I think i got more respect for Islam than for... [Archive]

manic expression

25th January 2007, 18:40

This is a good question.

Islam, theologically speaking, isn't that much different from Christianity, only it is (more) fervently monotheistic (while Christianity permits images and the belief in the trinity, something Islam does not). Aside from this, Islam is most certainly of the same religious tradition as Christianity, and Muslims recognize this openly.

However, IMO, Christianity is the most intolerant major religion today (Christians aren't very pious or literal these days, so there is a discrepency between what the religion teaches and what people actually do in their everyday lives).

When it comes to their treatment of leftist beliefs, it varies completely. Christianity has been very conservative ever since Constantine (and before that). Islam initially taught women's rights and equality, but tribal customs superceded scripture (which is where we get the requirements for clothing and such). Both traditions have taught leftist beliefs at some point, Malcolm X in Islam for one, liberation theology in Christianity for another.

From what I can tell, Islam may be more progressive than Christianity when you look solely at scripture (not by much), but (IMO) in practice both can be equally and fully progressive. It comes down to how someone uses the religion, not what the religion may or may not be.

R_P_A_S

25th January 2007, 18:43

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 25, 2007 06:40 pm
This is a good question.

Islam, theologically speaking, isn't that much different from Christianity, only it is (more) fervently monotheistic (while Christianity permits images and the belief in the trinity, something Islam does not). Aside from this, Islam is most certainly of the same religious tradition as Christianity, and Muslims recognize this openly.

However, IMO, Christianity is the most intolerant major religion today (Christians aren't very pious or literal these days, so there is a discrepency between what the religion teaches and what people actually do in their everyday lives).

When it comes to their treatment of leftist beliefs, it varies completely. Christianity has been very conservative ever since Constantine (and before that). Islam initially taught women's rights and equality, but tribal customs superceded scripture (which is where we get the requirements for clothing and such). Both traditions have taught leftist beliefs at some point, Malcolm X in Islam for one, liberation theology in Christianity for another.

From what I can tell, Islam may be more progressive than Christianity when you look solely at scripture (not by much), but (IMO) in practice both can be equally and fully progressive. It comes down to how someone uses the religion, not what the religion may or may not be.
i think you put it in a better way. I was just talking generally of Malcolm X and what he used Islam for

Intifada

25th January 2007, 18:50

Religion is not always a force for evil.

How each human uses religion will always be different, and the way that they use it determines whether they can be regarded in a good or bad light.

Islam played a massive role in Malcolm X's life, and in the end it brought out a hell of a lot of good in him that also positively affected the society he was living in.

The folks who shot him dead didn't like that he was using religion in a progressive manner.

STI

25th January 2007, 20:30

How could somebody who is "110% Marxista" have any respect for any religion?

R_P_A_S

25th January 2007, 20:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:30 pm
How could somebody who is "110% Marxista" have any respect for any religion?
like i said.. "i guess I said it wrong.."

Johnny Anarcho

26th January 2007, 15:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:04 pm
Christianity. Don't get me wrong I oppose organized religion. But maybe I'm just confused-
Both religions have done some fucked up things. you got radical islam and christian fundamentalist, scary shit!!!

But I guess I see Islam as a more progressive? I don't know after reading Malcolm X autobiography I just got the feeling that Islam made this man want to help not just him self. but liberate the afro-americans from oppression. He did so much that and made sense to lots of people. Islam did more for him than Christianity. what do you guys think? Do you also feel that Islam drives people to not fear going into revolution, to do whats right for your people and such.

like I said. I just get this feeling JUST from reading his book. I never been to a mosque or read the Q'uran
I have nothing against Christianity or any other religion but this is the same reason I became Muslim. Malcolm X is to me an inspiration and the best modern example of how a Muslim should act. Islam is a progressive religion and, as I've stated before, a faith of revolutionaries.

Johnny Anarcho

26th January 2007, 16:00

RedAnarchist

26th January 2007, 16:03

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 26, 2007 03:58 pm
Islam is a progressive religion and, as I've stated before, a faith of revolutionaries.
So, if you had to, whose interests come first? The people's or god's?

Johnny Anarcho

26th January 2007, 16:25

Originally posted by TAKN+January 26, 2007 04:03 pm--> (TAKN @ January 26, 2007 04:03 pm)
Johnny [email protected] 26, 2007 03:58 pm
Islam is a progressive religion and, as I've stated before, a faith of revolutionaries.
So, if you had to, whose interests come first? The people's or god's? [/b]
It depends on what is considered to be the people's interests.

La Comédie Noire

26th January 2007, 16:35

I like the Koran more then the Bible because the Koran has more quality then quantity. While the Bible is a brick of useless text. I also notice less hypocriscy and meaness in muslims then Christians. I remeber one time a Muslim friend's family invited me into their homes and let me eat even though they knew I was atheist. While another time a Christian friend's family wouldnt even let me hang out with her ever again.

razboz

26th January 2007, 16:58

Originally posted by Johnny Anarcho+January 26, 2007 04:25 pm--> (Johnny Anarcho @ January 26, 2007 04:25 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 04:03 pm

Johnny [email protected] 26, 2007 03:58 pm
Islam is a progressive religion and, as I've stated before, a faith of revolutionaries.
So, if you had to, whose interests come first? The people's or god's?
It depends on what is considered to be the people's interests. [/b]
A lot of the religious types think that what works for god works for us seeing as He is in charge of pretty much everything.

Like i have said elswhere i dont think religion should be tolerated. I dont think it come s under the "freedom" section because it aims to limit freedom of though and worship. Im sorrry but this i sthe case for all judeochristian religions, Islam inclluded.

Muslims are often more open in the West because they have to lest they be branded as dangerous fanatics by the other dangerous fanatics.

Id tend to agree that Islam churns out fewer biggots than Christianity, but dont get them wrong. Behind those big smiles the "we're open to everyone" attitudes theres a Book that says you should die and burn in the exquisitely detailed layers of hell.

in practice both can be equally and fully progressive. It comes down to how someone uses the religion, not what the religion may or may not be.

I dont agree. I think that if the Book they read preaches violence and regression on all levels, then they are violent and regressive themselves. Either they drop the book or they drop the semblance of peace, cause they cant have it both ways. This kind of moral compromise is hypocrisy of the worst kind. Adhereing to a religion and then ignoreing some bits? Thats cowardice that is.

Question everything

26th January 2007, 19:28

So, if you had to, whose interests come first? The people's or god's? If you want my opinion I only take a vague look as to what God wills, sumed up into a sentance I believe God wants us to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself" in that way I think God and the peoples interest will always be one in the same...

I dont agree. I think that if the Book they read preaches violence and regression on all levels, then they are violent and regressive themselves.
this is from a catholic, do you have any Idea what the Bible says!?! the muslisms have always been more progressive... anyone read about the crusades, we invaded them, slaughted them and took all the money we could get our hands on... there are many times muslims offer the christians the chance to surrender and go home...

This kind of moral compromise is hypocrisy of the worst kind. Adhereing to a religion and then ignoreing some bits? Thats cowardice that is.

(I know I'm probably going to get torn to shreds by every one who reads this forum... and please don't report for this I am a leftist but I believe in God) Aren't we trying to take the good from capitalism (industrialisation, modern democracy, etc.) while removing some bits (CEOs, Money, etc.)? I mean I believe in God, I suppose I am a christian, but I defend the idea of God while I tear the scriptures to shreads...

Publius

26th January 2007, 21:36

Islam is worse than Christianity, currently.

Sorry to spoil the party.

Question everything

26th January 2007, 22:45

noooo :P ... and by the way Publius, that is what they said during the crusades... that we were right and that the muslims were insane, when it was the other way around... these days it's no better... Bush and those Bible basher slauched a crusade on Muslim territoiry, and now the Iraqi Freedom Fighters are fight for there independance... so before you call them extremists you better take a closer look at the puritan crackpot that fought for US independance...

wtfm8lol

27th January 2007, 00:35

I remeber one time a Muslim friend's family invited me into their homes and let me eat even though they knew I was atheist. While another time a Christian friend's family wouldnt even let me hang out with her ever again.

Are you a racist, by any chance?

Knight of Cydonia

27th January 2007, 06:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 07:35 am

I remeber one time a Muslim friend's family invited me into their homes and let me eat even though they knew I was atheist. While another time a Christian friend's family wouldnt even let me hang out with her ever again.

Are you a racist, by any chance?
i think he just want to say how welcome the muslim are to an atheist.

and that's not a racist.... <_<

wtfm8lol

27th January 2007, 07:16

Originally posted by knight of cydonia+January 27, 2007 06:03 am--> (knight of cydonia @ January 27, 2007 06:03 am)
[email protected] 27, 2007 07:35 am

I remeber one time a Muslim friend's family invited me into their homes and let me eat even though they knew I was atheist. While another time a Christian friend's family wouldnt even let me hang out with her ever again.

Are you a racist, by any chance?
i think he just want to say how welcome the muslim are to an atheist.

and that's not a racist.... <_< [/b]
I was simply suggesting that what he appears to have done there (judging large groups of people based on small selective numbers) is very close to the logic employed by some racists. and dont fucking get the idea to tell me that no racists use that logic blah blah blah because i know of several (especially the ones i know who live in predominantly white areas or entirely white areas who only see blacks on tv) who have used that exact same logic. also i realize he probably wasnt judging them just based on those two examples but thats irrelevant.

Knight of Cydonia

27th January 2007, 10:32

For wtfm8lol:

well .... what do you know about racist you borgeouise prick!!!

still what comrade floyd says about the muslim family...is not a racist thing for me <_< no sir is not...

EDIT: oh and i think i've got no more time for debating someone who says he likes to trolling some forum (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61575)....like you are dumbass!!!

Forward Union

27th January 2007, 10:54

This is absurd.

Islam, an ideology of revolutionaries? you've been reading too much islamo-trotskyist propaganda.

I mean, im not sure where this Islam-fetish came from, or how it found a base in a scientific, materialist ideology like marxism. But I would guess that it has something to do with the fact that a few too many che-kids saw some Muslims with guns shooting at americans on the news.

