OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 11:51:24 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Jesus descends  (Read 13008 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #90 on: July 12, 2010, 05:15:27 AM »


Whoever is victorious of course. Both Muslims and Christians would like their religions to reign in full glory, but we're not going to play rock-paper-scissors to decide, or call for Zoroastrians to judge between us.

My question was a rhetoric.

Christians let Muslims preach their religion in the West although Muslims are still not in the majority. Christianity does not stipulate the death of apostates either. Christians never follow the Islamic strategy to make their faith reign in full glory.

So instead if one being conditioned you're suggesting that both should be conditioned, I can't see how such wish would be fueled by anything other than spite. I mean one is conditioned regardless, why would you want the other to be conditioned as well?

For the sake of justice, which is definitely a foreign term to brainwashed minds. If only one of the doctrines is free and the rest is conditioned, there will be no spite and enmity?

As for co-existence, it simply means that the ideas exist in the same space or among the same population.

Please read a few words I wrote about the subject here:

http://omniavincitveritas.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/the-multiculturalism-fallacy/

NO. That is not co-existence, but under-existence or subjugated existence. According to your interpretation, slavery was good and fair because slaves and free people existed in the same space and among the same population.  Grin

You probably revere the Pharaoh of the Exodus as he let the Israelites co-exist with the Egyptians with a few limitations/conditions.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,472


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #91 on: July 12, 2010, 05:15:36 AM »

So instead if one being conditioned you're suggesting that both should be conditioned, I can't see how such wish would be fueled by anything other than spite. I mean one is conditioned regardless, why would you want the other to be conditioned as well?
Do we want Arians or Nestorians to be conditioned so as to not destroy or assimilate us? No. We want them to repent of their heresies and return to the Christian faith. The same is true of our desire for Muslims.

Same here. So I guess we agree. you wouldn't agree to take a middle path between the divinity and non-divinity of Christ just because Arians live among you. You also wouldn't let them preach their doctrines. AndI'm not even going to touch on the fact that you've physically persecuted them and all other 'heretics'.
I don't deny that we have persecuted these and other heretics, and I don't even pretend to justify such evil behavior on the part of so many of our faithful.  So I don't think your attempt at a "you're just as guilty of the same offenses of which you accuse us Muslims" smear is going to find any traction with me.  The difference between you and me is that you actually justify your religion's persecution of others.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 05:22:33 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #92 on: July 12, 2010, 05:20:46 AM »


Same here. So I guess we agree. you wouldn't agree to take a middle path between the divinity and non-divinity of Christ just because Arians live among you. You also wouldn't let them preach their doctrines. AndI'm not even going to touch on the fact that you've physically persecuted them and all other 'heretics'.

You have committed the logical fallacy of false analogy. Struggling a heresy within a faith is not the same as politically attacking and subjugating the members of other faiths.

Arianism was a threat from within. It did not want to co-exist with Christianity, but tried to replace it. Would Christians preach another form of Islam if they were allowed under Sharia?  Grin
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #93 on: July 12, 2010, 05:26:49 AM »


Christians let Muslims preach their religion in the West although Muslims are still not in the majority. Christianity does not stipulate the death of apostates either. Christians never follow the Islamic strategy to make their faith reign in full glory.

I have some news for you, anything that is even remotely close to Christianity ceased to exist in the West at least three centuries a go. To say that Christians are tolerant because of what's happening in the West is like saying Muslims oppose the concept of religion because of atheist Albania back in the days.

Also, what we should do is completely and utterly irrelevant of what Christians or Westerners do.


Quote
For the sake of justice, which is definitely a foreign term to brainwashed minds. If only one of the doctrines is free and the rest is conditioned, there will be no spite and enmity?

What you're talking about is egalitarianism which is an antonym of justice not a synonym. It is only due to the anti-Christian ideas of the "Enlightenment" that I alluded to in the previous paragraph that people would mistake justice with equality and vice versa.


Quote
You probably revere the Pharaoh of the Exodus as he let the Israelites co-exist with the Egyptians with a few limitations/conditions.  Roll Eyes

The evil stature given to the Pharaoh in the bible is not due to him persecuting the believers but to be presented as an archetype of disbelieve (kufr). Believe it or not, the bible is not a book for whining, it is a book for teaching.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #94 on: July 12, 2010, 05:29:41 AM »

So instead if one being conditioned you're suggesting that both should be conditioned, I can't see how such wish would be fueled by anything other than spite. I mean one is conditioned regardless, why would you want the other to be conditioned as well?
Do we want Arians or Nestorians to be conditioned so as to not destroy or assimilate us? No. We want them to repent of their heresies and return to the Christian faith. The same is true of our desire for Muslims.

Same here. So I guess we agree. you wouldn't agree to take a middle path between the divinity and non-divinity of Christ just because Arians live among you. You also wouldn't let them preach their doctrines. AndI'm not even going to touch on the fact that you've physically persecuted them and all other 'heretics'.
I don't deny that we have persecuted these and other heretics, and I don't even pretend to justify such evil behavior on the part of so many of our faithful.  So I don't think your attempt at a "you're just as guilty of the same offenses of which you accuse us Muslims" smear is going to find any traction with me.  The difference between you and me is that you actually justify your religion's persecution of others.

I thnk I've made it more than clear that I support a martial stance on warfare because it is the only acceptable stance, not because any one else does the same. This is not something I deny ot try to cover.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #95 on: July 12, 2010, 05:37:59 AM »


Same here. So I guess we agree. you wouldn't agree to take a middle path between the divinity and non-divinity of Christ just because Arians live among you. You also wouldn't let them preach their doctrines. AndI'm not even going to touch on the fact that you've physically persecuted them and all other 'heretics'.

You have committed the logical fallacy of false analogy. Struggling a heresy within a faith is not the same as politically attacking and subjugating the members of other faiths.

Arianism was a threat from within. It did not want to co-exist with Christianity, but tried to replace it. Would Christians preach another form of Islam if they were allowed under Sharia?  Grin

Was Arianism going to be tolerated and allowed to spread among Christians has it declared itself a separate religion?

There's hardly any difference between limiting a different religion or just a sect from the same religion. You have the Orthodox doctrine which you consider to be the only valid from of religion, so you supress heretical Christian sects so they wouldn't spread their false doctrines. One who claims that such thing is acceptable would fail to argue why suppressing an entirely different religion, which is most likely more false and more destructive than the heretical sect, is unacceptable.

