The Couch

god of war

Comments on god of war

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#26 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/05/11 - 4:49 AM:

lib wrote:
why are we talking about anything at all? because we can. people are starving in africa, after all, i mean what are we doing here on a philosophy forum when there's serious problems going on in the world? what is it that you think we should be doing instead, monk? (and why aren't you doing it?)


I am doing best thing possible with my life. Without having any goal or mission whatsover I live day to day and meanwhile I keep on getting objectives which I try to meet as if playing a game; nothing however, is a must and it never is! If I could first be certain about what 'truth is'----I might go around teaching that, but I am not sure, so I sleep well and sleep like babies. laughing
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#27 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/05/11 - 6:30 AM:

Folks seem to labour under this delusion that there can be such a thing as a 'moderate' or 'liberal' Muslim. This is nonsense. Such a person can only accommodate liberal concepts by compromising on traditional and well-defined Muslim values.

Islam wants you dead or in servitude. That's the full and complete message to all kafir. Repent or be destroyed.

There is no such thing as 'progression' in Islam. Any and all manner of innovation is sin of the highest degree. So Muslims adhering to the 'old ways' are more likely to be REAL Muslims than anyone adopting a modern quasi-muslim philosophy. The more liberal a person is, the less Muslim they are. It doesn't take much to put a Muslim in a state of kafir.


A blatant generalisation of what is a religion with enormous internal differences. Tssss. Muslim - christian - hindu - pagan - buddhist - fuck all - they're all human first. Whatever is in them is in you and vice versa.

Obviously the more a person is liberal, less they belong in a religious organisation (again, whatever the religion or religious subset (sunni, sjiite, kopt, orthodox, calvinist, katholic, hindu,...) . Every tradition or church has its rigid rules, prejudgements and irrational beliefs. The more you step out of that framework, the less you are fundamentalistic. The catch is that the framework really isn't that well-defined at all. Within all texts and beliefs in every religion there are contradictions, interpretations. Texts selected, texts rewritten. Words wrongly interpreted, wrongly translated, wrongly understood. Some people experience their religion in a literal sense, others in spirit, others in community, others otherwise or a combination of the above.

Generalisation - blah. Can anyone define religion for me? What is your definition of a christian, a muslim, a hindu and why do you presume that yours is better than any other?

Edited by smokinpristiformis on 04/05/11 - 8:28 AM
KinNaoko90
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Fulton County, NY

Total Topics: 36
Total Comments: 298
#28 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/05/11 - 7:37 AM:

"A blatant generalisation of what is a religion with enormous internal differences. Tssss. Muslim - christian - hindu - pagan - buddhist - fuck all - they're all human first. Whatever is in them is in you and vice versa."

thumb up

"Generalisation - blah. Can anyone define religion for me? What is your definition of a christian, a muslim, a hindu and why do you presume that yours is better than any other?"

To me, religion combines the belief in a higher power(s) with a set rules/guidelines as to how to live life.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, seem to stem from the same guidelines and the same god. Over time they appear to have become separate religion. Still there are more parallels than there are differences.

A Christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ and God and follows the teachings of the Bible's new and old testaments. The problem is so many different bibles are out now and they have been translated so many times that the original meaning may very well have been lost. Also there are so many denominations of Christianity that Christianity has been split into many different religions.

A Jew is a person who abides by the old testament and does not believe that Jesus was the true son of God. I have not educated myself much further than that on Judaism.

A Muslim is a person who follows the teachings of the Quran and calls their god by the name of Allah. Like Christians and Jews, Muslims perceive their religion to be the true religion. And like Christians and Jews, they also welcome conversion to their religion.

I don't know too much about Hinduism, I am ashamed to say. I know they have several sacred texts that they refer to. Other than that I have no clue. So feel free to fill me in.

Also, I don't think any religion is better or more right than another.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#29 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/05/11 - 2:24 PM:

smokinpristiformis wrote:

A blatant generalisation of what is a religion with enormous internal differences.


There is no innovation in Islam. Being 'liberal' in the western sense means deviating from the sunnah and becoming a kafir, ie, compromising on your religion and essentially rejecting it.

Internal differences usually center around how to interpret Mohammed's sunnah and instructions for later generations. Others reject the sunnah altogether. Still others go beyond the scope of the religion as written and move into kafir territory (Sufis). Such as those are soundly denounced by core Islam and often physically destroyed.

The thing is you can't just neatly make discriminations of type and say 'well those murderers are just extremists not the true Muslims'. They are not. They are conservative Muslims who reject liberalisation. Yes some of them have gone beyond what is allowed even by their religion, but the root is strong and well-defined and resonates with all Muslims groups. Which is why there is little global denunciation from 'Muslims' about such practices.



smokinpristiformis wrote:

Every tradition or church has its rigid rules, prejudgements and irrational beliefs. The more you step out of that framework, the less you are fundamentalistic.


The more you are in a state of kafir (in Islam). Islam prides itself on its unchanging nature because it claims to be the final revelation. Anywhere you see change in Islam from the way it was practiced 1500 years ago you see innovation and the work of shaitan. Its very simple.

If you start becoming more 'liberal' and thinking 'hey, you know, homosexuality is ok, its good to have woman leaders in politics, I don't mind being charged interest, its ok to join the American army, premarital sex isn't that bad' and so on, you're rejecting your supposed faith and unless you repent and change your ways, will receive your just reward.



smokinpristiformis wrote:

The catch is that the framework really isn't that well-defined at all.


No, it IS really well-defined in Islam. The entire religion is based on being well-defined for over 1000 years, with a system of rigorous tests for deciding what is and is not acceptable given the Quran and sunnah. Sure there are divisions. But they represent deviations, not extensions. The average Christian would not consider the Mormon part of their continuity, for example.



smokinpristiformis wrote:

Within all texts and beliefs in every religion there are contradictions, interpretations.


Not according to Islam. The challenge of the Qruan is for anyone to point out one single deficiency or error or contradiction. There is more room in the hadith for such things, but again, they are rigorously vetted by scholars to avoid that trap, and many, many hadith are rejected because they run contrary to well-established knowledge.



smokinpristiformis wrote:

Can anyone define religion for me?


A religion is a socio-mythological paradigm that provides a practical, speculative, and political framework for human society. It defines the range and scope of moral values based on derivations from a primary set of beliefs about the ultimate nature of the universe and reality, often connected to the divine will or command of one or more transcendent deities. It provides an organisational structure for social interactions among human beings, from the base unit of the family (father-mother-child) to the tribe, the clan, the nation, and various specialised authorities such as a priesthood. It determines the range of scope of acts of devotion and worship that place the human being in relationship to the divine (the deity or the cosmos), and sometimes outlines the paths by which the believer can attain greater insight, peace, or even unity with the divine.



smokinpristiformis wrote:

What is your definition of a christian, a muslim, a hindu and why do you presume that yours is better than any other?


A Christian believes that Jesus is the risen saviour of mankind and a son of God. They must at a minimum take the gospels as authoritative teachings. A Christian is concerned with the kingdom of God and how to get there. Jesus's teachings provide the path, and belief in Jesus's word as truth is the fuel to move along that path. They believe in God the father and thus in a kind of filial relationship to God for every believer (thus a 'personal' relationship).

A Muslim believes that there is one God and Mohammed is his (final) messenger. Their God is utterly transcendent and does not enter into personal relationships with people. They take at a minimum the word of the Quran as the authoritative and literal word of God.

As for the generic term 'hindu' I can't say anything about it, as it's a recent invention and covers a mismash of religious spirit. Probably has some core beliefs about Atam, Brahma, Vishnu, and the relationship between them.

As for 'generalization', science would be no where without it. So consider that before you blah.

8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#30 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/05/11 - 2:26 PM:

KinNaoko90 wrote:

If as you've implied, humans are above and more intelligent than the rest of the animals, we can't expect them to choose not to be dangerous or vice versa. In other words, it's not the poor bear's fault!


That's ridiculous. Defense of murderers--'its not their fault! They can't help but be violent and react violently to every perceived insult!'

Again, those brutal killers CHOSE to kill indiscriminately. They are not justified in doing so based on whether or not some person is a far away land performs an act which, in that land, is fully supported by its own laws. If they are merely trying to oust foreigners, then that is fine, as foreigners are occupying their land and refuse to leave so long as the oil and heroin is pumping freely.

'Some white guy denounced Mohammed! Let's kill them all!!!!' is not a valid justification.

thumb down
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#31 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/05/11 - 2:43 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

i dunno, will you?


I will never live under such a state. But those who defend Islam over and above their own countrymen in the cause of 'sensitivity' invite it.


libertygrl wrote:

any of us could do one of three things. 1) end the conflict in afghanistan (something i don't have the "might" for, so that's a no-go on this end.) 2) join the conflict from the other side of the world by doing ridiculous things like burning korans to make a statement (or worse), or 3) stay out of the conflict to the best extent possible. i wish i had the ability and resources for option 1. but i don't, so i'm left with option number 3. and the more people who choose option 3, the better, as far as i'm concerned.


People DO have the power to end the conflict. But it isn't one person. Its a whole nation of people that need to speak as one. And that motivation CAN come from one person, as every herd needs a leader to lead them. Avoiding the conflict won't prevent the jackboots from kicking down your door, I'm afraid.

And live and let live won't preserve your right to freedom and the liberty we so prize in the west.

Islam will destroy your nation.

Everywhere Islamic communities appear in kafir lands they ultimately want to implement their own religious laws and operate a system outside and often contrary to the laws of the nation. This is done informally, in-community, until the community is so large that their mere numbers enable them to put political pressure on legal institutions. We hear demands in Canada, it is happening in UK and Europe. The ultimate goal of Islam is global domination, make no mistake. Don't labour under false pretenses. Islam will not live peacefully with other belief systems indefinitely. It can't. Just like Christianity before it.


libertygrl wrote:

why are we talking about anything at all? because we can. people are starving in africa, after all, i mean what are we doing here on a philosophy forum when there's serious problems going on in the world? what is it that you think we should be doing instead, monk? (and why aren't you doing it?)


Good point. I'm off to do something worthwhile. So long. peace
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#32 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/05/11 - 3:45 PM:

Thinker wrote:
I am doing best thing possible with my life.

nice thumb up i feel that way about my life too. every thing i do is worthwhile, including chatting with you folks. as far as problems elsewhere in the world, i do what i can to help.

Monk wrote:
I will never live under such a state. But those who defend Islam over and above their own countrymen in the cause of 'sensitivity' invite it.

my point of view is not about defending islam. it's about defending neutrality over joining in on a ridiculous war.

Monk wrote:
Avoiding the conflict won't prevent the jackboots from kicking down your door, I'm afraid.

no, not always. i'm not terribly worried about islam taking over the world, though, as you seem to be. if it happens, i'll be sure to remember what you said.

KN wrote:
But who says we cant become activists and eventually gain enough power for number 1?

sure, maybe we could. but i already feel like i'm making the best use of my time, to be honest. i put a lot of energy toward charitable interests, and of course, there's only so much each person can do. you have to choose your battles, and i've chosen mine, for the most part. i totally agree that working together, groups of people can make a big difference in the world.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#33 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/06/11 - 1:38 AM:

KinNaoKo90 wrote:
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, seem to stem from the same guidelines and the same god. Over time they appear to have become separate religion. Still there are more parallels than there are differences.


Other way around? God was invented by humans and so on...
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#34 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/06/11 - 4:34 AM:

Religious organisations are by definition rather fundamentalistic. They all are. I'm pretty sure the katholic church has it written somewhere that their rules are unchanging and holy and whatever they call these things. Personally, I couldn't be bothered.

What bothers me is that people are seen and judged, not based on their behaviour, but based on their geographical, cultural and religious origins. Heck, if I'd be born a couple thousand kilometers south, I'd probably be raised a muslim. And be a worse person for it? Unacceptable.

I resent the idea that people are somehow defined by their religion. That, whenever I meet someone, I have to ask his religion and then, according to the answer, decide to wear a bullet-proof vest or not. That's absurd. People are people. Some people are more reasonable about some themes, other people are more fundamentalistic about some themes. Every community has them. There are fundamentalistic views in political parties, in sports, in culture, there are fundamentalistic views every where you look, heck, there are even fundamentalistic views in the environmental movement. Fundamentalism or radicalism is following some logic to the absurd, to the extreme, and acting on it, whatever the cost. It's a narrow, unbalanced perspective. Luckily, fundemantalism is not the broadest cultural current in the world.

By stating that islam equals the views of its most radical, fundamentalistic worshippers, you are using a narrow perspective, too.
KinNaoko90
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Fulton County, NY

Total Topics: 36
Total Comments: 298
#35 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/06/11 - 6:41 AM:

Thinker13 wrote:


Other way around? God was invented by humans and so on...


What I meant was those religions stemmed from the human belief in the same god and same human guidelines.

I agree that the god was probably created by human beings.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#36 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/07/11 - 3:37 AM:

Willem wrote:
I resent the idea that people are somehow defined by their religion. That, whenever I meet someone, I have to ask his religion and then, according to the answer, decide to wear a bullet-proof vest or not. That's absurd. People are people. Some people are more reasonable about some themes, other people are more fundamentalistic about some themes. Every community has them. There are fundamentalistic views in political parties, in sports, in culture, there are fundamentalistic views every where you look, heck, there are even fundamentalistic views in the environmental movement. Fundamentalism or radicalism is following some logic to the absurd, to the extreme, and acting on it, whatever the cost. It's a narrow, unbalanced perspective. Luckily, fundemantalism is not the broadest cultural current in the world.


Very good ideas. Sensitive and sensible. thumb up
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#37 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/11/11 - 1:55 AM:

Thinker13 wrote:


Very good ideas. Sensitive and sensible. thumb up



Thanks.

I'm a bit worried that Phlogi is fed up with this thread though. He was making some interesting points I'd like to discuss further. Relgiion obviously is a (if not the) key issue for him.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#38 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/11/11 - 5:53 AM:

smokinpristiformis wrote:



Thanks.

I'm a bit worried that Phlogi is fed up with this thread though. He was making some interesting points I'd like to discuss further. Relgiion obviously is a (if not the) key issue for him.



Indeed. I have always been astonished by his erudition on so many religions. takes a bow
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#39 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/11/11 - 3:57 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:
Indeed. I have always been astonished by his erudition on so many religions. takes a bow

indeed, likewise thumb up
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.