And to the 15 year old trot that's very romantic and reminiscent of Che Guevara and Malcom X or whatever. Like, the authoritarian left is practically dying on the streets selling papers and grumbling about thatcher, so why not cheerlead for some radicals with guns? They certainly look like they're doing something, and hell, they're workers fighting against the same enemy we are, they're from the 3rd world, they're practically Communists.

Except they're not. They're Chauvanists, Anti-democratic, Pro-life, anti-feminist, Racist, bigots. They have about as much respect for our materialist beliefs as those of the capitalists. I mean, let's look at some of the words form the good book;

Jews are greedy;
2:96 And thou wilt find them (jews) greediest of mankind for life and (greedier) than the idolaters. (Each) one of them would like to be allowed to live a thousand years. And to live (a thousand years) would be no means remove him from the doom. Allah is Seer of what they do.

Women are not equal to men;
4:129 Ye will not be able to deal equally between (your) wives, however much ye wish (to do so)

Women are trading objects;
11:78; O my people! Here are my daughters! They are purer for you. Beware of Allah, and degrade me not in (the person of) my guests. Is there not among you any upright man ?

Homosexuality is an abomination;
7:80-81 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.

Evolution is bollocks and the soul exists;4:1 O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women

Non believers (all of us) will burn in hell forever.
2:24 And if ye do it not - and ye can never do it - then guard yourselves against the Fire prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is of men and stones.

What a load of shit.

R_P_A_S

27th January 2007, 11:00

damn.. well im not saying Islam is the better religion than all. But It did help Malcolm a lot. a hell of a lot more than Christianity and Malcolm X is one of my heroes! :)

Forward Union

27th January 2007, 11:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:00 am
damn.. well im not saying Islam is the better religion than all. But It did help Malcolm a lot. a hell of a lot more than Christianity and Malcolm X is one of my heroes! :)
He done a lot of good, despite being a muslim.

And to be honest, the Catholics in Mexico fought on the side of the pesants during the 1910 revolution, and provided safe houses for revolutionaries, and meeting rooms for the Zapatistas up to the presant day. Which is more than Islam has done. But I still hate christianity in it's entirety. As with Malcom X, those catholics did a lot of good despite their religion, not as a result of it.

I do think it's important to challenge the Islamic principals of the middle eastern Working class. There seems to be a subtly racist attitude toward this issue; that they're not smart or rational enough to understand science, and they're best left dabbling in their 14th century superstitions. Which I've heard a lot of members here say.

:angry:

R_P_A_S

27th January 2007, 11:33

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 27, 2007 10:54 am

I mean, im not sure where this Islam-fetish came from, or how it found a base in a scientific, materialist ideology like marxism. But I would guess that it has something to do with the fact that a few too many che-kids saw some Muslims with guns shooting at americans on the news.

And to the 15 year old trot that's very romantic and reminiscent of Che Guevara and Malcom X or whatever. Like, the authoritarian left is practically dying on the streets selling papers and grumbling about thatcher, so why not cheerlead for some radicals with guns? They certainly look like they're doing something, and hell, they're workers fighting against the same enemy we are, they're from the 3rd world, they're practically Communists.

by the way.. i have the same disapproval of all this kids who cheer on radical muslim groups who blow up public places and shoot up american soldiers. and they got the nerve to say they are communist. yet they support and glorify this.

razboz

27th January 2007, 12:10

by the way.. i have the same disapproval of all this kids who cheer on radical muslim groups who blow up public places and shoot up american soldiers. and they got the nerve to say they are communist. yet they support and glorify this.

Yes.

And to be honest, the Catholics in Mexico fought on the side of the pesants during the 1910 revolution, and provided safe houses for revolutionaries, and meeting rooms for the Zapatistas up to the presant day. Which is more than Islam has done. But I still hate christianity in it's entirety. As with Malcom X, those catholics did a lot of good despite their religion, not as a result of it.

Yes. Again. However i should add that in mexico the Catholics where fighting the Zapatistas for many years and those who hleped the (anti-clerical) revolutionaries got promptly excommunicated. We could also mention that many of Mexicos revolutionary heros where presits, like Hidalgo and Morelos etc...

noooo tongue.gif ... and by the way Publius, that is what they said during the crusades... that we were right and that the muslims were insane, when it was the other way around... these days it's no better... Bush and those Bible basher slauched a crusade on Muslim territoiry, and now the Iraqi Freedom Fighters are fight for there independance... so before you call them extremists you better take a closer look at the puritan crackpot that fought for US independance...

Thats bullocks. The Muslims were insane. They just didnt invade somone elses land. Look they were all insane. Every single religious fundamentalisst is insane. WHether they behead you under a crescent moon or burn you on a cross. Just because the USA is full of bible bashers doesnet mean the people they kill are any better. Thats ridicultuous logic.

Aren't we trying to take the good from capitalism (industrialisation, modern democracy, etc.) while removing some bits (CEOs, Money, etc.)?

Capitlaism isnt a religion (almost, but not quite). The fundamental mechanics are completely different. Religions are writen down in books and have a certain set of rules that religious people are meant to follow. If they dont theyre just posers.

seraphim

27th January 2007, 12:30

This question is irelevent no matter how tollerant the majority of believers in either Christianity or Islam are, both religions have unparalleled levels of extremism. Thta's the nature of organised religion the largely ambiguous doctrine can be manipulated however somone sees fit. The really sad thing is that these missguided people all worship the same non-existent god yet they kill each other over the way he should be worshipped. :huh:

Question everything

27th January 2007, 13:24

Thats bullocks. The Muslims were insane. They just didnt invade somone elses land. Look they were all insane. Every single religious fundamentalisst is insane. WHether they behead you under a crescent moon or burn you on a cross. Just because the USA is full of bible bashers doesnet mean the people they kill are any better. Thats ridicultuous logic.

I know many of them were extremist. But Compared to what the Crusaders did...
the Crusaders looted Constantinople (their own city the one that called for the crusades as well), they beheaded every muslim they could find, they were cruel... the muslims at least offered mercy, they gave the crusaders a chance to surrender and go home, let them live in capitivity... I'm just bring up the point that muslims were kinder

This question is irelevent no matter how tollerant the majority of believers in either Christianity or Islam are, both religions have unparalleled levels of extremism. Thta's the nature of organised religion the largely ambiguous doctrine can be manipulated however somone sees fit. The really sad thing is that these missguided people all worship the same non-existent god yet they kill each other over the way he should be worshipped.

I would argue with you over the fact the God exists... but you're right, organized religion is almost always manipulated for use by the state... but still we can't judge Christians on the southern bible basher and puritian, nor can we judge Muslims on by only looking at fundamentalists...

I wouldn't kill a muslim, for being a muslim, and nobody I know would... so :P

RevMARKSman

27th January 2007, 14:16

I would argue with you over the fact the God exists

Try me.

GOD THREAD (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51637)

I suspect you'll end up another postmodernist with all the Buddhists/etc. in there.

Vargha Poralli

27th January 2007, 15:49

Despite what panic-mongerers of west portray as Islam is way progressive in its beginnings(Take its Time in context).Of course it can't get past the tribal customs like covering the face etc. We should oppose those who misuse any religion not those who follow any religion whcih would not help our goals just help fundamentalists of all religions to rally people against us.

La Comédie Noire

27th January 2007, 16:10

I was simply suggesting that what he appears to have done there (judging large groups of people based on small selective numbers) is very close to the logic employed by some racists. and dont fucking get the idea to tell me that no racists use that logic blah blah blah because i know of several (especially the ones i know who live in predominantly white areas or entirely white areas who only see blacks on tv) who have used that exact same logic. also i realize he probably wasnt judging them just based on those two examples but thats irrelevant.

I can understand how someone can see it that way, but I was merley pointing out one instance of many I've had that have led me to this conclusion.

Forward Union

27th January 2007, 16:56

"Extreamists" are just people who follow the religion properly. ;)

Publius

27th January 2007, 17:15

damn.. well im not saying Islam is the better religion than all. But It did help Malcolm a lot. a hell of a lot more than Christianity and Malcolm X is one of my heroes! :)

Islam got him shot, didn't it?

There's your answer.

R_P_A_S

27th January 2007, 19:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:15 pm

damn.. well im not saying Islam is the better religion than all. But It did help Malcolm a lot. a hell of a lot more than Christianity and Malcolm X is one of my heroes! :)

Islam got him shot, didn't it?

There's your answer.
noo it was haters! lol

wtfm8lol

27th January 2007, 19:52

well .... what do you know about racist you borgeouise prick!!!

i used to be one before i grew up so i know a fuck of a lot more about racists than you do

"Extreamists" are just people who follow the religion properly.

totally agree

Cryotank Screams

27th January 2007, 20:45

I am in full agreement with LU, on this issue, and I must ask to the people here whom paint this grand little rosy picture of islam, how is islam, revolutionary and progressive in any capacity? I mean using Malcom X, as your shining example does not give this despotic religion validation, nor should it ever be the basis of validation, so I again I ask how is islam progressive and revolutionary?

manic expression

27th January 2007, 21:19

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 27, 2007 04:56 pm
"Extreamists" are just people who follow the religion properly. ;)
Depends on the religion. If you're talking Christianity, then yes, people who want to stone gays and people who work on Sunday actually apply what is written in the Bible.

If you're talking Islam, extremists, if they followed the religion properly, wouldn't require women to cover their faces or hair (for example).

If you're talking a non-Judeo-Christian religion, your statement can't truly apply IMO. Such religions lack dogmatic scripture, so it is pretty hard for a follower of such a religion (Hinduism, paganism, Shintoism, Vodun, etc...) to find justification for anything other than the beliefs they have.

Just my opinion.

razboz

28th January 2007, 09:18

If you're talking Islam, extremists, if they followed the religion properly, wouldn't require women to cover their faces or hair (for example).

As stated earlier islam does not condone male-female equality. Actually females are worth exactly 1/7th of males.