Luckily for you, your ancestors found both to be unacceptable, so they fought Pagans, Zoroastrians and Muslims.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #96 on: July 12, 2010, 06:15:20 AM »

There's hardly any difference between limiting a different religion or just a sect from the same religion. You have the Orthodox doctrine which you consider to be the only valid from of religion, so you supress heretical Christian sects so they wouldn't spread their false doctrines. One who claims that such thing is acceptable would fail to argue why suppressing an entirely different religion, which is most likely more false and more destructive than the heretical sect, is unacceptable.
It's about maintaining the integrity of the message of Jesus Christ. If one who is not a Christian says, "Christ says this," it doesn't really affect us, because he is not one of us, and his message will most likely fall on deaf ears. Occasionally one like Dan Brown must be refuted, because he claimed (yes, in fiction, but many believed the fiction to be fact) that Christ said and did things He never said nor did. Really, though, it's the Christians we need to correct, because by virtue of their being part of Christianity they have authority on the teachings and beliefs of Christianity. Others look to them for guidance, so we must ensure that they guide others to correct belief and practice. As Bishop James stated in his Epistle, "We who teach will be judged more severely."
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 06:16:25 AM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #97 on: July 12, 2010, 06:30:43 AM »

There's hardly any difference between limiting a different religion or just a sect from the same religion. You have the Orthodox doctrine which you consider to be the only valid from of religion, so you supress heretical Christian sects so they wouldn't spread their false doctrines. One who claims that such thing is acceptable would fail to argue why suppressing an entirely different religion, which is most likely more false and more destructive than the heretical sect, is unacceptable.
It's about maintaining the integrity of the message of Jesus Christ. If one who is not a Christian says, "Christ says this," it doesn't really affect us, because he is not one of us, and his message will most likely fall on deaf ears. Occasionally one like Dan Brown must be refuted, because he claimed (yes, in fiction, but many believed the fiction to be fact) that Christ said and did things He never said nor did. Really, though, it's the Christians we need to correct, because by virtue of their being part of Christianity they have authority on the teachings and beliefs of Christianity. Others look to them for guidance, so we must ensure that they guide others to correct belief and practice. As Bishop James stated in his Epistle, "We who teach will be judged more severely."

We don't disagree there. Christian doctrines, even those who go against the principles of Islam, like the divinity of Jesus, are not included in the circle of limitations made in Christians under Islamic rule.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #98 on: July 12, 2010, 06:33:27 AM »


I have some news for you, anything that is even remotely close to Christianity ceased to exist in the West at least three centuries a go. To say that Christians are tolerant because of what's happening in the West is like saying Muslims oppose the concept of religion because of atheist Albania back in the days.

Also, what we should do is completely and utterly irrelevant of what Christians or Westerners do.

Your response is irrelevant to mine. What some Christians did in the past was despite the statements of the Bible, but what Muslims do today is because of Islamic tenets.

As I said before, the New Testament has no verse that asks Christ's followers to conquer the whole world and subjugate the members of all the other faiths. Christ's kingdom is not of this world.


What you're talking about is egalitarianism which is an antonym of justice not a synonym. It is only due to the anti-Christian ideas of the "Enlightenment" that I alluded to in the previous paragraph that people would mistake justice with equality and vice versa.

Didn't you say that the victorious ones can impose limitations? Rich people had the upper hand and reigned in full glory. They also let the slaves co-exist with them although with limitations. (You consider such conditions a must).

People like you mistake limitations for justice.


The evil stature given to the Pharaoh in the bible is not due to him persecuting the believers but to be presented as an archetype of disbelieve (kufr). Believe it or not, the bible is not a book for whining, it is a book for teaching.

I am not talking about the Bible or the Qur'an now. (Actually, the Qur'an says Fir'avne became haughty in the land and started to oppress the Israelites. You should read your scripture more carefully.) Your interpretation presents Pharaoh as a just person who allowed the Israelites to co-exist with his people through some limitations.

Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,159


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #99 on: July 12, 2010, 06:43:36 AM »

There's hardly any difference between limiting a different religion or just a sect from the same religion. You have the Orthodox doctrine which you consider to be the only valid from of religion, so you supress heretical Christian sects so they wouldn't spread their false doctrines. One who claims that such thing is acceptable would fail to argue why suppressing an entirely different religion, which is most likely more false and more destructive than the heretical sect, is unacceptable.

Hmmm. Who decides what is heretical and what is correct doctrine within Islam? Which of the many Islamic sects is the "truest" and "purest"? Each will proclaim his own sect to be the "true" Islamic faith while the others are heretics and infidels, and history shows that warfare and suppression between sects, each claiming superiority and "purity", continues to this day. To use a well-known Christian expression, take the log out of your own eye before attempting to remove the speck from your neighbor's eye.

Do not presume to lecture us when your Islamic house is no model of unity and "purity".
Logged
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #100 on: July 12, 2010, 06:48:43 AM »


There's hardly any difference between limiting a different religion or just a sect from the same religion. You have the Orthodox doctrine which you consider to be the only valid from of religion, so you supress heretical Christian sects so they wouldn't spread their false doctrines. One who claims that such thing is acceptable would fail to argue why suppressing an entirely different religion, which is most likely more false and more destructive than the heretical sect, is unacceptable.

Luckily for you, your ancestors found both to be unacceptable, so they fought Pagans, Zoroastrians and Muslims.

Is what mainstream Islam does to Islamic heresies equal to what Islam does to the People of the Book or other faiths? NO. Your argument falls apart so easily.

The Church declared a war on heresies because it was threatened by them. There was no reaction before there was a threat from within.

Islam declares a war on all religions although it is not threatened by them. Islam attacks and subjugates even before there is a threat from  without.

Are these identical?  Roll Eyes
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #101 on: July 12, 2010, 06:49:34 AM »


Your response is irrelevant to mine. What some Christians did in the past was despite the statements of the Bible, but what Muslims do today is because of Islamic tenets.

As I said before, the New Testament has no verse that asks Christ's followers to conquer the whole world and subjugate the members of all the other faiths. Christ's kingdom is not of this world.


Of course, of course, what Christiand did when they had the upper hand on Muslims during the Reconquesta, the Cursades and in Kosovo was against Christian teachings. Also, Christians been given the right to exist and worship by Muslims throughout history was against Islamic teaching, because Islam teaches us to kill the infiels wherever we find them, Je suis recht? Also, the ethnic tensions in Egypt which you love to talk about is because of Islam if Muslims did something bad, but against Christians if Christians did something bad. If a deliquent Muslim baltagi, who drinks and never prays, raped a Christian firl, he did it because of Islam, because he made great research into the Religion, and found out that fornication is an obligation and it is a higher obligation than praying or abstaining from alchol and leading a good life.

This sounds very plausible indeed!

I'm beggin you, please, please, for the love of Christ, for the love of the virgin Mary don't accuse people like that, fear your creator in what you say, there will come a day when you will face Him.


Quote
Didn't you say that the victorious ones can impose limitations? Rich people had the upper hand and reigned in full glory. They also let the slaves co-exist with them although with limitations. (You consider such conditions a must).

People like you mistake limitations for justice.

I never said that anyone who ever had the higher hand is right. What I said is that, de facto, when two opposed doctrines co-exist, and when no reconciliation is possible, the victorious one remians while the defeated is conditioned until the opposition is gone.


