theocratic system of belief

Best yet!

So, in conclusion, Yappy has demonstrated he hates Islam. Others have disagreed, and given various arguments and points of context. Yappy has ignored them.

Just another day at the office, really.

[unriggable]

Besides, I'm saying Islam is evil and abhorrent, not, I repeat not, misguided 'muslims'.

Well I'd put it on equal ground as Xianity. Read Deuteronomy one more time.

[Snorri1234]

No, but they do, and they are strong in number, making Islamofascism a relevant and important danger to our society. If some other community proposed equally abhorrent things with the same vociferity as the Islamic community and Islam do, I would condemn them just as harshly.

So basically you do condemn the islam for it's praxis.
It's not that bad, I do too. I think the shit that happens in some of those countries is fucked up and something should be done.

I'm saying that it doesn't matter so long as I can show that they had a warped understanding of Christianity.

According to you.
The problem however is that how scripture gets interpreted is affected by the times. The dark ages were violent times, and war was pretty ok. And don't forget that society was basically ruled by the church. Ofcourse the nobility had the rule, but they listened to the church. I have no doubt that if this was the middle ages you'd be totally behind the catholic church and so would I. There is not a doubt in my mind that scripture was used to justify attacks. Their interpretation was as good as current interpretation simply because the bible is very, very big. What you take as paraboles and metaphors was taken as literal truth. And contrary to what you believe, they had it right too.

The same applies to the islam. You can take countless pieces of text from it to give a violent doctrine, but you can also make it peacefull. It depends on what you want. And the big problem in modern day islam is that they want to have such a society. (The churchfathers (or whatever you call them in the islam, i forget. Is iman good?) at least.)

I'd say those societies would, given say 500 years, become quite like ours. Ofcourse, there need to be a few drastic changes, but whether those changes need to be imposed from the outside or will come from the inside is up for debate.

Also, Hitler wasn't an atheist. I think you need to read moar books.

Debatable,

Not really debatable, whether he was a catholic or protestant or whatever christian is debatable though. But whatever.

You'd be wrong to though. I'm sure I could use The Origin of Species to justify all sorts of things (Hitler, as it happens, did), but that doesn't make all evolutionists/evolutionism wrong by any means.

Problem is that the origin of species is not a religious book. It doesn't give you any conclusions on the level of mass-extinction. It tells what is, not what should be.

Honestly, you can justify the weirdest shit, you don't need the ideological basis for it.

Yes you do. You can brainwash fools, granted, but to justify something requires a lot more.

I think you work under a different definition of "justify". To me, religious justification is giving scripture and giving your interpretation. Sure, you can debate about it but in the end most of the time it comes down to what the majority believes. You can't be certain of the interpretation because you'd either have to ask the author or God. Neither of which are likely to give an interview.

So if someone says: "I think homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the bible like here and here." I don't go into discussion about his interpretation, I just say: "the bible is wrong, deal with it."

[comic boy]

Has anybody got a view on a link between celibacy and paedophilia ?

Yeah, generally paedo's aren't cellibate, on account of having sex with children.

Yes my multi talented friend that seems to be the point where they feel that celibacy was not a very good idea, cruel and barbaric you might say

[Guiscard]

I'd say those societies would, given say 500 years, become quite like ours. Ofcourse, there need to be a few drastic changes, but whether those changes need to be imposed from the outside or will come from the inside is up for debate.

This is the issue that many, including Nappy, wholeheartedly and deliberately ignore. As much as Nappy wants to characterise us as evil Muslim-lovers who excuse the horrendous practices and support the evil 'side' of this 'war', he is very much wide of the mark. I do condemn the human rights record, treatment of women, justice system etc. etc. in much of the Muslim world. You and I simply seek to explain the issue from a number of perspectives, and people like Nappy and Jenos cannot handle that. That is the reason he failed utterly to even attempt an answer at my point about child marriage, and instead resorted to pedantic details. We cannot condemn Muhammad for marrying a nine year old girl and consummating the marriage after her first menstruation, as the general scholarly opinion tells us (not before puberty, as Nappy believes) because it was perfectly acceptable at the time. It was perfectly acceptable in the middle east, perfectly acceptable in the West... The Church did not condemn child marriage because there was nothing wrong with it by contemporary morality. It was perfectly acceptable for even the holiest of Christian men to be betrothed to a child of such an age. . If we condemn the Old Testament by modern standards for barbaric practices regarding warfare (slaughtering enemies wholesale, for example) then we'd be equally as wrong.

[Grooveman2007]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30166

[Snorri1234]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30166

The Onion is awesome.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'd say those societies would, given say 500 years, become quite like ours. Ofcourse, there need to be a few drastic changes, but whether those changes need to be imposed from the outside or will come from the inside is up for debate.