If you're talking a non-Judeo-Christian religion, your statement can't truly apply IMO. Such religions lack dogmatic scripture, so it is pretty hard for a follower of such a religion (Hinduism, paganism, Shintoism, Vodun, etc...) to find justification for anything other than the beliefs they have.

I think hinduism has some pretty dogmatic scripture as well, i read som excerpts from the book which involves Krishna (no clue how its all organised) and that was all pro war and reaping the souls of your ennemies.

Forward Union

28th January 2007, 10:25

Originally posted by razbo[email protected] 28, 2007 09:18 am
As stated earlier islam does not condone male-female equality. Actually females are worth exactly 1/7th of males.

Im not sure about 1/7th, but two females are equal to one male in terms of credibility on legal issues.

And women are the possessions of men, and can be traded as goods. They're also allowed to be lesbians, but male homosexuality is a sin.

Intifada

28th January 2007, 15:00

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 27, 2007 10:54 am
Jews are greedy;
2:96 And thou wilt find them (jews) greediest of mankind for life and (greedier) than the idolaters. (Each) one of them would like to be allowed to live a thousand years. And to live (a thousand years) would be no means remove him from the doom. Allah is Seer of what they do.
I don't know which Qur'an you took that from, or maybe it wasn't even from a Qur'an but some website, but the Qur'an I own states the following (2:97):

And thou shalt surely find them (Pagans), of all people, the most covetous of life, even more than those who set up equals with god. Every one of them (Jews) wishes that he may be granted a life of a thousand years, but his being granted such a life shall not keep him away from the punishment; and Allah sees all that they do.

Notice that there is no mention of "greed" whatsoever.

Moreover, the commentary explains:

The reason why Jews were more attached to the world than Pagans is that the latter did not believe in any retribution after death and, therefore, though they loved this world as the only place for enjoying honour and happiness and entertained no hope about the next, yet with no fear of punishment after death, they were less cringingly attached to the present life than Jews, who believed in resurrection after death and feared in their hearts that their actions would make them liable to punishment before God.

The "actions" alluded to, is (as mentioned in prior verses):

That whenever Islam is presented to the Jews, they, far from reflecting over its claims, consider it enough to say that they will believe in what is sent to Israelite Prophets only, and not in revelation of outsiders, although the revelation they reject on such flimsy grounds fulfils the prophecies contained in their own scriptures about a new Book.

I haven't the time to check the other quotes you quoted, but I will do so later, if I can be bothered.

manic expression

28th January 2007, 22:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:18 am

If you're talking Islam, extremists, if they followed the religion properly, wouldn't require women to cover their faces or hair (for example).

As stated earlier islam does not condone male-female equality. Actually females are worth exactly 1/7th of males.

If you're talking a non-Judeo-Christian religion, your statement can't truly apply IMO. Such religions lack dogmatic scripture, so it is pretty hard for a follower of such a religion (Hinduism, paganism, Shintoism, Vodun, etc...) to find justification for anything other than the beliefs they have.

I think hinduism has some pretty dogmatic scripture as well, i read som excerpts from the book which involves Krishna (no clue how its all organised) and that was all pro war and reaping the souls of your ennemies.
On Islam, LU and Intifada made some good points on the topic.

On Hinduism, you're probably thinking of the Bhagavad Gita. The Gita, on the onset at least, is about doing one's duty. Arjuna is distraught because he doesn't want to kill his cousins, even though they are on the side that is oppressing his people. Krishna responds that he needs to take part in the fight, because if he doesn't, he will abandon his responsibility and retreat from injustice. It also says that life is transient (temporary), and that death is just another part of existence. It's not about killing people for no reason, it's most certainly not dogma. The Gita is merely a story that reflects many beliefs of (certain schools of) Hinduism. It's nothing like the Bible or the Quran at all.

Question everything

2nd February 2007, 00:58

"Extreamists" are just people who follow the religion properly.

It is literaly impossible to follow a christianity prefectly, it directly contradicts itself on many points... kinda like a politician. :huh:

so if you go down to the root belief (which often is the only part of the religion which does not contradict itself) of any religion they all say to be kind to others and treat them as you would have them treat you...

Raisa

3rd February 2007, 10:35

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 27, 2007 10:54 am
This is absurd.

Islam, an ideology of revolutionaries? you've been reading too much islamo-trotskyist propaganda.

I mean, im not sure where this Islam-fetish came from, or how it found a base in a scientific, materialist ideology like marxism. But I would guess that it has something to do with the fact that a few too many che-kids saw some Muslims with guns shooting at americans on the news.

And to the 15 year old trot that's very romantic and reminiscent of Che Guevara and Malcom X or whatever. Like, the authoritarian left is practically dying on the streets selling papers and grumbling about thatcher, so why not cheerlead for some radicals with guns? They certainly look like they're doing something, and hell, they're workers fighting against the same enemy we are, they're from the 3rd world, they're practically Communists.

Except they're not. They're Chauvanists, Anti-democratic, Pro-life, anti-feminist, Racist, bigots. They have about as much respect for our materialist beliefs as those of the capitalists. I mean, let's look at some of the words form the good book;

Jews are greedy;
2:96 And thou wilt find them (jews) greediest of mankind for life and (greedier) than the idolaters. (Each) one of them would like to be allowed to live a thousand years. And to live (a thousand years) would be no means remove him from the doom. Allah is Seer of what they do.

Women are not equal to men;
4:129 Ye will not be able to deal equally between (your) wives, however much ye wish (to do so)

Women are trading objects;
11:78; O my people! Here are my daughters! They are purer for you. Beware of Allah, and degrade me not in (the person of) my guests. Is there not among you any upright man ?

Homosexuality is an abomination;
7:80-81 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.

Evolution is bollocks and the soul exists;4:1 O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women

Non believers (all of us) will burn in hell forever.
2:24 And if ye do it not - and ye can never do it - then guard yourselves against the Fire prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is of men and stones.

What a load of shit.
How the fuck did you become admin?! LOL!

Sorry to shit in your cornflakes but:

"Women are not equal to men;
4:129 Ye will not be able to deal equally between (your) wives, however much ye wish (to do so)"

This is not about women being equal to men at all.
I dont know which quran you read, or if you read any of the Hadiths at the bottom of the page but the meaning of this is in reference to men having more then one wife.

According to the Quran you can have other wives only under the ground that you can love and take care of them all completely equally, because it is unfair for a man to cheat on a woman and cheapen both of their lives and it is also unfair to have two wives and have one living less of a life then the other, because that is beneath marriage.

However, if you can not support and love each of them the same then you can not have two wives. This would be simple if it was all about money, but its not, you really got to be able to love each of these women who willingly married you equally also..... and the verse is saying that "you will not be able to deal equally amongst your wives no matter how muich you wish"

'Women are trading objects;
11:78; O my people! Here are my daughters! They are purer for you. Beware of Allah, and degrade me not in (the person of) my guests. Is there not among you any upright man ? "

And where does this suggest that women are trading objects? This whole part of the quran telling the story of Lot, not necessarily condoning everything he did.

Congratulations, you thought everyone here was so stupid you could cut and paste random shit from the Holy Quran and pull it out of the context.....
What would the people do without you?!

chimx

3rd February 2007, 10:42

There are good religious folk who use their religion for their class interests, and are asshole religous folk who use their religion to suppress other class' interests. Look to theologian Jacques Ellul, or the liberation theologians of Latin America or Korea for examples of the former. Look to American televangelists for examples of the latter.

Leo

3rd February 2007, 11:01

Originally posted by Koran
4: 35. Men are guardians over women because Allah has made some of them excel others, and because men spend on them of their wealth. So virtuous women are obedient, and guard the secrets of their husbands with Allah's protection. And as for those on whose part you fear disobedience, admonish them and keep away from them in their beds and punish them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them.

2:229. And the divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the Last Day; and their husbands have the greater right to take them back during that period, provided they desire reconciliation. And they (the women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in equity; but men have a degree of advantage above them.

4: 12. Allah commands you concerning your children; a male shall have as much as the share of two females.

So very not sexist.

Perhaps you Islamic believers/sympathizers in the West should try bringing your asses down to Mid East, where the real deal is practiced.

Johnny Anarcho

4th February 2007, 02:47

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+February 03, 2007 11:01 am--> (Leo Uilleann @ February 03, 2007 11:01 am)
Koran
4: 35. Men are guardians over women because Allah has made some of them excel others, and because men spend on them of their wealth. So virtuous women are obedient, and guard the secrets of their husbands with Allah's protection. And as for those on whose part you fear disobedience, admonish them and keep away from them in their beds and punish them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them.

2:229. And the divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the Last Day; and their husbands have the greater right to take them back during that period, provided they desire reconciliation. And they (the women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in equity; but men have a degree of advantage above them.

4: 12. Allah commands you concerning your children; a male shall have as much as the share of two females.

So very not sexist.

Perhaps you Islamic believers/sympathizers in the West should try bringing your asses down to Mid East, where the real deal is practiced. [/b]
You mean an abomination of the real thing. I think the Sufi practice the truest form of Islam.

carpetcommie

9th February 2007, 19:19

Islam , Christianity whats the difference two violent religions responsible for millions of lost life's both homophobic, sexist, and encourage violence against members of another religion or atheists

Democratic Socialist

9th February 2007, 22:11

@ the Original poster:

I don't defend the hypocritical actions of many Christians. However, I find your use of Malcom X as a representation of tolerance to be appalling. While I have great respect for Malcom X, the majority of his time as a Muslim was dedicated to black power.

People who defend Malcom X's early teachings bug me because they often talk about equality when Malcom X held no such ideals. In fact, he believed whites were significantly below blacks.

The leftist's response should be one of criticism. After all, we believe that all men are created equal, regardless of race. Clearly at the time blacks were no where near equally treated (one can make a case that they still are not treated equally). However, this is why I respect Martin Luther King Jr. more than Malcom X; he fought for equality without demeaning other races.