Quote
I am not talking about the Bible or the Qur'an now. (Actually, the Qur'an says Fir'avne became haughty in the land and started to oppress the Israelites. You should read your scripture more carefully.) Your interpretation presents Pharaoh as a just person who allowed the Israelites to co-exist with his people through some limitations.

I'm not saying that there were no persecution, I'm saying that the persecution per se was not the point of the story.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #102 on: July 12, 2010, 06:54:33 AM »

There's hardly any difference between limiting a different religion or just a sect from the same religion. You have the Orthodox doctrine which you consider to be the only valid from of religion, so you supress heretical Christian sects so they wouldn't spread their false doctrines. One who claims that such thing is acceptable would fail to argue why suppressing an entirely different religion, which is most likely more false and more destructive than the heretical sect, is unacceptable.

Hmmm. Who decides what is heretical and what is correct doctrine within Islam? Which of the many Islamic sects is the "truest" and "purest"? Each will proclaim his own sect to be the "true" Islamic faith while the others are heretics and infidels, and history shows that warfare and suppression between sects, each claiming superiority and "purity", continues to this day. To use a well-known Christian expression, take the log out of your own eye before attempting to remove the speck from your neighbor's eye.

I didn't talk about that to criticize it, quite the contrary.

Quote
Do not presume to lecture us when your Islamic house is no model of unity and "purity".

Alhamdulilla, up to 90% of the Muslim population follow Islam according to the Sunna of the Prophet and the consensus of Nation's scholars, this is even though there were never a central religious authority and hardly a central temporal power, alhamdulillah again.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 06:55:38 AM by Mekki » Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #103 on: July 12, 2010, 07:02:14 AM »

Islam declares a war on all religions although it is not threatened by them. Islam attacks and subjugates even before there is a threat from  without.

As you would, hopefull but doubtfully, recognize, Islam gives the freedom of worship to different religious groups. Our war, however, is with the temporal power of these religious groups. It would be way, way beyond naivety to think that Meccan pagans would've tolerated the Islamic state in Medina and not attacked, the same things about the Byzantine and Persian empires. This is even if we were to make the false and absurd assumption that it is a good idea to remain in the original area where the state was formed and not attempt at growing beyond it.

Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #104 on: July 12, 2010, 07:25:55 AM »


Of course, of course, what Christiand did when they had the upper hand on Muslims during the Reconquesta, the Cursades and in Kosovo was against Christian teachings. Also, Christians been given the right to exist and worship by Muslims throughout history was against Islamic teaching, because Islam teaches us to kill the infiels wherever we find them, Je suis recht? Also, the ethnic tensions in Egypt which you love to talk about is because of Islam if Muslims did something bad, but against Christians if Christians did something bad. If a deliquent Muslim baltagi, who drinks and never prays, raped a Christian firl, he did it because of Islam, because he made great research into the Religion, and found out that fornication is an obligation and it is a higher obligation than praying or abstaining from alchol and leading a good life.

This sounds very plausible indeed!

You are confusing politics with religion now.


I never said that anyone who ever had the higher hand is right. What I said is that, de facto, when two opposed doctrines co-exist, and when no reconciliation is possible, the victorious one remians while the defeated is conditioned until the opposition is gone.

Islam makes the reconciliation impossible from the start! It attacks and subjugates. How can you talk about reconciliation in that case?

I never said that anyone who ever had the higher hand is right. What I said is that, de facto, when two opposed doctrines co-exist, and when no reconciliation is possible, the victorious one remians while the defeated is conditioned until the opposition is gone.


This was not the point of my post. What I mean is your approach to the issue of co-existence and limitation would justify even Pharaoh's acts.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #105 on: July 12, 2010, 07:59:02 AM »


You are confusing politics with religion now.


No, there's no confusion. The Islamic position on nonbelievers is clear, they are given the right to worship while remaining under firm grip. The firmness of the grip depends on the opinion of each scholar, but the general rule remains.

The Christians position vague. Sometimes, especially when they are in power, they consider it to be a Christian position to persecute everyone and not give them even the right to exist, in other times, especially when they are not in power, they claim pacifism.

In practise, however, Christian have been times more cruel to Muslims when they were able to do so than the other way around.

It takes a fool to deny this.


Islam makes the reconciliation impossible from the start! It attacks and subjugates. How can you talk about reconciliation in that case?

I didn't say the reconciliation is always possible. If there's two groups who live in the same village, one of the two thinks that democracy is the only acceptable governing system, the other thinks the same about aristocracy. there is absolutely no way to re conciliate the two groups, that is, there's no way both aristocracy and democracy can be considered the only acceptable governing system and thus practised. One will inevitably, through any mean, overpower the other which means that either democracy or aristocracy will be practised, if the other group opinion was not conditioned, they will fight the practised governing system, so the other group will fight back. This will continue until the inevitable balance takes place, which can be done in various way; Either by killing the opponents, kicking them out of the village, putting them in jail, or, if the victorious group is generous, it would grant them the right to practise their governing system withing a small group in their internal affairs, as long as they would not try to intervene in the general governing issues of the village as a whole. Naturally, since the defeated group thinks the victorious governing system to be false and destructive, and because they would take any chance they have to destroy it, the victorious group would try to win as much as possible from the loosing group to their side to enlighten them and to limit the danger, and they would always keep an eye on the remaining individuals.

I think this long block of text says everyhting that can be said about the subject.

Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #106 on: July 12, 2010, 08:37:30 AM »


No, there's no confusion. The Islamic position on nonbelievers is clear, they are given the right to worship while remaining under firm grip. The firmness of the grip depends on the opinion of each scholar, but the general rule remains.


The Christians position vague. Sometimes, especially when they are in power, they consider it to be a Christian position to persecute everyone and not give them even the right to exist, in other times, especially when they are not in power, they claim pacifism.

It is interesting that you compare Islam with Christians now.

Christianity does not ask the spread of faith with sword, nor does it aspire a worldy religious kingdom that stipulates the subjugation of other faiths. Your comparison is false again.


In practise, however, Christian have been times more cruel to Muslims when they were able to do so than the other way around.

It takes a fool to deny this.

This will by no means justify the aggressive ideal of Islam though. The so-called divine commandment to attack and humiliate non-Muslims occurs only in the Islamic scripture, not in the Bible.