This is the issue that many, including Nappy, wholeheartedly and deliberately ignore. As much as Nappy wants to characterise us as evil Muslim-lovers who excuse the horrendous practices and support the evil 'side' of this 'war', he is very much wide of the mark. I do condemn the human rights record, treatment of women, justice system etc. etc. in much of the Muslim world. You and I simply seek to explain the issue from a number of perspectives, and people like Nappy and Jenos cannot handle that. That is the reason he failed utterly to even attempt an answer at my point about child marriage, and instead resorted to pedantic details. We cannot condemn Muhammad for marrying a nine year old girl and consummating the marriage after her first menstruation, as the general scholarly opinion tells us (not before puberty, as Nappy believes) because it was perfectly acceptable at the time. It was perfectly acceptable in the middle east, perfectly acceptable in the West... The Church did not condemn child marriage because there was nothing wrong with it by contemporary morality. It was perfectly acceptable for even the holiest of Christian men to be betrothed to a child of such an age. . If we condemn the Old Testament by modern standards for barbaric practices regarding warfare (slaughtering enemies wholesale, for example) then we'd be equally as wrong.

And we just go round in circles...for the last fucking time, Jizz-tard, we're trying to get you to grasp that Islam, as an ideological belief system like any other (from Christianity to Nazism), is inherently wrong.

[greenoaks]

I'd say those societies would, given say 500 years, become quite like ours. Ofcourse, there need to be a few drastic changes, but whether those changes need to be imposed from the outside or will come from the inside is up for debate.

This is the issue that many, including Nappy, wholeheartedly and deliberately ignore. As much as Nappy wants to characterise us as evil Muslim-lovers who excuse the horrendous practices and support the evil 'side' of this 'war', he is very much wide of the mark. I do condemn the human rights record, treatment of women, justice system etc. etc. in much of the Muslim world. You and I simply seek to explain the issue from a number of perspectives, and people like Nappy and Jenos cannot handle that. That is the reason he failed utterly to even attempt an answer at my point about child marriage, and instead resorted to pedantic details. We cannot condemn Muhammad for marrying a nine year old girl and consummating the marriage after her first menstruation, as the general scholarly opinion tells us (not before puberty, as Nappy believes) because it was perfectly acceptable at the time. It was perfectly acceptable in the middle east, perfectly acceptable in the West... The Church did not condemn child marriage because there was nothing wrong with it by contemporary morality. It was perfectly acceptable for even the holiest of Christian men to be betrothed to a child of such an age. . If we condemn the Old Testament by modern standards for barbaric practices regarding warfare (slaughtering enemies wholesale, for example) then we'd be equally as wrong.

you surprise me Guiscard. you rightly insist nappy provide evidence to support his many wild claims and dismiss his rants when he his unable to do so yet here you rely on anonymous scholars to assert Aisha was not pre-menstrual at the time of consummation.

[Snorri1234]

you surprise me Guiscard. you rightly insist nappy provide evidence to support his many wild claims and dismiss his rants when he his unable to do so yet here you rely on anonymous scholars to assert Aisha was not pre-menstrual at the time of consummation.

To be fair, Guiscard studies history while Nappy is 15. I rate Guiscard's statements about commonly accepted historical facts higher than nappy's.

But allright, Guis can you cite sources.


(Like the age of mo's bride even matters.)

[Guiscard]

you surprise me Guiscard. you rightly insist nappy provide evidence to support his many wild claims and dismiss his rants when he his unable to do so yet here you rely on anonymous scholars to assert Aisha was not pre-menstrual at the time of consummation.

To be fair, Guiscard studies history while Nappy is 15. I rate Guiscard's statements about commonly accepted historical facts higher than nappy's.

But allright, Guis can you cite sources.


(Like the age of mo's bride even matters.)

To be honest I can't. my sources are discussions with Islamic scholars through my academic career thus far. Next time I see one of them I could try and suggest they post some evidence to back me up in an online Risk forum, but I doubt it would go down too well. (pre)Islamic custom at the time was for the marriage to be consummated after the first menstrual cycle was complete. If Muhammad had specifically broken this tradition it would most certainly have been mentioned (rather than the very non puberty-specific mention of dolls or a swing). We know full well that girls can obtain their menarche at this age, and indeed the youngest mother ever recorded was five years old (try Snopes for that one).

But no, unfortunately no sources. There is really no point me trawling the internet for articles, either, as the Islamic studies journals are rarely digitised.

[Napoleon Ier]

And he here we go again with the bloody he's 15 so his opinion is worth shit. Ain't you lefty types mean to be against ageist discrimination and all?

[Snorri1234]

And he here we go again with the bloody he's 15 so his opinion is worth shit. Ain't you lefty types mean to be against ageist discrimination and all?

Oh I see you have talked to islam-history scholars in your line of work?

No?


Oh that's strange, I guess that means that you, in fact, have no credible status. Your only option is citing sources for your beliefs.

[Napoleon Ier]

And he here we go again with the bloody he's 15 so his opinion is worth shit. Ain't you lefty types mean to be against ageist discrimination and all?

Oh I see you have talked to islam-history scholars in your line of work?

No?


Oh that's strange, I guess that means that you, in fact, have no credible status. Your only option is citing sources for your beliefs.

I have: the Qu'uran and the Hadiths.

[ignotus]

I want to share this picture with you!


and this link, I think it's from snl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pUrsUORF4Y

[Napoleon Ier]

I want to share this picture with you!


and this link, I think it's from snl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pUrsUORF4Y

You're a fellow "Papist scumbag" aren't you iggsmeister?

[ignotus]

I want to share this picture with you!


and this link, I think it's from snl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pUrsUORF4Y

You're a fellow "Papist scumbag" aren't you iggsmeister?

As a good Roman Catholic who went to best Catholic School in country I must say I'm already burning in hell!