84 replies to this topic

[Zaphod222]

Liquid Gardens, on 26 January 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

In theory though, and I don't know enough about Jainism and how core pacificism is to that belief system to know if it's a good example, it seems possible to have a "'x religion' terrorist" that is a contradiction, or at least a meaningless label.

No, it is NOT possible, which is precisely why I picked these two religions as an example for diametrically opposed content.
An islamic terrorist is perfectly logical; and justified in the teaching, which is why the thousands of islamist terrorist organizations around the globe are typically lead by "clerics". Concepts such as "jihad", "jihza", "shahid", "fitna" etc., are all part of the glory of killing and dying for the victory of the religion.

In Jainism, all that is absurd. Jainism is passionately pacifistic, and knows not counterpart to the above islamic concepts. Jainism has no interest in conquering and ruling the world. A Jainist "Boko Haram" or "Hizb-Allah" would be a contradiction in terms.

But the keyword here is "I don't know enough".... at least you acknowledge that. I hope you do some research and form an opinion following that.

Edited by Zaphod222, 27 January 2013 - 03:28 AM.

[Etu Malku]

Obviously Luciferianism is the only intelligent and least harmful religion!
Of course I am biased

[Frank Merton]

One way to view skepticism is as a middle way between credulity and cynicism.

[Paranoid Android]

Zaphod222, on 27 January 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:

If you don´t think there are islamic terrorists, just open your newspaper.

I didn't say there weren't any Islamic terrorists.  I said there shouldn't be any Islamic terrorists if these Muslims properly read their text and understood their beliefs.

Zaphod222, on 27 January 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:

And that only scratches the surface. The fact is that striking terror into the hearts of the disbelievers is a religious tenet for fundamentalist muslims, and the root goes right back to the founder.

And if you fall for the simplistic talking point that islam wants "peace", you only show that you have not studied the issue. I would recommend to inform yourself about the definition of "peace" within islamic dogma. Hint: It is not what you and I understand by "peace".

All I can say to you is I hope you inform yourself more about the topic before posting strong opinion statements.

I have read up on Islam, and I don't buy into the scaremongering that their "peace" isn't really the same peace as ours.  At its core, Islam is a religion of peace.  Unfortunately some of its adherents don't realise this.  And unfortunately some of its clerics who want to promote their brand of hatred and are able to influence the minds of young impressionable adherents to go and blow up something in the name of their selfishness.

Your dismissal of my opinion is noted, but not agreed with.  All the best,

~ Regards, PA

[Tor_Hershman]

So you want the coolest legally accepted religion, ehhhhh.
That's most easily accomplished with a visit to....
  THE CHURCH OF ED WOOD

http://www.edwood.org/

[Mr Walker]

Hey tor, just a note on your quote saying, "There is no god in foxholes." What about Inari, the god of foxes?

Edited by Mr Walker, 27 January 2013 - 09:58 PM.

[Sherapy]

Mr Walker, on 26 January 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

To take your last point first. No it is not wishful thinking. It is what is necesary in all things, not just religions, for humanity to survive and prosper.

Each individual is accountable for their own thoughts and for their own deeds.  All functioning humans have the abilty to know what is desrtuctive and wh t is creative and hence individually we are all accountable The nuremberg trials established that in International law. That is exactly the same for an atheist as for a religious person

The matter of statistics on cause of deaths is interesting, but there is no doubt  that christianity over 2000 years has been directly and indirectly responsible for more deaths than  islam  since its incepetion.

HOWEVER what i did not point out is that "secular" wars and conflicts over that time have killed more than either. From genghis khan to stalin,  the cultural revolution of china, and the killing fields of the khymer rouge, their  secular death toll exceeds either christian or muslim.

I do not argue that DOCTRINES are the same quite the opposite but religions whatever their doctrines come form the same place serve the same puproses and survive if they are effective
Humans, if not "born into a religion"  will create their own because of  how humans construct belief.

I agree that many beliefs are passed on, but so are values and ethics indepndent of religion. An adult human can think for them selves and can decide their own set of values ethics and religious beliefs.

In western societies, while the total number of religious people is remaining the same, many are swapping beliefs. Islam is growing as are eastern faiths like buddhism.  This may relfect the comparative modern relevevance of some religious beliefs (or aspects of them)compared to others.
I didnt say subordinate.  That is a value judgement.