I didn't say the reconciliation is always possible. If there's two groups who live in the same village, one of the two thinks that democracy is the only acceptable governing system, the other thinks the same about aristocracy. there is absolutely no way to re conciliate the two groups, that is, there's no way both aristocracy and democracy can be considered the only acceptable governing system and thus practised. One will inevitably, through any mean, overpower the other which means that either democracy or aristocracy will be practised, if the other group opinion was not conditioned, they will fight the practised governing system, so the other group will fight back. This will continue until the inevitable balance takes place, which can be done in various way; Either by killing the opponents, kicking them out of the village, putting them in jail, or, if the victorious group is generous, it would grant them the right to practise their governing system withing a small group in their internal affairs, as long as they would not try to intervene in the general governing issues of the village as a whole. Naturally, since the defeated group thinks the victorious governing system to be false and destructive, and because they would take any chance they have to destroy it, the victorious group would try to win as much as possible from the loosing group to their side to enlighten them and to limit the danger, and they would always keep an eye on the remaining individuals.

I think this long block of text says everyhting that can be said about the subject.



This example is irrelevant to our discussion. It is about the villagers living in the same place and having equal terms for a time. Islam comes later from without with the sole purpose of subjugation.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #107 on: July 12, 2010, 08:49:11 AM »

This example is irrelevant to our discussion. It is about the villagers living in the same place and having equal terms for a time. Islam comes later from without with the sole purpose of subjugation.

The example was for the co-existence. as for the conquering process, please see reply #103 in this thread.

Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,358



« Reply #108 on: July 12, 2010, 09:08:32 AM »

For example, in Islam, we reject democracy because we are not blinded by the dogma which states that men are equal and that a mass of these supposed equals is capable of making sound decision beyond individualistic, profan and carnal desires.

You believe that it is not true that all people are equal or created equal?  If that is the case, persons are in a superior positions and who are inferior, in your opinion?  What makes one to rise? Education?  Social Status?  

Quote

There are also other cultures where it is acceptable to go around naked, should we say that that is acceptable. I'm sure they had soething like that in Ethiopia, was Christianity wrong for changing it?

How is uncovered hair the equivalent of nudity? Why is the dictate of one culture the only "right" one?  Can you give any real citation or information as to your assertion on Ethiopia?  

Quote
Well, scarves are not required per se, the essential is to cover the hair.

Why?  

Quote
I'd rather lithurgical music to be frozen in time than to change according to what's fashionable.

"Fashionable"?  Societies change over time.  Music has changed as polyphony and harmony and new instruments come into being.  Music can be a personal taste.  Who are you or anyone to tell someone that they aren't allowed something harmless because you don't like it?

On another note: You have stated that you disapprove of the "Enlightenment".  Just so that one may understand. What do you mean by the term and what results do you think came from it that are bad?


I have asked you several questions that so far you have not answered.  

What personal experience have you had with Christians?  
Have you ever been part of a Christian worship service and if so what Church?
On what do you base your OP imagined tale?

Ebor


« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 09:08:59 AM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #109 on: July 12, 2010, 09:35:14 AM »

This example is irrelevant to our discussion. It is about the villagers living in the same place and having equal terms for a time. Islam comes later from without with the sole purpose of subjugation.

The example was for the co-existence. as for the conquering process, please see reply #103 in this thread.



Thanks for agreeing that conquest and co-existence are not associated.  Wink
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,358



« Reply #110 on: July 12, 2010, 09:43:45 AM »


There were no advancement in education whatsoever, their was  a regression to be more precise. Everything other than physical, natural knowledge has been denied and disregarded as either unnecessary or baseless and erroneous. And the former knowledge, the physical one, has been blown out of propotion and was given a higher stature than its actually stature as purely utilitarian science.

Sure more people can read and write now than before, but how many Aristotles, Aquinas and Imam Ghazalis has the "Enlightenment" begotten, zero. All the great minds who existed after that dreadful movement, existed against it and in spite of it.

"Everything has been denied and disregarded"?   Huh  Can you give some examples please as this sweeping statement is just as unrecognizable as your imaginary Jesus.  Can you state plainly and specifically some things that you don't like about the "Enlightenment"?   

Are you specifically looking only for philosophers as the mark of a good result?     

Quote
Muslims also had to pay the Zakat. But you must see things in prespective. What we're dealing with is a theolcratic state that is hosting a people which not only considers the religion of their hosts to be false, they also would take any chanse they get to destroy them (sorry, but that's true).

I find your phrasing to be intriguing.  I can see that you are putting this in a perspective that you like.  The "theocratic state" is "hosting" a people.  That word sounds like treating someone as a guest rather than a conquered population under an invader's rule. 

Quote
Allow me to give you a parable of the situation back then; It's like the United States allowing groups to be hardcore communists on its soild during the fifties and the sixties, with organizations and meetings and all. The reality is, the United States didn't just disallow communist groups from existing, it has prosecuted every individual who showed any sign of communism.

Your "parable"/example here is not true.  There is an American Communist Party in existence right now.
http://www.cpusa.org/

Have you been to the United States in person?  On what are you basing your assumptions and opinions?

They are not "Prosecuted" or do you mean "persecuted"?

Quote
Let me tell you this, paying a higher tax than the local population is much, much, much more fair than you can ever imagine.

Since you are not the one subject to it, how would you know?  What of the other strictures such as taking of children and slaves and in Egypt the prevention of the Copts from building or maintaining churches, the kidnapping of young women and other evil acts
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3507
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/coptic-christians-voicing-frustration-with-white/86971/



Quote
Quote
And would Jesus approve of the sentencing in the case in Iran at the moment of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani who was to be stoned to death on a charge of adultery until the last day or so?
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/09/world/la-fg-iran-stoning-20100710

He would probably not like it because the sentence was not carried due to to heathens' pressure. After all, stoning the adulterous is a clear biblical punishment.


You really think and believe that the One who told the woman taken in Adultery to "Go and sin no more" after telling her accusers "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" at which all of them left in shame would want a human being stoned to death??

Have you read any of the Gospels in their entirety? 


Quote
Quote
Or of the woman in Nigeria eight years ago who said she was raped but the court said she was guilty of adultery and should be stoned to death but was spared after an international outcry?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/muslim-woman-spared-death-by-stoning-in-nigeria-655429.html

I don't know about that specific case, but probably everyone who was sentenced to death has claimed innocence at a point or an other. Even people who are fined 10 Euros for failing to observe the road lie claim innocence even though they are 100% sure that they are guilty, they are even willing to delay the policeman for ten minutes trying to argue themselves out of the fine. Things like this just happen.

It's certainly unfortunate that there are innocent people who are killed, jailed or fined, but it's an inevitable aspect of justice.

Easy to say when you're not the one being killed or jailed.  What of the case that a woman's testimony is not equal to that of a man's according to some in Islam?  You are willing to discount this woman's claim and say it's merely "unfortunate" if she were stoned to death but innocent? 

10 Euros isn't the same as death and a death that is barbaric.


Quote
Quote
Or would Jesus agree with honor killings of women and girls?  These are not unknown or hard to find, but are reported.

As for that, it's not as common as you think it is, and it is by no means exclusive to Muslims.

Even one "honor killing" is too many.  These are real human beings created by God. 