Democratic Socialist

9th February 2007, 22:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 07:19 pm
Islam , Christianity whats the difference two violent religions responsible for millions of lost life's both homophobic, sexist, and encourage violence against members of another religion or atheists
Care to tell me about the millions of deaths caused by Christianity in the last few centuries? No doubt the Crusades were a terrible time in history but I can't seem to recall the last time a dictator systematically slaughtered people for failing to conform to Christianity.*

I have respect for Islam and I will never generalize and say that Muslims are all violent. However, in the last century it has predominantly been either secular or Muslim forces who have caused the most deaths.

*I would like to denote I recognize that both religions have significant bigotry and hatred, which can often be more harmful than physical damage.

Democratic Socialist

9th February 2007, 22:19

Also, why is it that all leftists have such an axe to grind with Christianity? Rather than hating followers of Christ, I would like to see you holding us to better accountability. Christ told us to give up all we had to the poor and follow him. The disciples lived in a society which was based on free sharing and exchange of goods. Although this behavior is not nearly as common as it should be in Christians, I would think the leftist movement could gain tremendous momentum from true followers of Christ if it replaced its hatred with accountability.

wtfm8lol

9th February 2007, 22:24

but I can't seem to recall the last time a dictator systematically slaughtered people for failing to conform to Christianity.*

This quote from Mein Kampf suggests there might have been one you overlooked..
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Democratic Socialist

9th February 2007, 22:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 10:24 pm

but I can't seem to recall the last time a dictator systematically slaughtered people for failing to conform to Christianity.*

This quote from Mein Kampf suggests there might have been one you overlooked..
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
This is true, and I have cited numerous times on my blog on how Hitler got many of his techniques to torture Jews from Martin Luther, the leader of the Protestant reformation.

However, I would like to point out that Hitler did not act against the Jews as a means of advancing Christianity. In fact, Christians and Catholics were targeted heavily after the initial attack on the Jewish population. I suggest you read Dietrich Bonhoeffer's biography for more details.

Nazi Germany was anything but a theocracy. Religion may have been mentioned in Mein Kamph but Hitler's practices strayed quite a bit from his claims in the book.

bloody_capitalist_sham

9th February 2007, 23:00

we dont hate the religious people, but christianity can be used as a tool of reaction.

Like opposing gay marriage or abortion.

They are using their relgious text (the bible) to try to change Law.

And as socialists, we should always support a secular system over a religious one.

Democratic Socialist

10th February 2007, 03:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:00 pm
we dont hate the religious people, but christianity can be used as a tool of reaction.

Like opposing gay marriage or abortion.

They are using their relgious text (the bible) to try to change Law.

And as socialists, we should always support a secular system over a religious one.
Oh I agree. Separation of Church and State is essential.

However, I think leftists misrepresent Christianity. I reject reactionary Christian rightists as much as I am sure you do (Westboro Baptist Church, Pat Robertson, etc.). However, I would like to point out that homosexuality is a very minute part of the Bible that gets overblown by Christians. While I believe that it's a sin, I by no means hate homosexuals. In fact, Christ was all about the people whose lifestyles were not in line with his teachings. Why do you think he embraced the people who no one else would even look at (prostitutes, lepers, etc.). I believe and fight for gay rights because I believe that as human beings they deserve equal treatment and my guess is Christ would do the same.

And this is why I try and distance myself from the term 'Christian'. It doesn't adequately describe us at all and has been tainted by the hypocrisy of many. Instead, I call myself a follower of Christ. I believe in what He and He alone taught us, namely a message of love.

OneBrickOneVoice

10th February 2007, 04:01

haha that's an uber-contradiction. "I don't hate gays, I just recognize the fact that they'll burn in hell when they die."

Rawthentic

10th February 2007, 05:19

Hey DS, please, we are revolutionaries here, we have heard your religious tripe from many others, at least I have. You are a romantic idealist, put your feet on the ground. "God" does not exist, if he did he would be my enemy. If he is omnipotent, then the world would be a perfect harmonious place to live, but it obviously isn't and never will.

People make history, not saviors from above or below.

OneBrickOneVoice

10th February 2007, 05:43

nah the people are the motive makers of world history, and they sure as hell are from below

Democratic Socialist

10th February 2007, 12:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:01 am
haha that's an uber-contradiction. "I don't hate gays, I just recognize the fact that they'll burn in hell when they die."
Interestingly enough, though, Christ himself never condemns homosexuality, which is why I'm on the fence on the issue.

And you brought up hell. Not me. I'm just pointing that out.

Eleutherios

10th February 2007, 15:26

Well Jesus also did say that he did not come to change one jot or tittle of the law of Moses, and Moses' law was very clear on homosexuality being a sin.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teach...es/mt05_17.html (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_the_law_of_moses/mt05_17.html)

Democratic Socialist

11th February 2007, 03:08

True, but he also states that the old law was changed by Christ's teachings. After all, Christ contradicted Moses' law quite bit bit by preaching against the "eye for an eye" mentality and such. I'm not saying he was all about homosexuality but it's interesting given he never mentions it.

OneBrickOneVoice

11th February 2007, 05:15

Originally posted by Democratic Socialist+February 10, 2007 12:16 pm--> (Democratic Socialist @ February 10, 2007 12:16 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 04:01 am
haha that's an uber-contradiction. "I don't hate gays, I just recognize the fact that they'll burn in hell when they die."
Interestingly enough, though, Christ himself never condemns homosexuality, which is why I'm on the fence on the issue.

And you brought up hell. Not me. I'm just pointing that out. [/b]
So? the Bible clearly does, as well as things like, "whoever hits his parents should be murdered in cold blood," And the bible is the book of God and Jesus Christ.

R_P_A_S

11th February 2007, 07:32

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 09, 2007 10:11 pm
@ the Original poster:

I don't defend the hypocritical actions of many Christians. However, I find your use of Malcom X as a representation of tolerance to be appalling. While I have great respect for Malcom X, the majority of his time as a Muslim was dedicated to black power.

People who defend Malcom X's early teachings bug me because they often talk about equality when Malcom X held no such ideals. In fact, he believed whites were significantly below blacks.

The leftist's response should be one of criticism. After all, we believe that all men are created equal, regardless of race. Clearly at the time blacks were no where near equally treated (one can make a case that they still are not treated equally). However, this is why I respect Martin Luther King Jr. more than Malcom X; he fought for equality without demeaning other races.
The majority of his time... oh wow GEEESSS.. maybe because he only was KILLED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thats the part I love about Malcolm the most.. after he returned from Mecca! ;)

Democratic Socialist

11th February 2007, 18:58

Democratic Socialist

11th February 2007, 19:09

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+February 11, 2007 05:15 am--> (LeftyHenry @ February 11, 2007 05:15 am)
Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 10, 2007 12:16 pm

[email protected] 10, 2007 04:01 am
haha that's an uber-contradiction. "I don't hate gays, I just recognize the fact that they'll burn in hell when they die."
Interestingly enough, though, Christ himself never condemns homosexuality, which is why I'm on the fence on the issue.

And you brought up hell. Not me. I'm just pointing that out.
So? the Bible clearly does, as well as things like, "whoever hits his parents should be murdered in cold blood," And the bible is the book of God and Jesus Christ. [/b]
Find me the verse with the passage you quoted verbatum and I will renounce the Bible as a book of hypocrisy since it clearly says "Thou shalt not murder" in Exodus!

Leftists lack any knowledge of Christianity. They go on generalizations that are even worse than the neo-Con's misconception of Islam. Here's a radical idea; read through the Bible, or even just the Gospels. Look up the references Christ makes. Read supplemental material written by key Christian authors.

LeftyHenry, I'm sorry but your comments are so ignorant that I can't even begin to debate with you. We both need to at least understand Christianity at an ideological level before we can debate it.

It's the same reason why debates about communism and socialism never go over well with everyday capitalist drones; they just don't know what they're talking about enough to make a viable case, and yet their fervor for their beliefs prevents them from actually examining potential truth.

Christ did say he didn't come to abolish the law, but you must understand what "The Law" is. It's not the entire Torah. In fact, the law is limited to the 10 Commandments. Christ did not come to change those.

What Christ did come to do is to remove the stringent regulations and outdated practices of the Hebrew people post-Exodus, such as stoning your son for not obeying his parents. Christ sought to take the radical fervor off of the Jewish law which was still held in regard at the time because it was outdated. God's message became one of salvation (through Christ's death) rather than one of condemnation.

I'm happy to explain some of these concepts because I understand they are challenging. It's similar to grasping Marxist concepts; it requires immense reading and study. If you're legitimately interested in learning what true Christianity is, let me know.

I'm going to denote my post here and say this is not an attempt to "convert" any of you. However, I see immense ignorance of true Christianity on this board and it honestly bothers me a great deal.

wtfm8lol

11th February 2007, 21:01

Leftists lack any knowledge of Christianity. They go on generalizations

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Democratic Socialist

11th February 2007, 21:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:01 pm

Leftists lack any knowledge of Christianity. They go on generalizations

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I won't even defend my statement. That was a good call. I'm guilty of it just as much as anyone. Let me correct myself.

By and large, leftists lack any knowledge of true Christianity.

wtfm8lol

11th February 2007, 21:12

haha, fair enough. personally, i'd have left it at "leftists lack any knowledge", though.

Democratic Socialist

11th February 2007, 21:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:12 pm
haha, fair enough. personally, i'd have left it at "leftists lack any knowledge", though.
Remember though... I'm a leftist. ;) Wondering why I was restricted? Your guess is a good as mine. I guess I'm not revolutionary enough. :rolleyes:

You seem like a kindred spirit. Good to meet you.

OneBrickOneVoice

11th February 2007, 22:25

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 11, 2007 07:09 pm

Find me the verse with the passage you quoted verbatum and I will renounce the Bible as a book of hypocrisy since it clearly says "Thou shalt not murder" in Exodus!

The particular quote I'm talking about I don't have off hand, its in the local revolution bookstore RCYB library. However, here are some real nuggets of joy.

And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the LORD.--Ezekiel 26:6

He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.--Exodus 21:15

God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. Genesis 19:24

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. Genesis 19:4-5, 24-25

If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13 -- Lev. 20:13

etc, etc... I could go all day

LeftyHenry, I'm sorry but your comments are so ignorant that I can't even begin to debate with you. We both need to at least understand Christianity at an ideological level before we can debate it.

