Why is the Muslim world so easily offended?

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4959
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:45 pm

PostMon Oct 01, 2012 7:59 pm » by Phaeton


Iwanci wrote:Phaeton, why would you be interested in knowing what I have studied my friend? To prove what, that I am better versed than you, or you than I? It makes no difference what I know or from what source, because ultimately I know nothing, so our knowledge levels are the same (give or take), this goes for everyone.

I am interestd in your thoughts that somehow everyone 'hates' the muslim religion??

Why do you think this? Is it becuase it is a popularist view point in your country? Or have we not learnt to see past all the rhetoric and did you not say not to believe everything you see/hear in the mainstream media? So, if we are to not to believe everything we see/hear in mainstream, why should we believe that the muslim religion is the most hated if we are recieving this message from the mainstream?

For the record, I do not HATE the muslim religion per se, I have a dslike for ALL religious dogma, not to get confused with 'belief'. I am a believer that to believe is perfectly healthy, but I also see 'religion' as stiffling to the belief system. For me belief is an evolutionary journey, one that develops with life experience, religion is one way to 'cap' that journey and the mainstream religious believer is bound or limited (IMO) to the religious teachings he/she subscribes to. This makes man and belief very inflexible, and probably the reason why we have so much intolerance in society.


Not to say I think your knowledge or belief is limited my friend, not at all you are extremely well versed, but just generally speaking I believe that when people limit themselves to one religious learning as the vast majority do, then they are limiting their ability to learn and to be tolerant.


Many are confused about belief because their views often conflict with any religion. They like some aspects and relate, but conflict with other aspects and so question themselves and their belief.

The real issue is that belief is not fact, by definition it is a theory. So, as with any theory they are all equally valid and all equally unproven, and, depending on what your 'belief' actually is and how much that conflicts or agrees with your current way of life or social economic political environment, then you are either a part or society or very much an outcast (or at least you may feel that way). Why? because with any religion you must conform to those ideals, there really is no room for common ground. This is the gospel and this is what you must do to follow it....

So, in 'your' learnings I am interested in understanding, which religion actually allows you to be cross denominational? ie, which religion allows you to believe in multiple religions? and to what point? I know there are comminalities between the religious teachings, but can you be a muslim and a jew at the same time? Can you be a catholic and a prodestant at the same time? If not, why not? Why cant a person believe in multiple learnings, and if they can, at what point does one religion frown upon the teachings of another, and why so?


See the point? limiting people's belief system is not healthy and stiffles ones' ability to be tolerant. So, my idea of education regarding tolerance cannot truly be achieved, I know this, simply because there are large variances between the religions and at some point they actually conflict on many topics, and it is at this point that all religions fail and the conflict manifests itself. All good until there's a disagreement, then we forget about the good and bring out the evil.


The Muslim world is so easily offended simply because the 'rest' of the worlds religions are intolerant of its teachings or misteachings. Just the same though from the other aspect, why are muslims so intolerant of other religions or beliefs? For exactly the same reasons. You go to a muslim country and you know that you must not offend the people's culture, muslims go to a western country and what do they do? They try and change the system or try to create a microcosm within that society (naturally I am generalising here, not all muslims do this obviously). Is there an instance where we hear of jews perhaps going to a muslim country and trying to alter the laws or trying to protest in the streets due to the harshness of the community? Nope, we don't hear of this because they wouldn't ever consider it because they would fear the repercussions. I am not anti muslim, be clear on this I have many devout muslim friends and family, but we all agree that there are extremes, and some religions encourage the extremes others play it down.


I know nothing... (on this we would probably agree yeah?) :wink:


Ill just ignore your reaction in the Sanhedrin thread, what humor. Oh and before I forget, time travel tickets are available for about $150 [exc. taxes]. Challenged individuals get a discount of 15%.
Get yours now.

Tolerance comes from knowledge, and knowledge comes from awareness, and awareness comes from exposure.