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,358



« Reply #111 on: July 12, 2010, 09:54:17 AM »

Quote from: Ebor link=topic=28652.msg452115#msg452115

"The only thing that saved Christianity"?  May I ask on what you base this assertion please?  Also, there are plenty of "central Christian figures" who do not have swords.  In the case of St. George he was a solder.  The history of pacifism in Christianity is complicated and not a binary all-or-nothing situation.

I base it on the fact that Christianity would've been destroyed have it not been employing armies and war to both protect it self and to propagate the religion.

To be a little humorous, I must say that we would've loved it if Christians were really pacifists, then there would be no more than a few communities of Christians scattered in Europe and the near East among predominantly Muslim societies. The entire population which is Christian now in America, Africa and Asia would've also been Muslim. But, alas :-)

That is not a "fact" but your personal opinion.  Can you tell us on what historical readings you base it on please?


Quote
Fighing someone doesn't necessarily mean that you hate him. You can fight a people out of love as to bring them salvation.

What is "Love" to you?  And what of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?  Those are the words of Jesus and you claim to esteem him as a Prophet. 

Quote
And when I say Prophet's, I mean all of those you believe in. A lot of the Prophets were leaders of states and had armies and they fought wars and killed people, those who didn't didn't do so because they held pacifist stances but rather because they couldn't so mainly due to lack of followship. (e.g. Noah)

Meaning no disrespect, but how do you know what ones I "believe in"?  Why can you not answer with examples.  Which prophets were leaders of states with armies?  You've mentioned Moses and David, though I'm not sure how the latter was a prophet. Who do you think were prophets?

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,358



« Reply #112 on: July 12, 2010, 09:56:49 AM »

I'm by no means saying that Christians are bad, what I'm saying is that Christianity, unlike Islam, has failed to preserve the purity of the religion as it was practised by the early societies.


"Purity of the religion"?  covered hair and prayers in a foreign language?  What do you think Christianity was in the early societies please?
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #113 on: July 12, 2010, 10:00:59 AM »

You believe that it is not true that all people are equal or created equal?  If that is the case, persons are in a superior positions and who are inferior, in your opinion?  What makes one to rise? Education?  Social Status?  

People are not equal, neither in potential nor in manifestation, this is a simple fact. And the human qualities, both metaphysical and physical shine so brightly that they can hardly be hidden, and which one must spend an enormous effort to hide them if he wanted to (e.g. a lot of master Sufis who have chosen to withdraw instead to use their knowledge and teach a maximum number of people, like sidi Abdeslam ben Mchich.


Quote
How is uncovered hair the equivalent of nudity? Why is the dictate of one culture the only "right" one?  Can you give any real citation or information as to your assertion on Ethiopia?  

I didn't say they are equal, I was merely referring to the argument that a custom ought to be accepted simply by virtue of being a custom.

As for Ethiopia, I think there's a few Ethiopian in the forum, they would be more eligible to talk to you about how Christianity affected their culture and customs.


Quote

Why?


Why must a Muslim or a Christian believe that women should cover their hair? Because the Quran and the Bible say so, and I give this answer even though I know it drives certain people mad. If you want me to give an explanation on why covering hair is a good thing from a purely social point of view, then I will try to, though I would like it if you didn't as it would very long and tyring to do so  Smiley

Quote
On another note: You have stated that you disapprove of the "Enlightenment".  Just so that one may understand. What do you mean by the term and what results do you think came from it that are bad?

I mean by the term the humanist movement that appeared in Europe before the French Revolution and lead to it. And I think it was a destructive movement mainly because of its anti-normal, anti-Traditional basis represented in its humanism, which denies anything of supra-human nature. Something which had its most disastrous results, as far as the temporal world in concerned, in politics (democracy) and society (liberalism), both of which are baseless, erroneous, destructive and idolatrous.

Quote
What personal experience have you had with Christians?  

None, really. I live in a +99% Muslim country. We get a lot of tourists and have some European living here.

Quote
Have you ever been part of a Christian worship service and if so what Church?

No. We do have a big church right in the middle of the busiest section of it,  but I'm not sure they even hold a service in sundays anymore. Local associations use it for social activities most of the time.





BTW, the city is Tetouan in Northen Morocco.

Quote
On what do you base your OP imagined tale?

The mosque half is from my own experience, and the Church half is from my what I've gathered from teh media and teh internet. I could be wrong though, but it's extremely unlikely.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,358



« Reply #114 on: July 12, 2010, 10:05:03 AM »

Yes, yes, yes, both Christian and Muslims are free to go to pray or not, to go to the mosque or the church or not,

How many churches are in Saudi Arabia?  There are plenty of imported workers who are Christian but they are not "free to go to the church" because there are none.

The "Religious Policeman" blog now in abeyance, has some interesting and documented information about life in Saudi Arabia. He dedicated it to the memory of "15 Makkah Schoolgirls, lost when their school burnt down on Monday, 11th March, 2002. The Religious Police would not allow them to leave the building, nor allow the Firemen to enter."

http://muttawa.blogspot.com/

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #115 on: July 12, 2010, 10:08:35 AM »

Here's what essentially troubles me about the first post in this thread: Mekki's portrayal of mosque-attending Muslims as pious, upright fellows doesn't square at all with my experience over a broad swath of Africa and Asia. I travel most of the year, within the Muslim world and out of it, and I enjoy getting myself lost in various places and then staying with the random local people I encounter.

It is only within the Muslim world that young men, identifying themselves as devout, show me hardcore pornography on their mobile phones, giggle and say "Isn't this awesome?" In Egypt, I encountered a succession of men who were married and had imposed the dark prayer mark on their foreheads, but they went on and on about how great the local prostitutes were in their trips to Europe or Dubai. In Morocco I've been propositioned sexually by men, right after they've talked about how they make it to the mosque every Friday and their community is strong in its devotion. I've not yet been to Pakistan, but two friends who were recently there (traveling separately) got fed up of ostensibly Muslim locals they met constantly offering them boys for sex at some bargain price.

The West indeed faces challenges of public decency, but typically people who do creepy things like I've described above don't simultaneously profess Christian piety and rag on the Muslim world -- their worldview is essentially secular. Yet in my experience so many people in the Muslim world want to have it both ways, immersing themselves in filth but claiming their people is so pure compared to the corrupt West.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 10:14:16 AM by CRCulver » Logged
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #116 on: July 12, 2010, 10:12:04 AM »

Yes, yes, yes, both Christian and Muslims are free to go to pray or not, to go to the mosque or the church or not,

How many churches are in Saudi Arabia?  There are plenty of imported workers who are Christian but they are not "free to go to the church" because there are none.