I was born a christian. I was baptized. I read the bible. I went to bible school. Got my first communion. And shit was good.

Then I got older. Then I learned about this wild thing called science and how the tooth fairy and fairy tales of christianity are bull.

In short, I woke up from being a complete fucking idiot.

What Christ did come to do is to remove the stringent regulations and outdated practices of the Hebrew people post-Exodus, such as stoning your son for not obeying his parents. Christ sought to take the radical fervor off of the Jewish law which was still held in regard at the time because it was outdated. God's message became one of salvation (through Christ's death) rather than one of condemnation.

Bible is the book of god. Both the New Testament and Old Testament are located in the Bible. Both are studied and read at prayer time. Both testaments make up the foundation of the Judeo-Christian religions.

Democratic Socialist

11th February 2007, 22:28

Obviously though you neither read my post as a whole nor understood what part of the Bible you read.

And I see the Bible in an interesting way. I believe in what Christ taught us. Anything besides that I view as I would a sermon; it may be helpful to my life but I approach it with extreme caution.

wtfm8lol

11th February 2007, 22:29

What Christ did come to do is to remove the stringent regulations and outdated practices of the Hebrew people post-Exodus, such as stoning your son for not obeying his parents. Christ sought to take the radical fervor off of the Jewish law which was still held in regard at the time because it was outdated. God's message became one of salvation (through Christ's death) rather than one of condemnation.

god's laws were outdated? What kind of an all-knowing being would issue laws which would bring about the death of thousands of people and then later decide they were outdated?

OneBrickOneVoice

11th February 2007, 22:31

Originally posted by Democratic Socialist+February 11, 2007 06:58 pm--> (Democratic Socialist @ February 11, 2007 06:58 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:15 am

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 10, 2007 12:16 pm

[email protected] 10, 2007 04:01 am
haha that's an uber-contradiction. "I don't hate gays, I just recognize the fact that they'll burn in hell when they die."
Interestingly enough, though, Christ himself never condemns homosexuality, which is why I'm on the fence on the issue.

And you brought up hell. Not me. I'm just pointing that out.
So? the Bible clearly does, as well as things like, "whoever hits his parents should be murdered in cold blood," And the bible is the book of God and Jesus Christ.
Oh, I agree. It's a shame the man was murdered because once he changed, he was clearly a positive force for equality. I just think his actions (pre-Mecca) are too widely defended by leftists because I know for a fact a reformed KKK member would find no such love from the leftist community. Their attitude towards Malcom X is hypocritical at best. [/b]
Malcolm X was a black liberation hero. Comparing him to the KKK is just plain disgusting. The white race (I'm white btw) is an oppressive race. More than any other race it has been responsible and is even today responsible for the oppression of other races in the form of slavery, genocide, segregation, apartheid, police brutality, etc etc... Malcolm X lived in an era where such oppression in the form of segregation was open and accepted. After centuries of such oppression clearly recorded and his personal experiences, I see no reason why he shouldn't have had those views at that time.

OneBrickOneVoice

11th February 2007, 22:32

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 11, 2007 10:28 pm
Obviously though you neither read my post as a whole nor understood what part of the Bible you read.

And I see the Bible in an interesting way. I believe in what Christ taught us. Anything besides that I view as I would a sermon; it may be helpful to my life but I approach it with extreme caution.
I'll take that as you renouncing the bible, as you said you would.

Democratic Socialist

11th February 2007, 22:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:29 pm

What Christ did come to do is to remove the stringent regulations and outdated practices of the Hebrew people post-Exodus, such as stoning your son for not obeying his parents. Christ sought to take the radical fervor off of the Jewish law which was still held in regard at the time because it was outdated. God's message became one of salvation (through Christ's death) rather than one of condemnation.

god's laws were outdated? What kind of an all-knowing being would issue laws which would bring about the death of thousands of people and then later decide they were outdated?
Because people's access to God changed after Christ came and died for humanity's sins. Since God is just and must uphold the law he set up, and since we as humans fail miserably, he would punish people directly for their sins. This is why the Hebrews would sacrifice lambs during the passover to atone for their sins.

Since Christ is God, and God is infinite, Christ's death on the cross was infinite atonement for all sins that have ever been, were committed at the time, and will ever be committed.

Christ died for every man, woman, and child, and therefore redemption and salvation became universal. Anyone could be forgiven of their sins by consecrating their life to Christ. In this sense, punishment in this brutal form was no longer necessary because we as humans are forgiven by the blood of Christ. Catch me?

Still though, this doesn't abolish the law. The law is still in place as a guide. What is different now is that although we can never realistically follow the law to perfection, we are forgiven for our transgressions through Christ.

Democratic Socialist

11th February 2007, 22:38

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+February 11, 2007 10:32 pm--> (LeftyHenry @ February 11, 2007 10:32 pm)
Democratic [email protected] 11, 2007 10:28 pm
Obviously though you neither read my post as a whole nor understood what part of the Bible you read.

And I see the Bible in an interesting way. I believe in what Christ taught us. Anything besides that I view as I would a sermon; it may be helpful to my life but I approach it with extreme caution.
I'll take that as you renouncing the bible, as you said you would. [/b]
Read my below post. I do not renounce the Bible. I however, have never hidden the fact that I accept Christ's teachings before those of the rest of the book because it is directly from the source.

Democratic Socialist

11th February 2007, 22:43

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+February 11, 2007 10:31 pm--> (LeftyHenry @ February 11, 2007 10:31 pm)
Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 11, 2007 06:58 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:15 am

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 10, 2007 12:16 pm

[email protected] 10, 2007 04:01 am
haha that's an uber-contradiction. "I don't hate gays, I just recognize the fact that they'll burn in hell when they die."
Interestingly enough, though, Christ himself never condemns homosexuality, which is why I'm on the fence on the issue.

And you brought up hell. Not me. I'm just pointing that out.
So? the Bible clearly does, as well as things like, "whoever hits his parents should be murdered in cold blood," And the bible is the book of God and Jesus Christ.
Oh, I agree. It's a shame the man was murdered because once he changed, he was clearly a positive force for equality. I just think his actions (pre-Mecca) are too widely defended by leftists because I know for a fact a reformed KKK member would find no such love from the leftist community. Their attitude towards Malcom X is hypocritical at best.
Malcolm X was a black liberation hero. Comparing him to the KKK is just plain disgusting. The white race (I'm white btw) is an oppressive race. More than any other race it has been responsible and is even today responsible for the oppression of other races in the form of slavery, genocide, segregation, apartheid, police brutality, etc etc... Malcolm X lived in an era where such oppression in the form of segregation was open and accepted. After centuries of such oppression clearly recorded and his personal experiences, I see no reason why he shouldn't have had those views at that time. [/b]
I agree that the white race is the most oppressive race in history, and I too am white. However, Malcom X's initial belief was to fight racism with racism. It's no secret that Malcom X believed the black race was superior to all others. Moreover, he denounced any blacks who didn't support this radical line of thinking.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the leftist goal is to make everyone equal because no race is superior to all of the others.

My point in drawing the KKK analogy is that there was just as much hate in what Malcom X initially preached as there was behind white supremacist movements. You probably argue that his hate was justified but of course we're going to disagree on that point because I don't believe hate in any circumstances in "right". However, I will concede that while the KKK's hatred was based on ignorance, Malcom X's was based on atrocities committed against him and his people. Still though, I do not justify it.

Bear in mind I respect Malcom X post-Mecca and wish he had been given more time to preach his message of peace and unity.

wtfm8lol

11th February 2007, 22:46

Since God is just and must uphold the law he set up, and since we as humans fail miserably, he would punish people directly for their sins.

You believe that your god created everything, right? You also believe that he is all-knowing, right? Therefore, he must have created some people that he knew at the time would be unable, given their environment and personality traits (which he gave them), to obey his laws. He therefore doomed those people to punishment. Remind me, again, how that is just?

Since Christ is God, and God is infinite, Christ's death on the cross was infinite atonement for all sins that have ever been, were committed at the time, and will ever be committed.

Christ died for every man, woman, and child, and therefore redemption and salvation became universal. Anyone could be forgiven of their sins by consecrating their life to Christ. In this sense, punishment in this brutal form was no longer necessary because we as humans are forgiven by the blood of Christ. Catch me?

what about all of the unfortunate people who died before christ came? are they still burning in hell?

OneBrickOneVoice

11th February 2007, 22:54

Originally posted by Democratic Socialist+February 11, 2007 10:38 pm--> (Democratic Socialist @ February 11, 2007 10:38 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:32 pm

Democratic [email protected] 11, 2007 10:28 pm
Obviously though you neither read my post as a whole nor understood what part of the Bible you read.

And I see the Bible in an interesting way. I believe in what Christ taught us. Anything besides that I view as I would a sermon; it may be helpful to my life but I approach it with extreme caution.
I'll take that as you renouncing the bible, as you said you would.
Read my below post. I do not renounce the Bible. I however, have never hidden the fact that I accept Christ's teachings before those of the rest of the book because it is directly from the source. [/b]
Why not refute my points and the quotes I provided? Don't you think the bible was wrong to say that barbaric shit? Oh wait, I forgot, you think this is real <_<

Because people's access to God changed after Christ came and died for humanity's sins. Since God is just and must uphold the law he set up, and since we as humans fail miserably, he would punish people directly for their sins. This is why the Hebrews would sacrifice lambs during the passover to atone for their sins.

Since Christ is God, and God is infinite, Christ's death on the cross was infinite atonement for all sins that have ever been, were committed at the time, and will ever be committed.

Christ died for every man, woman, and child, and therefore redemption and salvation became universal. Anyone could be forgiven of their sins by consecrating their life to Christ. In this sense, punishment in this brutal form was no longer necessary because we as humans are forgiven by the blood of Christ. Catch me?