Intolerance comes from ignorance, ignorance comes from mis-information, and mis-information can seed based on non- exposure. You talk of intolerance of religion, of 'Muslims', but what about you, yourself, my friend?

I ask you about what you specifically know about, what your level of exposure is of - in this case the Qur'an - because you find it wise to derive all sorts of negative conclusions. My question is, based on what? Based on tv? Based on some people whom call themselves 'Muslim'? What.

So many people state all kinds of utterly negative, utterly false remarks about [this] religion.
They in fact behave just like the extremists, are just as intolerant as the extremists, they love to hate [and often call 'Muslims']. Beautifully paradoxal, wouldnt you agree?

I think this is very dangerous, proof of conditioning. I think people need to wise the fuck up and check their facts, know what they are talking about, before moving to confidently judge any given subject.
Before they go out and facilitate the polarisation tactics that are being played against us.
And if you cant see the hype against religion, especially Islam, I think you, again, have your eyes wide shut.

But ill also reiterate that this is merely my opinion, as you seem to keep trying to shove 'a general pretence of knowledge' in my shoes. I am the first to acknowledge I know nothing. I just think.
I do 'think' I have better 'exposure' of the subject you love to indict, Islam / Qur'an, however.
"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music"
"All our science measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - yet, in contemporary consensus, its the most precious thing we have"


Upload to Disclose.tv


Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2244
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:56 am

PostWed Oct 03, 2012 9:15 am » by Iwanci


Phaeton... have I shown any hatred towards Muslims mate? Or are you generalising and venting through me?

I have categorised ALL religions in the same class, not because it is the right thing to do, rather, because I see them as all being the same, I am no hypocrite. We can talk about issues that concern Muslims when they crop up and become topical, but rest assured that when a catholic or christian or jew or buddhist rears its ugly evil side and I do not agree, I will be equally vocal in my disgust.

I agree on almost every point you make, however, if we were to be frank with each other, I must state that when you (as in you) tell people that they are being 'nieve' it makes people feel that you think yourself superior in knowledge, just saying, and this is why you get the responses about knowledge, from me for example.

Exposure has something to do with the gathering of knowledge (for sure), but it also depends on the type and quality of the exposure not necesarily the quantity. Some people learn from books, others as we know, learn from experience... all in all the comminality is that we all learn.

To imply I am challenged?? Resorting to insults on what grounds and for what purpose?

Sorry mate, but I will agree with you to a point, but when we have a disagreement I will never treat you like an inferior being nor like an idiot... we cant agree on everything all the time.

Then agin, it is also perfectly ok for us to disagree on everything, it just means that we see things differently, resorting to offence make us no more learned or 'tolerant' than those crazy religious fanatics that we are disagreeing about.. or at least you think we are disagreeing about.

Stay well my friend and keep on being who you are...

:cheers:
Fortes fortuna iuvat

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4959
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:45 pm

PostWed Oct 03, 2012 1:09 pm » by Phaeton


Iwanci wrote:Phaeton... have I shown any hatred towards Muslims mate? Or are you generalising and venting through me?

I have categorised ALL religions in the same class, not because it is the right thing to do, rather, because I see them as all being the same, I am no hypocrite. We can talk about issues that concern Muslims when they crop up and become topical, but rest assured that when a catholic or christian or jew or buddhist rears its ugly evil side and I do not agree, I will be equally vocal in my disgust.

I agree on almost every point you make, however, if we were to be frank with each other, I must state that when you (as in you) tell people that they are being 'nieve' it makes people feel that you think yourself superior in knowledge, just saying, and this is why you get the responses about knowledge, from me for example.

Exposure has something to do with the gathering of knowledge (for sure), but it also depends on the type and quality of the exposure not necesarily the quantity. Some people learn from books, others as we know, learn from experience... all in all the comminality is that we all learn.

To imply I am challenged?? Resorting to insults on what grounds and for what purpose?