The "Religious Policeman" blog now in abeyance, has some interesting and documented information about life in Saudi Arabia. He dedicated it to the memory of "15 Makkah Schoolgirls, lost when their school burnt down on Monday, 11th March, 2002. The Religious Police would not allow them to leave the building, nor allow the Firemen to enter."

http://muttawa.blogspot.com/

Ebor

I was talking about Lebanon.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #117 on: July 12, 2010, 10:25:40 AM »

Here's what essentially troubles me about the first post in this thread: Mekki's portrayal of mosque-attending Muslims as pious, upright fellows doesn't square at all with my experience over a broad swath of Africa and Asia. I travel most of the year, within the Muslim world and out of it, and I enjoy getting myself lost in various places and then staying with the random local people I encounter.

It is only within the Muslim world that young men, identifying themselves as devout, show me hardcore pornography on their mobile phones, giggle and say "Isn't this awesome?" In Egypt, I encountered a succession of men who were married and had imposed the dark prayer mark on their foreheads, but they went on and on about how great the local prostitutes were in their trips to Europe or Dubai. In Morocco I've been propositioned sexually by men, right after they've talked about how they make it to the mosque every Friday and their community is strong in its devotion. I've not yet been to Pakistan, but two friends who were recently there got fed up of Muslims they met offering them boys for sex at some bargain price.

The West indeed faces challenges of public decency, but typically people who do creepy things like I've described above don't simultaneously profess Christian piety and rag on the Muslim world -- their worldview is essentially secular. Yet in my experience so many people in the Muslim world want to have it both ways, immersing themselves in filth but claiming their people is so pure compared to the corrupt West.

Perhaps you are applying the Western definition of the world devout which is simply someone who believes in his religion and who's open to the idea of worshiping once in a while. This definition applies to just about every Muslims, and a lot of those are absolutely no where near being pious by any meaningful definition. Perhaps those people which come to the mosque everyday in great numbers and worship in extreme piety have porn in their phones or visit prostitutes or engage in sodomitical activities but none of that shows there.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,358



« Reply #118 on: July 12, 2010, 10:38:40 AM »

You believe that it is not true that all people are equal or created equal?  If that is the case, persons are in a superior positions and who are inferior, in your opinion?  What makes one to rise? Education?  Social Status?  

People are not equal, neither in potential nor in manifestation, this is a simple fact. And the human qualities, both metaphysical and physical shine so brightly that they can hardly be hidden, and which one must spend an enormous effort to hide them if he wanted to (e.g. a lot of master Sufis who have chosen to withdraw instead to use their knowledge and teach a maximum number of people, like sidi Abdeslam ben Mchich.

That is a general statement that people are different, but it does not answer my question. Perhaps I was not plain enough.

Do you believe that there are some particular groups or classes of Human Beings that are naturally superior or inferior?  What "human qualities" to you mean.  Many "qualities" may be hidden if the person who has them is not allowed by others to use them or improve them.  

Quote
How is uncovered hair the equivalent of nudity? Why is the dictate of one culture the only "right" one?  Can you give any real citation or information as to your assertion on Ethiopia?  

I didn't say they are equal, I was merely referring to the argument that a custom ought to be accepted simply by virtue of being a custom.
[/quote]

And you believe that your preferred cultural customs are superior or ought to be imposed on others who do not share them?  Why should someone in China or Japan or the Pacific Islands accept your dictate that female hair must not be seen?


Quote
If you want me to give an explanation on why covering hair is a good thing from a purely social point of view, then I will try to, though I would like it if you didn't as it would very long and tyring to do so  Smiley

I would like to know your reasons for this, yes.  Clear explanations can help in understanding another person's opinion even if one does not agree with it.


Quote
I mean by the term the humanist movement that appeared in Europe before the French Revolution and lead to it. And I think it was a destructive movement mainly because of its anti-normal, anti-Traditional basis represented in its humanism, which denies anything of supra-human nature. Something which had its most disastrous results, as far as the temporal world in concerned, in politics (democracy) and society (liberalism), both of which are baseless, erroneous, destructive and idolatrous.

What have you read on the subject that you think this?  You don't like democracy, you've said.  Do you personally have a vote in your country? Who do you think is unworthy of having a voice in the public venue?  What does "liberalism" mean to you and what do you find objectionable in it?  Again, understanding what other people mean when they use certain terms can help in understanding.


Quote
Quote
What personal experience have you had with Christians?  

None, really. I live in a +99% Muslim country. We get a lot of tourists and have some European living here.

Quote
Have you ever been part of a Christian worship service and if so what Church?

No. We do have a big church right in the middle of the busiest section of it,  but I'm not sure they even hold a service in sundays anymore. Local associations use it for social activities most of the time.

Considering the recent expulsion of a number of Christians from Morocco, there might not be many who could attend.  
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/new.wave.of.christian.expulsions.from.morocco/25945.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575327310647304110.html

Quote
Quote
On what do you base your OP imagined tale?

The mosque half is from my own experience, and the Church half is from my what I've gathered from teh media and teh internet. I could be wrong though, but it's extremely unlikely.


As people here have been trying to tell you, you are wrong.  You have asserted that your "Christians" in your OP, which are products of your imagination based on what you have read, are what is real.  They aren't.   You have said that Christianity is like that when you don't any real sincere Christians.  You have not based them on any real people but on what you choose to read on the 'Net and what the media puts out.  Someone could write the same sort of piece about Muslims drawing on what he/she had 'gathered from the media and the internet" without any first-hand knowledge of real human beings who happen to be Muslim and make your particular faith look terrible.  Would you object and say that it isn't true that it's not real Islam?  

If people provided information and links to counter your OP would you read them or would you dismiss them as not true without looking?

With respect,

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,358



« Reply #119 on: July 12, 2010, 10:43:46 AM »


I have some news for you, anything that is even remotely close to Christianity ceased to exist in the West at least three centuries a go.

This is an example of your opinion about Christianity that you have admitted is based on limited knowledge and none of it first-hand or personal.
 
What are things that are "close to" or were Christianity three hundred years ago that aren't existing now, please?  Can you give concrete examples of what you think?

Thank you in advance.



Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #120 on: July 12, 2010, 11:01:08 AM »

Do you believe that there are some particular groups or classes of Human Beings that are naturally superior or inferior?  What "human qualities" to you mean.  Many "qualities" may be hidden if the person who has them is not allowed by others to use them or improve them.  

Sure, scholars are superior to laymen in intellectual matters, hand workers are stronger than other people in physical power. If you're speaking in terms of ethnic groups, then the answer is the same, yes. Eastern Asians are superior when it comes to absorbing technical knowledge, sub-saharian Africans are superior in physical strength, and European are superior in physical beauty (save that talk about relativity, they are).

Quote

And you believe that your preferred cultural customs are superior or ought to be imposed on others who do not share them?  Why should someone in China or Japan or the Pacific Islands accept your dictate that female hair must not be seen?


Because the consensus of the Nation's scholars, who know theReligion better than them, is that the hair is to be covered, this is of course of these Chinese or Japanese embrace Islam. Otherwise, you're question is irrelevant.