*****

I agree that the white race is the most oppressive race in history, and I too am white. However, Malcom X's initial belief was to fight racism with racism. It's no secret that Malcom X believed the black race was superior to all others. Moreover, he denounced any blacks who didn't support this radical line of thinking.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the leftist goal is to make everyone equal because no race is superior to all of the others.

you're right about leftist goals and that is an exageration of Malcolm X's views.

My point in drawing the KKK analogy is that there was just as much hate in what Malcom X initially preached as there was behind white supremacist movements. You probably argue that his hate was justified but of course we're going to disagree on that point because I don't believe hate in any circumstances in "right". However, I will concede that while the KKK's hatred was based on ignorance, Malcom X's was based on atrocities committed against him and his people. Still though, I do not justify it.

Hate is never justified? What about hate for the bourgious who kill workers and enslave them in global sweatshops, who suppress them.

Coggeh

11th February 2007, 23:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:12 pm
Hugo Chavez is christian. The Fabians were christians. A lot of pre-modern utopian communist revolutionaries have been christians.
Did u just call Chavez a revolutionary communist :blink:

Democratic Socialist

11th February 2007, 23:05

We are to take action against them but hate breeds more hate. It is never justified. And Lefty, I'm not trying to get off on the wrong foot with you, but I actually did refute your posts. All of what you talked about was in the Old Testament, prior to Christ, and the majority of what you cited was from the Torah in which punishments for violations of the law were written. These were abolished when Christ died for our sins.

And no, I have not exaggerated Malcom X's goals. If you have read his autobiography and/or any other self-respecting piece on his life, you realize it is delusional to call pre-Mecca Malcom X anything except racist. The case many make is that his hate was justified, although I definitely don't buy that.

And Lefty, I'm happy to talk to you about the reasons for Sodom and Gomorrah if you would like but I'm afraid we're getting off topic. Perhaps you could make a different thread in which we could talk about the legitimacy and finer points of Christianity. I've already had a few of my posts locked for getting off topic and it would be a shame to end this discussion on Malcom X, although I feel my part in the debate is over.

Democratic Socialist

11th February 2007, 23:09

@WTF:

This is a debate amongst Christians: is faith pre-determined or do we make a conscious choice to follow God? I lean towards the latter approach, saying that anyone and everyone can choose to accept Christ. Those who don't have chosen that road on their own free will.

However, if you're referring to people who have never even heard the message of Christ, then you are correct: scripture tells us that God will never condemn someone who has never heard the message of Christ to hell.

But of course, this is why follows of Christ want to spread the word: So everyone gets an opportunity for salvation.

People before Christ came... Let me get back to you on that. I researched the topic some time ago but if you want direct scriptural support, I'll need to take another look at it all.

Democratic Socialist

11th February 2007, 23:12

Originally posted by Coggy+February 11, 2007 11:01 pm--> (Coggy @ February 11, 2007 11:01 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 06:12 pm
Hugo Chavez is christian. The Fabians were christians. A lot of pre-modern utopian communist revolutionaries have been christians.
Did u just call Chavez a revolutionary communist :blink: [/b]
Chavez is definitely for revolution through reform, although I have my own opinion of the man.

wtfm8lol

11th February 2007, 23:12

did you not understand what i said? if you believe there is one creator and he is all-knowing, free will is absolutely impossible.

Democratic Socialist

11th February 2007, 23:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:12 pm
did you not understand what i said? if you believe there is one creator and he is all-knowing, free will is absolutely impossible.
God knows the end result but ultimately we make a choice whether or not to follow Him. Sure, he could make us follow Him given his is omnipotent. However, what would that prove? We would be slaves to God. Rather, he wants us to willingly embrace Him, proving love and devotion.

wtfm8lol

11th February 2007, 23:22

so..he knows that if he makes you a certain way, you will make a particular choice, and if he makes you another way, you'll make a different choice. how are you the one making the decision, again?

Question everything

12th February 2007, 00:57

did you not understand what i said? if you believe there is one creator and he is all-knowing, free will is absolutely impossible.

hence the metaphor of Adam and Eve, they defied God and ate his fruit from which they broke away from him and his control... he doe not control our will, I believe in God, is perhaps an entity like karma, promising to give us what we give unto others.

wtfm8lol

12th February 2007, 01:09

he created adam and eve. he created everything around them. he created absolutely everything that would affect their decision. he knew when creating all of that how it would affect the decision they would make, and he knew what the final outcome would be as a result of all of everything that he did. if they defied god, it was because he created them and their environment in such a way that would bring that outcome about. i dont know how many ways i can explain this to you.

OneBrickOneVoice

12th February 2007, 02:39

Originally posted by Democratic Socialist+February 11, 2007 11:05 pm--> (Democratic Socialist @ February 11, 2007 11:05 pm)We are to take action against them but hate breeds more hate. It is never justified. And Lefty, I'm not trying to get off on the wrong foot with you, but I actually did refute your posts. All of what you talked about was in the Old Testament, prior to Christ, and the majority of what you cited was from the Torah in which punishments for violations of the law were written. These were abolished when Christ died for our sins.[/b]

New Testament:

Originally posted by Matthew+--> (Matthew)Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 7:13

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 7:14 [/b]

This means that most will go to hell.

Originally posted by Matthew
And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Those who don't "bear good fruit" will be murdered by being "cast into the fire"

[email protected]
And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. 8:21

But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead. 8:22

Essentially Jesus tells a man who has just lost his father that he can bury his dad when he's dead.

1 Corinthians
Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. 10:10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.

If you murmer, you'll be destroyed; killed

etc etc...

if you'd like more examples I can provide them.

Honggweilo

12th February 2007, 02:57

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+February 12, 2007 02:39 am--> (LeftyHenry @ February 12, 2007 02:39 am)

New Testament:

Matthew
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 7:13

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 7:14
[/b]
:lol: the title of the paragraph of that piece is even called "the athority of jezus"

RedAnarchist

12th February 2007, 11:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:09 am
he created adam and eve. he created everything around them. he created absolutely everything that would affect their decision. he knew when creating all of that how it would affect the decision they would make, and he knew what the final outcome would be as a result of all of everything that he did. if they defied god, it was because he created them and their environment in such a way that would bring that outcome about. i dont know how many ways i can explain this to you.
noone created "adam" and "eve", they are unproven myths. It is a proven fact that humans originated in Eastern Africa and migrated outwards. Besides, even if they did exist, who would their children have had kids with?

wtfm8lol

12th February 2007, 17:55

bah..i was making the (knowingly wrongful) assumption that they existed. i'm an atheist and sincerely doubt that they ever existed. i was just using what they believe to show how what they believe is contradictory.

Democratic Socialist

12th February 2007, 19:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 05:55 pm
bah..i was making the (knowingly wrongful) assumption that they existed. i'm an atheist and sincerely doubt that they ever existed. i was just using what they believe to show how what they believe is contradictory.
As another poster so astutely pointed out, God doesn't control our will. He does create our environment which may gear us towards sinning but in the end, we make the decision. God puts us through trials and allows Satan to tempt us so we become stronger and learn to rely on him for guidance.

For instance, God did not create Adam and Eve to sin. Yes, he put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden because he wanted to test their loyalty and obedience. In the end, they chose sin rather than paradise with God. However, it's a logical fallacy to blame God for their troubles, just as it's wrong to blame God for people rejecting Christ. They made the choice, not him.

Although one thing I will say, wtf, I appreciate that you have put aside your atheist skepticism and have actually debated the ideology of Christianity. Too often atheists simply dismiss it as "false" (which perhaps you agree with) and never actually talk about the belief itself. I respect you all the more for it. You're a step up from most other atheists I've met.

Guerrilla22

12th February 2007, 19:45

There is no god, let's stop being ridiculous.

Democratic Socialist

12th February 2007, 19:55

I'm sorry Henry, but these are terrible examples. Again, you don't seem to understand the context in which all of these were stated. I also noticed that none of these supported your idea of Christians being savage murderers of rebellious children and executioners of sinners, especially to the degree at which you claimed using the Old Testament passages. Have a hard time finding an instance where Christ told us to stone sinners? It's because they don't exist. But so you don't believe I am all rhetoric, I've gone through the verses you brought up.

Matthew 7:13- This is true though. Christ is available for everyone but only some people accept the salvation he offers. No one, not even I will deny that hell exists and in accordance with what Christ taught us, yes, some people do go to hell. However, you seem to have this vision that followers of Christ are bent on condemning people to hell. While some are, this is a perversion of what Christ taught us. He told us to spread the message so people wouldn't go to hell.

The same is true for the other verse from Matthew. Everyone has the opportunity. Some choose to embrace salvation. Others do not.

Matthew 8:21- I'm not really sure why this has to do with Christianity being a violent religion. The point of this story was that the man wanted to follow Christ but when Jesus asked him to give up what he had to the poor and follow him, the man made excuses, such as burying his father. Christ didn't mean literally "Bury him when you're dead" but rather, "Don't make excuses. Act now"[/i], a message which I imagine you would probably approve.

1 Corinthians 10:10- Really this is irrelevant, again. The chapter in question refers to idols and testing God. Absolutely, there are consequences to testing Christ, mainly because it shows a lack of loyalty and devotion. Granted, if you embrace salvation, this sin is like all others; you will be forgiven and Christ will take the punishment in your place.

Because we're off topic, I'd love to continue this conversation further. Perhaps though you could create a new thread. We're discussing Islam, or supposed to, in this thread.

Democratic Socialist

12th February 2007, 19:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:45 pm
There is no god, let's stop being ridiculous.
See, that's the sort of fallacious arguments I see atheists breaking out too often. It's ridiculous to claim that "There is no God", a statement which you cannot prove and then refuse to actually discuss the alternative scenario that perhaps God does exist. This is why I appreciate people like LeftyHenry and wtf; they are willing to suspend their disbelief and discuss the points of Christian ideology in a fair and civil manner. Perhaps you could take a few tips from them.

wtfm8lol

12th February 2007, 20:17

As another poster so astutely pointed out, God doesn't control our will.

Did god not create our will with full knowledge of what that will would lead us to choose?

Democratic Socialist

12th February 2007, 20:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:17 pm

As another poster so astutely pointed out, God doesn't control our will.