Sorry mate, but I will agree with you to a point, but when we have a disagreement I will never treat you like an inferior being nor like an idiot... we cant agree on everything all the time.

Then agin, it is also perfectly ok for us to disagree on everything, it just means that we see things differently, resorting to offence make us no more learned or 'tolerant' than those crazy religious fanatics that we are disagreeing about.. or at least you think we are disagreeing about.

Stay well my friend and keep on being who you are...

:cheers:


Im generalising?! Thats rich mate. And you still didnt answer my question, as almost all your replies are not to the point, not in specific reaction to my content. As soon as we appraoch any checkable factual level of a given subject, you reply with a general opinion, a general view.

The essential point in this is if the behaviour of the extremists, of religious congregations like the 'Roman Catholic Church' is soundly based in the teachings held in scripture. What would prove your argument and disprove mine. This is why I posed you the question, what is your knowledge about these books. Based on what exposure are you venting your negative opinion. The actions of the aforementioned are from Humans and Humans alone. Their ignorance, their lust for power and wealth. The actions of extremists go directly against the teachings, the actions of political entities like the Roman Catholic Church is as anti Christian as one can get. The direct anti thesis to what they pretend to hold as their base.

On the naive remark you seem to take so much offence to; what am I supposed to say when you state that the people of any given invaded nation should just ask for help from China and/or Russia, and the invader would just leave them in peace. Those were your exact words, If this wasnt what you meant you should have verbalised it differently. You also stated things like 'America is a fighter for freedom'. You can hardly blame me for interpreting it and reacting like I did.

About exposure; in this case, in the indictment of a scriptural religion, you best be sure to have read said scripture. Lest your arguments are null and void. I hope we can agree on that. You cant bash any given book without having read it, can you.

Concerning the supposed implication you are retarded, I did no such thing. This is purely your conclusion.
I merely used the same tone you chose to wield in the Sanhedrin thread. Remember? 'Funnily' implying I must have the ability to time travel and what not. You chose to use that wording and that tone, Im simply serving it back to you here. If you cant stand the heat, stay the * out of the kitchen my friend.
You start a ridiculing stance, I give you thesame in reaction, and suddenly Im the bad guy? Come on.

No hard feelings though.

Godspeed, be well bro.
"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music"
"All our science measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - yet, in contemporary consensus, its the most precious thing we have"


Upload to Disclose.tv


Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2244
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:56 am

PostThu Oct 04, 2012 2:48 am » by Iwanci


All your replies my friend are also your views only, you may sight some dogma that you have read and interpreted, and that is my point... it makes no difference how you reach your opinion, it is your opinion that matters... no reference to any religious scripture, text or dogma can validate anything, and hence it is fruitless, in my opinion, to sight it. I am interested not in how you came to your conclusions, but rather, your conclusions. In my opinion there are NO checkable or factual levels in religion, it is all conjecture and open to interpretation, indeed, it is all interpreted from the outset.
Humans are responsible for their actions, I agree wholeheartedly with this view. However, humans are also open to manipulation, and, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to use this ‘weakness’ to take advantage of a person or people or a congregation or a whole nation or whole culture. We, in our society, frown and actively pursue people who prey on the vulnerabilities of others, so why not with religion? Is it because we ourselves have beliefs or biases that do not allow us to make distinctions? The gun example many sight, guns do not kill people etc etc, is a flawed argument, true in many ways but false in so many others. Religion, as I have repeatedly stated, is a similar falsehood. Whilst it offers much solace and comfort to the many whom may need it, whilst it serves a purpose in the unification of people and provides a sense of belonging and reason, it is also a falsehood because it destabilises and distances people with opposing views or religious beliefs.
I would argue that the negatives would far outweigh the positives on a macro scale.