Quote

I would like to know your reasons for this, yes.  Clear explanations can help in understanding another person's opinion even if one does not agree with it.


I'll try to answer this later when I have more time and energy.


Quote

What have you read on the subject that you think this?  

I'm quite familiar with the literature of the "Enlightenment", e.g. Rousseau, Montesquieu, Voltaire et cetera. I'm also familiar with the counter-Enlightenment literature like that of Julius Evola and Rene Guenon.

Quote
You don't like democracy, you've said.  Do you personally have a vote in your country?

Yes, I do have a vote, but I don't use and I'm not planning to change that in the future.

Quote
Who do you think is unworthy of having a voice in the public venue?

Anyone who's not versed in the mater in which he will give his voice and who's likely to be basing hisdecision on his most individualistic profane desires. The general populace in its entirety falls into this category.


Quote
What does "liberalism" mean to you and what do you find objectionable in it?

Liberalism is basing state and society on the attempt of giving the population the maximum number of freedoms and satisfying the maximum number of their desires. My objection is that there much more consideration to take when building state and society, neglecting all by the two I've mentioned is grave unjustice and it leads to chaos in all fields. Besides, the human desires can never be satisfied, and the hard fact is that, even if were to make the false assumption that happiness can be the raison d'etere of state and society, people are not any happier if you satisfied more of their desires, quite the opposite.




Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #121 on: July 12, 2010, 11:01:59 AM »


I'm by no means saying that Christians are bad, what I'm saying is that Christianity, unlike Islam, has failed to preserve the purity of the religion as it was practised by the early societies.

You must have never visited an Orthodox Church.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,358



« Reply #122 on: July 12, 2010, 11:07:00 AM »

Alhamdulilla, up to 90% of the Muslim population follow Islam according to the Sunna of the Prophet and the consensus of Nation's scholars, this is even though there were never a central religious authority and hardly a central temporal power, alhamdulillah again.


Yet there also Shi'ite (with sub-groups) and Ammaddiya Muslims and Sufis and Kharijites and some smaller groups.  So there is disagreement on various aspects of the religion.  

However, where I live there is much co-existence.  In my part of the county there are three mosques: Sunni, Shi'ite and Ammaddiya.  The first is next to an EO church.  The Shi'ite mosque has done work for the disadvantaged in a group with people from a Jewish congregation and a Presbyterian church. It is possible when people are respected and treated as one would like to be.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #123 on: July 12, 2010, 11:47:16 AM »

and please don't bring forward historical events

Oh please, by all means, let's ignore history.   Roll Eyes

I have no doubt you would like to ignore thirteen centuries of inhumane treatment and atrocities and instead concentrate on your fairy tale like ideal of Islam.  Our families, however, have had to live the reality.
Logged

Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #124 on: July 12, 2010, 12:03:26 PM »



Considering the recent expulsion of a number of Christians from Morocco, there might not be many who could attend.  



Interesting theory, very interesting! But it's impossible for a multitude of reasons:

1) none of those deportions were recorded in my city.
2) Even if these were one that didn't make it to the news, the number of the deported individuals cannever affect the number of possible service attendants as a huge number of Westerners flock to the city and the neighbouring beaches as tourist, besides the good number of Europeans (mostly Spanish and French) who live here.
3) Those deported people are always Evangelical, whereas the Church is Catholic.


Still interesting nevertheless, I applaud you for it.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #125 on: July 12, 2010, 12:04:59 PM »

Alhamdulilla, up to 90% of the Muslim population follow Islam according to the Sunna of the Prophet and the consensus of Nation's scholars, this is even though there were never a central religious authority and hardly a central temporal power, alhamdulillah again.


Yet there also Shi'ite (with sub-groups) and Ammaddiya Muslims and Sufis and Kharijites and some smaller groups.  So there is disagreement on various aspects of the religion.  

However, where I live there is much co-existence.  In my part of the county there are three mosques: Sunni, Shi'ite and Ammaddiya.  The first is next to an EO church.  The Shi'ite mosque has done work for the disadvantaged in a group with people from a Jewish congregation and a Presbyterian church. It is possible when people are respected and treated as one would like to be.

Ebor

Taçawwuf is part of Traditional, Orthodox Islam. Other than that, all of those people are among the remaining 10% alhamdulillah.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #126 on: July 12, 2010, 12:06:14 PM »

and please don't bring forward historical events

Oh please, by all means, let's ignore history.   Roll Eyes

I have no doubt you would like to ignore thirteen centuries of inhumane treatment and atrocities and instead concentrate on your fairy tale like ideal of Islam.  Our families, however, have had to live the reality.

Reread the post you've quoted from, it has everything that can be said about the subject.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #127 on: July 12, 2010, 12:34:04 PM »

and please don't bring forward historical events

Oh please, by all means, let's ignore history.   Roll Eyes

I have no doubt you would like to ignore thirteen centuries of inhumane treatment and atrocities and instead concentrate on your fairy tale like ideal of Islam.  Our families, however, have had to live the reality.

Reread the post you've quoted from, it has everything that can be said about the subject.


OK, here's your post:


Quote
If by prosecuting, you mean putting limitations one a person, then yes, indeed, Islam prosecutes Christians as it prosecutes Muslims and everyone else for putting limitation on a the life of the populace is the very definition of the law.

Really?  If I understand you correctly, you are saying that historically in Islamic countries Christians and Muslims have the same restrictions.  Is that correct?

Are you saying that in Islamic countries Muslims, like Christians, had to have their young daughters forcibly taken from their homes to be sold as concubines?  Are you saying that Muslims, like Christians, were forbidden from riding on horses?  Are you saying that Muslims, like Christians, had to dress differently, or had to be tattooed to be easily identified on the street?  Are you saying that Muslims, like Christians, could not convert anyone to their religion?  Are you saying that Muslims, like Christians, had their testimony in court considered invalid because of their religion?

Quote
However, if by prosecution you mean preventing them from worship, then that is not Islamic and if anyone did it then he was acting against the Law. In the overwhelming majority of the time, Christians got a more than fair (I insist on it) treatment considering their situation, and please don't bring forward historical events, I've said the majority of the time and you know it's true.

My mother's uncle had his throat slit in front of his family because he refused to convert to Islam.

I'm afraid your idea and my idea of fair treatment are a little different.
Logged

Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #128 on: July 12, 2010, 12:47:16 PM »


Really?  If I understand you correctly, you are saying that historically in Islamic countries Christians and Muslims have the same restrictions.  Is that correct?


No, you didn't understand me correctly. The limitations on each group are different.

P.S.: I meant persecution every time I said prosection.


Quote

My mother's uncle had his throat slit in front of his family because he refused to convert to Islam.