My wife would hit you if you called her subordinate, yet she lives a traditionall christian based role as a wife.Eg I work and provide all her material needs, while she does what she loves, maintaining the home, garden and our animals. That suits her temperament and personality She does not enjoy engaging with people or being tied down to work under a boss and being told what to do. She is her own boss in our home.
This would not suit every woman but it suits her She also does not wear make up or dress to look sexy despite being the sexiest woman I have ever met. Again that is her choice based on her values.

I teach young girls who are forced/ indoctrinated by society to look like sexual objects and to act as one.  They think that is right and natural because they have been conditioned to do so. Rather than value self for self, they see their value as a sexual object for another Or in what they can earn and provide..

I think a female can be equally indoctrinated to think taking pride in her beauty or sexuality is wrong. Either perspective can be taken to the extreme MW.

[Mr Walker]

Sherapy, on 28 January 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

I think a female can be equally indoctrinated to think taking pride in her beauty or sexuality is wrong. Either perspective can be taken to the extreme MW.

Self esteem is important.  Tieing that to one's appearance or sexual appeal is a false hood. Self esteem is a construct which can be created based on any value of self. To tie it to how one looks is both limiting, and proven to be very dangerous, to women.

Why, logically, is it any more important how a woman looks, than a man? Is a woman's worth, more in her looks than a man's is? If you are older,  less perfect in figure or skin,  less beautiful or less attractive, are you less worthy or valueable/valued? Of course not, and no one should ever be allowed to think they are.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and has always been an arbitrary measurement. There are many better, and more accurate, ways to judge oneself. (If one feels one must judge oneself.)

And surely the concept that sex (and sexuality), based on physical attractiveness or not, is a commodity to be traded  for other things, is no longer socially acceptable.

Edited by Mr Walker, 30 January 2013 - 06:58 AM.

[Likely Guy]

Mr Walker, on 30 January 2013 - 06:54 AM, said:

Self esteem is important.  Tieing that to one's appearance or sexual appeal is a false hood... etc.

But Sherapy said, "I think a female can be equally indoctrinated to think taking pride in her beauty or sexuality is wrong. Either perspective can be taken to the extreme MW."

I don't think that she said that self esteem is tied to self appearance or sexual appeal. She said (if I'm not mistaken) that there's nothing wrong with either perspective. Girls take pride in their appearance and they will eventually become sexual beings. However, girls becoming simple objects, or girls becoming cloistered are equally as bad and that it shouldn't be taken to the extreme.

[Mr Walker]

Likely Guy, on 30 January 2013 - 07:28 AM, said:

But Sherapy said, "I think a female can be equally indoctrinated to think taking pride in her beauty or sexuality is wrong. Either perspective can be taken to the extreme MW."

I don't think that she said that self esteem is tied to self appearance or sexual appeal. She said (if I'm not mistaken) that there's nothing wrong with either perspective. Girls take pride in their appearance and they will eventually become sexual beings. However, girls becoming simple objects, or girls becoming cloistered are equally as bad and that it shouldn't be taken to the extreme.

Read the relationship between my original post and her response. She is implying that pride in beauty and good looks is a positive characteristic. I argue it is not, and indeed has many recognised dangers. There are many more constructive elements about anyone to value than theirr beauty or good looks  We are so socialised (Indeed indoctrinated) as a society, especially by mass media and advertising, that many people really do not recognise this.  Yet is having serious negative consequences for young women and girls.  The question is WHY take a pride in our appearance. It is basically unconnected to sexuality. Neither should it be connected to to social acceptabilty  and conforming to social norms. We should  take "pride" in our appearance as part of taking "pride" in who and what we are. We will feel better about ourselves, if we are neat, clean, tidy and appropriately dressed  for any situation.
Yes anything taken to extremes is a danger, but in western society the  sexualisation and objectification of even very young women is already about as extreme as it can get.  We don't face any danger from the opposite extreme.

My wife, all her life, has worn no make up, dressed modestly, and worn almost no jewellery. Neither has she ever drunk alcohol, smoked, or taken any other drugs. She does not swear, or read or watch things she finds demeaning to humanity. She has been a loving and faithful wife for nearly 40 years

  In our society that is about as extreme as a woman can get, yet no one in 70 years has ever commented negatively on any of those factors in her life.

Im not sure wha tyou mean by cloistered. I once went out with a catholic girl and got to know a whole group of nuns from young to old They were "cloistered" and yet were among the happiest and most content human beings i have ever met. if you mean keeping a young girl away from trouble by responsible parenting, then i am all for that. What young people want is not always what is best for them and it is a parents job to do at eleast a little cloistering of their teenagers.

Is it cloistering to expect a fifteen year old girl not to be out alone on the streets  at night? Not in my book.