Did god not create our will with full knowledge of what that will would lead us to choose?
If God could pick and choose which of his creations He would allow to exist based on what they would do later, none of us would exist. God doesn't "pre-screen" his creations and instead allows them to make choices for themselves, with the full knowledge that they will probably sin. However, again we make the choice. God stopping us would prove nothing. We would merely be robots with no control over our emotions and decisions. Rather, God wants us to choose him for salvation rather than him forcing us.

OneBrickOneVoice

12th February 2007, 22:03

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 12, 2007 07:55 pm
]I'm sorry Henry, but these are terrible examples. Again, you don't seem to understand the context in which all of these were stated. I also noticed that none of these supported your idea of Christians being savage murderers of rebellious children and executioners of sinners, especially to the degree at which you claimed using the Old Testament passages. Have a hard time finding an instance where Christ told us to stone sinners? It's because they don't exist. But so you don't believe I am all rhetoric, I've gone through the verses you brought up.

meh, well perhaps you are the exception, but most christians uphold the Old Testament as fact and word of god. It is in the bible after all. Yes the Old Testament is far more violent then the new which brings up the question, how could god change like that?

Nonetheless, I stand by my examples. Also, I'm not taking them out of context because the bible is a very hard thing to take out of context.

Matthew 7:13- This is true though. Christ is available for everyone but only some people accept the salvation he offers. No one, not even I will deny that hell exists and in accordance with what Christ taught us, yes, some people do go to hell. However, you seem to have this vision that followers of Christ are bent on condemning people to hell. While some are, this is a perversion of what Christ taught us. He told us to spread the message so people wouldn't go to hell.

You seem to be making circles around my point. That passage clearly says that most will go to the gates of destruction (hell) because it is so fucking wide!!! The wide part couldn't be emphasized more.

Anyhow you can't just dismiss what Matthew says in the next passage. He clearly states that if you make a mistake blood thirsty god will throw you in the fire!!!

There is no way around that.

Matthew 8:21- I'm not really sure why this has to do with Christianity being a violent religion. The point of this story was that the man wanted to follow Christ but when Jesus asked him to give up what he had to the poor and follow him, the man made excuses, such as burying his father. Christ didn't mean literally "Bury him when you're dead" but rather, "Don't make excuses. Act now"[/i], a message which I imagine you would probably approve.

If that was the case, Christ would have said that. He didn't. He said, Let the dead bury the dead. If someone said that to me after my father died I would take that as and extremly insenstive and assholish comment. I would take it as the literal meaning which is the logical meaning and translation. If I say you're a dickhead, it is a rude comment, and yes you might be able to find a deeper meaning in it like I have a big dick or whatever, but it still remains that it is meant to be a insult and in Jesus's case, a very sick and twisted insult.

1 Corinthians 10:10- Really this is irrelevant, again. The chapter in question refers to idols and testing God. Absolutely, there are consequences to testing Christ, mainly because it shows a lack of loyalty and devotion. Granted, if you embrace salvation, this sin is like all others; you will be forgiven and Christ will take the punishment in your place.

Oh yes that makes perfect sense, "Think for yourself, use your brain, test out that crazy science thing, and though shalt burn in hell!!!"

Yes we as socialists are always devoted to our leaders and never question leadership and the system. :rolleyes:

Because we're off topic, I'd love to continue this conversation further. Perhaps though you could create a new thread. We're discussing Islam, or supposed to, in this thread.

Well nevermind that now lol, its too late to turn back now...

OneBrickOneVoice

12th February 2007, 22:07

Originally posted by ddxt301+February 12, 2007 02:57 am--> (ddxt301 @ February 12, 2007 02:57 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 02:39 am

New Testament:

Matthew
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 7:13

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 7:14

:lol: the title of the paragraph of that piece is even called "the athority of jezus" [/b]
:lol: haha that is great

Jesus: "Baby, I am full of love and will protect you, for a price of course, now kneel down and kiss the ring *****"

http://blogs.salon.com/0002296/myimages/kiss%20the%20ring%2040%20crop%2050%20sharp%202.JPG

Democratic Socialist

12th February 2007, 23:12

The character of God never changed between the OT and the NT. God was and is still loving but he is also just. The only difference between then and now is that we all have access to forgiveness through Christ and so laws have become less stringent (since we can be forgiven). He then withholds judgment until after life so we all get a shot at salvation.

Matthew 10, again, yes the gates of hell are wide. Not everyone will come to Christ. The point is though, everyone has the ability to find salvation. I don't believe in predestination, as many "Christians" do for obvious reasons. After all, if God sets people up for damnation how can he be loving? Instead, we all have the conscious choice of whether or not to embrace salvation. Those who never hear the message will not be held accountable but those who do and reject it must be punished for their sins because God is just.

I think this is where you're getting hung up. God is just; He has to punish sin because it goes contrary to the law. However, this is the sole reason for Christ. If we believe Christ is infinite, then his death as well as time in hell atones for an infinite amount of sins. By accepting this, Christ then pays our debt to God and takes our punishment. If we don't, we then have to be held accountable for our wrongdoings, namely through hell. It's a sad reality but in that lies the reason why followers of Christ seek to spread the message.

We'll agree to disagree on the "let the dead bury the dead" story. I see it as Christ telling us to leave earthly matters aside and instead act now and pick up our crosses. It's not a dickheaded comment, given the man had already said he wanted to follow Christ.

And by testing God, he doesn't mean that we shouldn't question our beliefs. When Satan tempted Christ to test God, he took him to a high mountain and told him to jump off, with the knowledge that God's angels would save him. This test was in order to use God as some sort of genie. Believe it or not, part of being a follower of Christ is constantly questioning your beliefs.

I'll tell you guys straight-up: I'm probably one of the most liberal Christians you can find. I reject the majority of the New Testament as being no more divine than a Sunday morning sermon. At my core, I believe in what Christ taught us. If it wasn't straight from God, chances are some human aspect got caught up in it and so we can't be sure it's truly divine. This is why I am a follower of Christ and not a Christian; I specifically and only follow Christ.

wtfm8lol

12th February 2007, 23:43

you keep missing my point. predestination is the only possible result of the creation of something by an all-knowing and all-powerful being.

R_P_A_S

12th February 2007, 23:52

ok.. i officially feel completely unable to debate this thread LOL. im out!

Democratic Socialist

12th February 2007, 23:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 11:43 pm
you keep missing my point. predestination is the only possible result of the creation of something by an all-knowing and all-powerful being.
Not if God knowingly allows us to play out our lives and make our own choices based on free will while still maintaining authority (the final say, so to speak). See, maybe the only Christians you have met were believers in predestination but you're missing a large part of the community who believes in our God-given free will.

Again, God gives us free will so we can choose him rather than being forced. I agree that he created us (ask me how he created the world; I dare you, and I bet my response will surprise you) and is supreme but I believe he allows us freedom of choice so we knowingly embrace salvation.

Democratic Socialist

12th February 2007, 23:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 11:52 pm
ok.. i officially feel completely unable to debate this thread LOL. im out!
Why is that RPAS? You're welcome to join in the discussion if you want. Remember, this is informal here.

R_P_A_S

12th February 2007, 23:56

Originally posted by Democratic Socialist+February 12, 2007 11:53 pm--> (Democratic Socialist @ February 12, 2007 11:53 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 11:43 pm
you keep missing my point. predestination is the only possible result of the creation of something by an all-knowing and all-powerful being.
Not if God knowingly allows us to play out our lives and make our own choices based on free will while still maintaining authority (the final say, so to speak). See, maybe the only Christians you have met were believers in predestination but you're missing a large part of the community who believes in our God-given free will.

Again, God gives us free will so we can choose him rather than being forced. I agree that he created us (ask me how he created the world; I dare you, and I bet my response will surprise you) and is supreme but I believe he allows us freedom of choice so we knowingly embrace salvation. [/b]
its sooo easy to just say that though.. 'god gives us this, god this and god that'... i just don't believe in that shit...

if im hanging from a cliff and about to fall to my death and it just so happens someone walks by and hears me and saves me. It was pure damn coincidence!!! god did not put him there to save me, nor was he sent by god.

that makes no damn sense! lol

wtfm8lol

12th February 2007, 23:56

what is "free will"?

Democratic Socialist

13th February 2007, 00:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 11:56 pm
what is "free will"?
Free will is the right to choose our own fates. We can either choose salvation or we can choose damnation. Both options are equally available to almost everyone, and those who are not presented with salvation will not be judged.

As John Connor said in the original Terminator: "There's no fate but what we make for ourselves." God has given us the incredible gift to choose our own destinies. More incredible, He has also given us the chance for salvation.

Democratic Socialist

13th February 2007, 00:03

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+February 12, 2007 11:56 pm--> (R_P_A_S @ February 12, 2007 11:56 pm)
Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 12, 2007 11:53 pm

[email protected] 12, 2007 11:43 pm
you keep missing my point. predestination is the only possible result of the creation of something by an all-knowing and all-powerful being.
Not if God knowingly allows us to play out our lives and make our own choices based on free will while still maintaining authority (the final say, so to speak). See, maybe the only Christians you have met were believers in predestination but you're missing a large part of the community who believes in our God-given free will.

Again, God gives us free will so we can choose him rather than being forced. I agree that he created us (ask me how he created the world; I dare you, and I bet my response will surprise you) and is supreme but I believe he allows us freedom of choice so we knowingly embrace salvation.
its sooo easy to just say that though.. 'god gives us this, god this and god that'... i just don't believe in that shit...

if im hanging from a cliff and about to fall to my death and it just so happens someone walks by and hears me and saves me. It was pure damn coincidence!!! god did not put him there to save me, nor was he sent by god.

that makes no damn sense! lol [/b]
This is the part that requires the most devotion. I can explain the finer points of Christianity to you until we're both blue in the face but ultimately it gets down to whether or not you can suspend your disbelief and see past our blinded, cow eyes to witness something beyond dirt and water. It gets down to faith.