Such thing would be unfortunate and against the Shari'a. But I don't believe you.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #129 on: July 12, 2010, 01:13:17 PM »


Really?  If I understand you correctly, you are saying that historically in Islamic countries Christians and Muslims have the same restrictions.  Is that correct?


No, you didn't understand me correctly. The limitations on each group are different.

Thank you for clarifying.  That's precisely what I thought.  "Different limitations" is a nice way of putting it.  In other words:

Limitation put on Christians:  Could have daughters forcibly taken from homes
 
Limitation put on Muslims:  Could buy and rape Christian girls

Limitation put on Christians:  Could not ride on horses

Limitation put on Muslims:  Could ride on horses

Limitation put on Christians:  Had to dress or be tattooed in a way that identified them

Limitations put on Muslims:  Did not have to dress or be tattooed in a way that identified them

Limitations put on Christians:  Could not convert anyone to their religion

Limitations put on Muslims:  Could convert anyone they wanted.  If Christians could not pay their taxes, they could give the Christians the choice between converting to Islam, or dying, or being sold.

Limitations put on Christians:  Testimony in court not valid

Limitations put on Muslims:  Testimony in court valid.  (That way, any court case, civil or criminal, involving both a Muslim and a Christian would always come out in favor of the Muslim.)


Quote
Quote

My mother's uncle had his throat slit in front of his family because he refused to convert to Islam.


Such thing would be unfortunate and against the Shari'a. But I don't believe you.


It happened, but it doesn't surprise me that you don't believe it.  You'd rather believe your fairy tale version of Islam, and not be bothered by "historical events."

And if it's against the Shari'a, why haven't any Muslim nations condemned the Armenian Genocide?  A number of nations have gone on record to condemn it, and none of them are Muslim.  Perhaps killing Christians is not so against the Shari'a.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 01:14:03 PM by Salpy » Logged

Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #130 on: July 12, 2010, 01:26:34 PM »

Thank you for clarifying.  That's precisely what I thought.  "Different limitations" is a nice way of putting it.  In other words:

Limitation put on Christians:  Could have daughters forcibly taken from homes
 
Limitation put on Muslims:  Could buy and Christian girls

Limitation put on Christians:  Could not ride on horses

Limitation put on Muslims:  Could ride on horses

Limitation put on Christians:  Had to dress or be tattooed in a way that identified them

Limitations put on Muslims:  Did not have to dress or be tattooed in a way that identified them

Limitations put on Christians:  Could not convert anyone to their religion

Limitations put on Muslims:  Could convert anyone they wanted.  If Christians could not pay their taxes, they could give the Christians the choice between converting to Islam, or dying, or being sold.

Limitations put on Christians:  Testimony in court not valid

Limitations put on Muslims:  Testimony in court valid.  (That way, any court case, civil or criminal, involving both a Muslim and a Christian would always come out in favor of the Muslim.)


[I fixed the list for you [toke rape off]

You're just repeating theire what I've said; The limitations on each group are different.

You have given 5 limitations which are made on Christians but not Muslims. I'll give you 5 ones which are made on Muslims but not on Christian andI'll add one more just for you: Jihad, not drinking wine or making it, not eating swine or raising it, not wearing silk and gold for men, observing Ramadan and going to the Friday prayer.


Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #131 on: July 12, 2010, 01:36:01 PM »


[I fixed the list for you [toke rape off]

You're just repeating theire what I've said; The limitations on each group are different.


OK.  So we are getting somewhere.  You agree with all I said above, except that the young girls who were forcibly taken from their homes and then bought as concubines were raped by their owners.  Are you asserting that those girls all gave themselves willingly to their owners, or are you saying that as a legal matter, the sexual relations between an owner and slave are by definition not "rape" regardless of whether the slave is willing?
Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #132 on: July 12, 2010, 01:38:44 PM »

You have given 5 limitations which are made on Christians but not Muslims. I'll give you 5 ones which are made on Muslims but not on Christian andI'll add one more just for you: Jihad, not drinking wine or making it, not eating swine or raising it, not wearing silk and gold for men, observing Ramadan and going to the Friday prayer.

Would you be willing to trade limitations?  Would you be willing to have your daughters dragged from your homes, and your testimony in court invalidated, in exchange for the ability to drink wine and eat pork?

Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,472


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #133 on: July 12, 2010, 03:39:21 PM »

Thank you for clarifying.  That's precisely what I thought.  "Different limitations" is a nice way of putting it.  In other words:

Limitation put on Christians:  Could have daughters forcibly taken from homes
 
Limitation put on Muslims:  Could buy and Christian girls

Limitation put on Christians:  Could not ride on horses

Limitation put on Muslims:  Could ride on horses

Limitation put on Christians:  Had to dress or be tattooed in a way that identified them

Limitations put on Muslims:  Did not have to dress or be tattooed in a way that identified them

Limitations put on Christians:  Could not convert anyone to their religion

Limitations put on Muslims:  Could convert anyone they wanted.  If Christians could not pay their taxes, they could give the Christians the choice between converting to Islam, or dying, or being sold.

Limitations put on Christians:  Testimony in court not valid

Limitations put on Muslims:  Testimony in court valid.  (That way, any court case, civil or criminal, involving both a Muslim and a Christian would always come out in favor of the Muslim.)


[I fixed the list for you [toke rape off]
And what gives you the right to do that just because you don't believe her?  Such altering of someone else's words is usually considered rude in the extreme.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 03:40:26 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #134 on: July 13, 2010, 02:20:08 AM »


[I fixed the list for you [toke rape off]

You're just repeating theire what I've said; The limitations on each group are different.


OK.  So we are getting somewhere.  You agree with all I said above, except that the young girls who were forcibly taken from their homes and then bought as concubines were raped by their owners.  Are you asserting that those girls all gave themselves willingly to their owners, or are you saying that as a legal matter, the sexual relations between an owner and slave are by definition not "rape" regardless of whether the slave is willing?

Slaves are not to be taken from dhimmi people, taking boys for the army might be an exception, but I don't regard it as enslavement. But for girls, they are not taken from protected people.

You have given 5 limitations which are made on Christians but not Muslims. I'll give you 5 ones which are made on Muslims but not on Christian andI'll add one more just for you: Jihad, not drinking wine or making it, not eating swine or raising it, not wearing silk and gold for men, observing Ramadan and going to the Friday prayer.

Would you be willing to trade limitations?  Would you be willing to have your daughters dragged from your homes, and your testimony in court invalidated, in exchange for the ability to drink wine and eat pork?



The limitations are different and they are more strict on Christians for a very good reason. It is Christian, not Muslims, who would hate the Islamic state however nice it would be to them as they believe that its very basis is false and evil. Most importantly, it's them who would rejoice at the fall of the Islamic rule and actively work for it if they had the chance (like they with the Ottoman state). Not only that, they also hope for the day Islam would disappear from the face of the Earth.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Tags: Islam persecution justifying atrocities heresy 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.187 seconds with 72 queries.