Of course it depends on the individual child/parent and relationship of trust one has built up,  but there are real dangers for all young people and especially for young women, even the well behaved and trustworthy ones.. I woudn't let a fifteen year old girl go to a party where i knew alcohol was freely available, and there were a lot of older teenage boys and no adult supervision.. And yet i see parents allow 12 and 13 year old girls go into exactly that scenario.

[Zaphod222]

Paranoid Android, on 27 January 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

I didn't say there weren't any Islamic terrorists.  I said there shouldn't be any Islamic terrorists if these Muslims properly read their text and understood their beliefs.

I think it has escaped your attention that a) all islamic terrorist groups and islamic terrorist-supporting regimes are led by clergy. Who by definition have read up on their religion.
And that b ) there is no objection to terrorism on religious grounds --- compare that to the raging islamic mobs that can be called up on any time, when someone claims that mohammed has been cartooned. What a contrast of enthusiasm!

Paranoid Android, on 27 January 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

I have read up on Islam, and I don't buy into the scaremongering that their "peace" isn't really the same peace as ours.

Obviously, you have not. Which you are demonstrating here.

Paranoid Android, on 27 January 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

At its core, Islam is a religion of peace.

Again, that depends on your definition of "peace". If you define "peace" as the state where the whole world is subdued under islamic rule, then yes. But that is not the definition that you or I are using, is it now.

Edited by Zaphod222, 31 January 2013 - 09:22 AM.

[Liquid Gardens]

Zaphod222, on 31 January 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

Again, that depends on your definition of "peace". If you define "peace" as the state where the whole world is subdued under islamic rule, then yes. But that is not the definition that you or I are using, is it now.

I think it more depends on your definition of "Islam", which seems to be excessively narrow and does not seem to acknowledge the breadth of belief under that umbrella.

[Frank Merton]

It doesn't take many adherents flying airplanes into buildings to give a religion a bad reputation.

[Etu Malku]

Mr Walker, on 30 January 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Read the relationship between my original post and her response. She is implying that pride in beauty and good looks is a positive characteristic. I argue it is not, and indeed has many recognised dangers. There are many more constructive elements about anyone to value than theirr beauty or good looks  We are so socialised (Indeed indoctrinated) as a society, especially by mass media and advertising, that many people really do not recognise this.  Yet is having serious negative consequences for young women and girls.  The question is WHY take a pride in our appearance. It is basically unconnected to sexuality. Neither should it be connected to to social acceptabilty  and conforming to social norms. We should  take "pride" in our appearance as part of taking "pride" in who and what we are. We will feel better about ourselves, if we are neat, clean, tidy and appropriately dressed  for any situation.
Yes anything taken to extremes is a danger, but in western society the  sexualisation and objectification of even very young women is already about as extreme as it can get.  We don't face any danger from the opposite extreme.

My wife, all her life, has worn no make up, dressed modestly, and worn almost no jewellery. Neither has she ever drunk alcohol, smoked, or taken any other drugs. She does not swear, or read or watch things she finds demeaning to humanity. She has been a loving and faithful wife for nearly 40 years

  In our society that is about as extreme as a woman can get, yet no one in 70 years has ever commented negatively on any of those factors in her life.

Im not sure wha tyou mean by cloistered. I once went out with a catholic girl and got to know a whole group of nuns from young to old They were "cloistered" and yet were among the happiest and most content human beings i have ever met. if you mean keeping a young girl away from trouble by responsible parenting, then i am all for that. What young people want is not always what is best for them and it is a parents job to do at eleast a little cloistering of their teenagers.

Is it cloistering to expect a fifteen year old girl not to be out alone on the streets  at night? Not in my book.

Of course it depends on the individual child/parent and relationship of trust one has built up,  but there are real dangers for all young people and especially for young women, even the well behaved and trustworthy ones.. I woudn't let a fifteen year old girl go to a party where i knew alcohol was freely available, and there were a lot of older teenage boys and no adult supervision.. And yet i see parents allow 12 and 13 year old girls go into exactly that scenario.

You're a lucky man Walker!
My wife teaches a course on Tantric sex and can induce multiple orgasms in a male . . . god I love her!

[Etu Malku]

Liquid Gardens, on 31 January 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

I think it more depends on your definition of "Islam", which seems to be excessively narrow and does not seem to acknowledge the breadth of belief under that umbrella.

I'm afraid the proof is in their scripture . . . it is full of hate, genocide, selfish agendas, and war mongering. IMO it is the bottom of the Abrahamic barrel.