I'll be straight up with you: There is not a shred of evidence to scientifically prove God's existence. But when I'm meditating on Christ's words, when I'm praying, when I see the better side of humanity at play, I can't accredit it to anything else but a divine being who is loving. That's what it boils down to.

wtfm8lol

13th February 2007, 00:11

Free will is the right to choose our own fates.

give me a complete list of all of the factors that determine what we choose with our "free will"

Democratic Socialist

13th February 2007, 00:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:11 am

Free will is the right to choose our own fates.

give me a complete list of all of the factors that determine what we choose with our "free will"
I can't. That list would be too numerous for any human to list. Anything can affect our fate. That doesn't mean it does. This is why followers of Christ trust that although God allows us to choose our fate, he still has a master plan and ultimately he is in control of the end result. We control our own salvation and no one else's.

I see what you're saying though; you're referring to people whose genes, socio-economic conditions, or both gear them away from Christ. Without a doubt people like this exist, but God tells us he can be found in all things. If they have heard the message, they have been offered a legitimate chance at salvation. Therefore, they can either choose to accept it or reject it, for whatever reason.

Am I answering your questions? I feel like I sort of have missed your point (my fault; not yours). If so, I apologize.

wtfm8lol

13th February 2007, 00:28

in order to understand my point, you must realize that my argument is based on cause and effect. god sets all of the causes and knows how they will produce all of the effects. things such as free will are impossible if you believe an all-knowing all-powerful creator set all of the causes.

Democratic Socialist

13th February 2007, 00:32

Knowing the future though, doesn't mean that we don't make decisions in the here and now.God knows how it will all turn out, yes. But we exist in the present. God exists outside of the realm of time. In the present, we make the decision whether to embrace salvation or fall into damnation. God knows what we will choose but we make the decision.

Granted, God could force us all to make the decision to follow him but again, it doesn't prove anything. Free will shows devotion.

wtfm8lol

13th February 2007, 00:36

Knowing the future though, doesn't mean that we don't make decisions in the here and now.

what do we make our decisions based on? do we make any decisions based on anything other than what god put there?

Democratic Socialist

13th February 2007, 00:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:36 am

Knowing the future though, doesn't mean that we don't make decisions in the here and now.

what do we make our decisions based on? do we make any decisions based on anything other than what god put there?
We make our decisions based on what we experience in our lives, but again, Christ told us he can be found in even the simplest of events. We make our decision based on the character of God that He has revealed to us.

wtfm8lol

13th February 2007, 00:45

ok, does god not decide everything we experience in our lives?

Democratic Socialist

13th February 2007, 00:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:45 am
ok, does god not decide everything we experience in our lives?
Since God is omnipotent, yes, the world is under his authority.

wtfm8lol

13th February 2007, 00:58

and if we make our decisions based solely on our nature and our experiences (both things that god gave us), how does god not make our decisions for us?

Democratic Socialist

13th February 2007, 01:24

Because we ultimately make the choice based on what we know about God. We choose, not God. Our environment may alter the probability but at the end of the day, it's still our call.

wtfm8lol

13th February 2007, 01:38

em..does god not also determine what we know about him?

OneBrickOneVoice

13th February 2007, 02:04

Your response to my post is exactly why I don't come to this part of the forum often. I have quotes from the New Testament, and Old Testament staring you smack in the face in which the bible advocates throwing people into fires or plain destroying them yet you just say "God is just and loving". What the hell is that?

You want to follow this book which advocates murder, fine by me, but I won't. Simple as that. I'm not going to subsitute the objective truth and the scientific truth which are on my side of the debate for your subjective, deviating truth.

Democratic Socialist

13th February 2007, 02:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:04 am
Your response to my post is exactly why I don't come to this part of the forum often. I have quotes from the New Testament, and Old Testament staring you smack in the face in which the bible advocates throwing people into fires or plain destroying them yet you just say "God is just and loving". What the hell is that?

You want to follow this book which advocates murder, fine by me, but I won't. Simple as that. I'm not going to subsitute the objective truth and the scientific truth which are on my side of the debate for your subjective, deviating truth.
Damnit Henry, I'm sorry but I can't do anything more to make you see how wrong you are. Christ never once advocates murder. "Turn the other cheek" is among the hundreds of times he advocates peace. I've explained the punishment aspect as best I can and I agree it's unfortunate but it's necessary in order for God to be just. Moreover, Christ allows anyone who wants to escape their damnation.

I've already talked about your quotes. If you don't have a legitimate argument to make in response, that's fine. You have a right to keep your misguided and ill-informed opinion on Christianity. Again though, if you seek the truth, at least read through the Gospels. I cannot stress that anymore.

In the words of Jack Bauer, "We're done here."

OneBrickOneVoice

13th February 2007, 02:40

It does advocate murder, and my quotes clearly illustrate that. You didn't respond to my quotes you just went through them completly missing the subject. But I don't blame you because you can't refute it, you can just spin it, and you tried that, but being murdering by being thrown in the fire is quite hard to spin.

Democratic Socialist

13th February 2007, 03:03

Henry, that isn't murder. That's justice! Everyone can avoid that fate also. You just can't see that God isn't about condemnation. He's about mercy. You will never understand this unless you approach it with an open mind but my guess is that will be almost impossible for you. Regardless, know I'm praying for you.

OneBrickOneVoice

13th February 2007, 03:17

haha thanks for the prayers, and I have approached it with an open mind, my family is all catholic and I went to mass every sunday, I just found it was wrong. Not necessarily because of blood thirsty quotes in the bible that I found, at first, but because it wasn't logical. You have brought up the point of "seeking the truth" which is very important however christianity is NOT the truth, logic and science is, which is why decade after decade, creationism and other unscientific views are in retreat when compared to evolution as more and more scientists agree and activly seek and find the truth. Christianity is founded on good morals, and you seem to have very good morals but as a idea and belief system and the roots of it, do not seem so. And its not just what I've posted, there are many other strange ass quotes which I am bewildered at. Anyhow I'll post more on this tommorow as I'm tired.

Spirit of Spartacus

13th February 2007, 08:53

Returning to the original topic...

I used to be a Muslim...

...until I read too much. :P

Now I think religion is no better than any fairy-tale that I read as a kid.

A progressive or revolutionary Muslim is not progressive because of Islam itself. Such a person is progressive merely because of their interpretation of Islam. That is to say, they WANT to be progressive.

Having said all that, I do feel that Islam is more conducive to progressive, even revolutionary concepts, as compared to Christianity.

For instance, when I was a Muslim, the concept of fighting oppression was one that I saw throughout the Koran. The message of brotherhood was important too.

Mohammed himself was definitely a revolutionary man for his times. He explicity denounced racism, he laid down property rights and divorce rights for women at a time when they were oppressed terribly and historically, it was the most oppressed and exploited sections of Arab society which supported him.

But the greatness of Mohammed was a material thing. He was simply an extraordinary human being for his times.

There ain't no god up there to tell us what to do. We're on our own, and we've got to learn from the example of revolutionaries like Mohammed.

He fought tribal oppression in his time. Today we have imperialism and capitalist oppression to fight.

We have to struggle for the victory of the proleteriat, be they Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever.

tambourine_man

13th February 2007, 09:29

democratic socialist, you miss the totally valid point wtfm8lol is making...

that is,

- god created everything, including us
- a human being's initial "organic condition" (his specific physiological existence, like the chemicals in his brain, his particular physical/spatial position, etc.) which implicitly disposes him towards certain behaviors, attitudes, etc.) is therefore predetermined
- a human being's environment (everything external to himself) is also predetermined
- the interaction between these two factors, all of human experience & behavior, in other words, can therefore unfold in no other way than it has unfolded and continues to unfold
- a human being who does not choose "the faith" (or one who blatantly blasphemes, or one who follows mother teresa, for example) cannot be held liable for his actions. everything is equally meaningless.
- heaven and hell and things geared towards judging our actions as if we had any choice are meaningless and don't make sense, then, and so is your entire selfdefeating philosophy

more importantly though you might have some strange misconceptions,

(democratic socialist)

I'm happy to explain some of these concepts because I understand they are challenging. It's similar to grasping Marxist concepts; it requires immense reading and study.

marxist concepts dont require any immense studying or reading though, which is its appeal. working people experience alienation and exploitation everyday. it's quite simple. many working people dont want to be forced to sell their lives for an hourly wage, are tired of being exploited and bored to death, kids are fed up with classrooms and routines, and we all want to do something real about it, no compromises!

your concepts, however...why do i want to be crucified? the 8 hour work day is torture enough?

(democratic socialist)

Also, why is it that all leftists have such an axe to grind with Christianity? Rather than hating followers of Christ, I would like to see you holding us to better accountability. Christ told us to give up all we had to the poor and follow him. The disciples lived in a society which was based on free sharing and exchange of goods. Although this behavior is not nearly as common as it should be in Christians, I would think the leftist movement could gain tremendous momentum from true followers of Christ if it replaced its hatred with accountability.

it's not just about accountability though it's about your entire dreadful way of seeing life... communism, in my opinion, is definitely not about self-sacrifice or selflessness or self denial. what is the point of that? it's about the opposite if anything...pleasure and self-indulgence and real life. communism is about getting rid of the misery and boredom and alienation of everyday life by working towards a society in which life can be lived authentically and real desires can be fulfilled unconditioned by market values, without compulsory labor, or "culture", or constraining moral standards or any of that

haha that's an uber-contradiction. "I don't hate gays, I just recognize the fact that they'll burn in hell when they die."
Interestingly enough, though, Christ himself never condemns homosexuality, which is why I'm on the fence on the issue.

And you brought up hell. Not me. I'm just pointing that out.

also, why are you such a bigot!

just for fun, i want to see how far you are willing to take your absurd logic

since you are opposed to hatred or murder in all circumstances according to the ten commandments and jesus christ. hypothetically if you could prevent a lot of innocent children from being horribly and brutally tortured and then left to live out their lives in psychological and physical agony, just by killing one man who would be responsible for that torture...would you do it! if not, why not?

christianity and islam are so old and have nothing to do with working towards communism itself, which always becomes more and more ultramodern, though they have been and might continue to be historically progressive in certain respects, and relatively.