Yes, I can blame you for incorrectly interpreting my comments regarding the US and other comments about countries who are fighting at the bequest of the countries that they are in. I replied to your previous stance that the US was an invading force, and, whilst this may be true in some instances, I was commenting that these days they are NOT an invading force. This is NOT to say that I agree with what they are doing nor that I disagree, however, you cannot make a case that they are invading any country, and YES if the ‘host’ country asked them to leave they would (there would be ramifications for this), I did not say that China or Russia could ask them to leave, I did say that if the host country did not want the US there and asked them to leave they could get support from countries like China or Russia by way of example. So, I think you may have read my comments out of context, however, judging by your anti American sentiments I would argue that this was probably caused by some bias, I could be wrong my friend but you seem to have some very strong and deep seeded anti American sentiments, my opinion only. Do you?

We are all guilty of bias, I will gladly admit to my one sided views.

I beg to differ on the point abut bashing any scripture. You see, I do not need to prove to you or anyone else what I have read (this would serve little purpose and it does not make me any smarter or less so than anyone else), rather, when I make a comment on ‘scripture’ I am biased, and I do not hide from this – like I said, I can admit to my biased views. I can say that ANY scripture or religious text IS written by man, and I know that man IS fallible, so I can say that any comment that IS written by a fallible being IS prone to fallibility, if something is prone to errors I cannot and will not take it as gospel. If 2 people can read the same scripture and interpret it differently, then it needs to be questioned, in my opinion. Not the context nor the words, but the whole script needs to be re-written so there can be no dispute. If it can be re-written by man, then the re-write is also fallible. Now, show me a text that is not fallible with no chance for misinterpretation ... can you do this? I would say no, because even if we can all agree to the interpretation, the meaning and indeed the acts may cause disagreement, and this is what we are seeing around the world with regards to religions. I do not judge the people reading the scripture (the believer), rather I judge the scripture itself. These were written in different times for different socio-economic conditions to address different issues faced by different people, and yet we somehow try to twist and turn them to make them fit our current multi cultural societies? So my thoughts run a little deeper my friend than superficial religious dogma. Now, don’t get upset just because I don’t like religion, please understand that I love the people of any faith or denomination, it’s the teachings that I find absurd and the fact that so many people waste their lives looking for meaning rather than gaining meaning through the journey.. to me it is akin to going on a holiday and spending all your time in a hotel room looking at travel magazines rather than enjoying the journey itself.

Show me a well versed man with hatred and show me an imbecile full of love ... which do you think I would gravitate towards? Whom do you think I would place closer to ‘god’?

Ok, then when from one ‘retard’ (me) to another (you) I think that we can agree that we will disagree on some issues.

I like discussions with you by the way Phaeton, could we meet at a pub and spend countless hours debating and drinking? Yeah, probably would enjoy that..
:cheers:
Fortes fortuna iuvat

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4959
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:45 pm

PostThu Oct 04, 2012 7:30 pm » by Phaeton


My good friend, if we could actually touch upon the facts you base your interpretation of reality on, I would like that very much indeed.

You were Dutch were you?
"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music"
"All our science measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - yet, in contemporary consensus, its the most precious thing we have"


Upload to Disclose.tv


Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2244
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:56 am

PostThu Oct 04, 2012 11:35 pm » by Iwanci


Nope, I am Italian born, currently living in Australia frequenting France and Switzerland. Multi-national..

And you?
Fortes fortuna iuvat

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4959
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:45 pm

PostFri Oct 05, 2012 7:07 pm » by Phaeton


Iwanci wrote:Nope, I am Italian born, currently living in Australia frequenting France and Switzerland. Multi-national..

And you?



Ah.. Wouldnt have guessed it. Some great countries you are frequenting I must say.

Especially love the feel of Switserland. Never been to Australia.

Im Dutch.

No immigrant in case you were wondering :wink:

German lineage Dutch whitey. Theres a part of my family still living in Germany.
"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music"
"All our science measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - yet, in contemporary consensus, its the most precious thing we have"


Upload to Disclose.tv



Previous

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook