|
Post by servantofthechief on Jul 27, 2017 11:03:04 GMT
To be fair to Islam, I'm not sure what "the religion of peace" is meant to mean, or where the phrase originated. What is a "religion of peace"? Is Christianity a religion of peace? Christ is the Prince of Peace but he himself said he came to bring, not peace, but a sword. I don't know if it's really fair to try to sum up any religion with one word. The peace of Islam is the peace of the desert. It comes from the Islamic belief that the world is split into two Houses, the House of War and the House of Submission (Dar al Islam)and when the whole world is Islamic there will be no more House of War, therefore there will be peace in the house of Islam according to their beliefs. Now when you realise Islam has no central doctrinal authority and Muslims tend to listen to those muftis whose interpretation of Islam best meets their own, much like how Christian evangelicals do with their communities, coupled with its radical stance against non Muslims and heretics and apostates, you can see why it will never be at peace, ever. In Christianity we at least have the conception there will never be true Peace until Jesus finally comes back and this veil of tears passes, not human action, even if we make the whole world Christian.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jul 27, 2017 11:31:35 GMT
Islam and peace reminds me of the scene in Brideshead Revisited where Rex Mottram is undergoing instruction before becoming a catholic. The priest is trying vainly to explain papal infallibility and asks Rex if the Pope says it will rain will it? Rex says it will rain. And what if it doesn't? asks the priest. Well it must be raining spiritually but we can't see it due to our sinfulness is the response.
I feel during these discussions that due to my limitations and sinful nature I just can't see the obvious truth that is so clear to moslems and western politicians that Islam is the religion of peace.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Jul 29, 2017 9:10:58 GMT
The head of the halal authorisation in Australia apparently posted a piece least week stating that Australian women needed Muslim men to fertilize them, as Australian men drink, smoke and drug too much to be adequately fertile. A bit simplistic. My birth rate is 0, as is my alcohol level. Although it was probably an off-the-record blog,any non-Muslim would have been made apologise...to women "we're not there TO be FERTILIZED". As it is there's been oddly little reaction to Mohamed's post. Further: Does he not know that there's birth control? Perhaps the drink conglomerates that have pushed for the end of liquor restrictions on Good Friday in Ireland need a reminder of how , realistically, only a Christian society could have seen them blossom in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Nov 18, 2017 23:48:18 GMT
Just noticed that the religion of peace is involved in two conflicts ( Burma and now Sri Lanka) with another faith that traditionally or at least since the 1960s has captured the market for right on feel good non western non judgementalism - Buddhism. In both conflicts majority followers of the old religion of peace(Buddhism) are persecuting the adherents of the Prophet. The western media has largely ignored the religious elements to these disputes. Perhaps the clash of civilisations thesis is valid after all.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on May 4, 2018 6:09:47 GMT
From a recent Missionary Sisters of St Peter Claver publication, but describing an event late last year: (pardon me if it's been included before) "they crowded St George Sanctuary in Rezeigat in one of the most impressive celebrations of Christin popular devotion ever recorded in Arab countries, attracting tens of thousands from all Egyptian provinces in 11th-17th November 2017. Processions, liturgies, chant, fraternal agape marked the last two days in particular. The pilgrims were accommodated in thousands of tents encamped in the area set on sixty acres around the sanctuary.... The popular demonstration of devotion to St George confirms that Coptic Christians do not give up on confessing and witnessing their faith in public gatherings. During the spring and summer, after the massacres committed by jihadist groups, Egyptian Copts had been urged by security forces to diminish pilgrimages and celebrations in churches and monasteries avoiding crowd gatherings at places of worship"
Some imams were present as representatives apparently.
(the same magazine made mention that their congregation lost a Dubliner in February Sr Mary Patrick Kenny s.s.p.c after 72 years of religious life, buried from Terenure parish)
|
|
|
Post by unfortunately on May 20, 2018 13:51:47 GMT
Islam is currently a problem no doubt about that but I think it is just a specific case caused by the real problem: Faith.
Believing things without sufficient evidence, no evidence or even in the face of contrary evidence. Believing just because you believe or because you have some feeling it is true.
Faith means not being swayed from the position by argument or reason.
The danger of faith is that it means good people mistakenly do bad things thinking they are doing good.
If you believe that a book was written/inspired by a god then you are obeying god and killing is the right thing to do.
What is the response to an ultrareligious conservative Muslim who abuses women, stones homosexuals and beheads infidels?
The best thing a non-Muslim religious person can reply is "you have the wrong book buddy, my one is the one inspired by the creator of the universe yours is written my men."
But again that is a faith position, he is wrong not because what he is doing is wrong but because he has mistakenly followed the wrong book.
Faith muddies the moral waters.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 20, 2018 14:48:32 GMT
At this stage, you are obviously trolling. Goodbye.
|
|
|
Post by cato on May 20, 2018 18:36:58 GMT
At this stage, you are obviously trolling. Goodbye. I had suspected this previously and regret wasting time "debating" with this individual. Life is precious and life is short.
|
|
|
Post by Antaine on May 20, 2018 20:21:25 GMT
That's not entirely true. He could be wrong on 2 accounts.
Not speaking about anything specific here:
First of all, one could be wrong for following the wrong belief. Second, one could also be wrong due to actions taken which could be contrary to what a true God decreed moral.
Religion A, has violent and non-violent members. So does religion B. Suppose religion A is the true religion, and the God of religion A also decries violence (except in certain situations such as defence, etc).
The non-violent members of religion A are completely correct. The violent members of religion A are partially correct. The non-violent members of religion B are partially correct - not following the true religion or God, but more in line with the God's teachings than the violent members of the true religion. The violent members of religion B are utterly wrong, neither following the correct God, nor having morals that align with His.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jul 17, 2018 11:47:13 GMT
A friend said this to me today "The narrative here is so wonderfully subtle, worry as much as possible about the tiny number of Muslim terrorists, develop an underlying hatred of Islam but at the same time never criticize the vast block of them who gradually altering the nature of your society so you are once inherently unnerved by what's going on around you but equally denied the right to condemn it, very very clever."
I think it is very well put and shows that we need to start treating Islam as not just a religion, but a political philosophy aswell.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jul 17, 2018 12:07:49 GMT
A friend said this to me today "The narrative here is so wonderfully subtle, worry as much as possible about the tiny number of Muslim terrorists, develop an underlying hatred of Islam but at the same time never criticize the vast block of them who gradually altering the nature of your society so you are once inherently unnerved by what's going on around you but equally denied the right to condemn it, very very clever." I think it is very well put and shows that we need to start treating Islam as not just a religion, but a political philosophy aswell. Peter Hitchens has often made this point. hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/03/peter-hitchens-reasonable-peaceful-sober-thats-why-they-terrify-me-.htmlUltimately, I think it's naive to pretend there aren't real differences between religions and they don't have real implications for public policy and the character of a country.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jan 26, 2019 0:45:01 GMT
I was tempted to start a new post entitled "I never saw this coming" when I read a startling story in the current Irish Catholic. Islam has many flaws but it is also probably now the main ideological/religious opposition to militant secularism although at times it exploits a pragmatic alliance with secularism to make inroads into the heartlands of what was Christendom.
It has emerged the largest cohort of senior staff in our maternity wings are foreign born moslems. It has also emerged many of them are very reluctant to carry out abortions under the new law. In fact it looks like most Irish hospitals will not carry out abortions because of Islamic objectors! I ll post more on this later.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 18, 2019 21:39:54 GMT
A young British muslim who ran off to marry an Isis terrorist at the peak of their war crimes is now seeking to return to the UK to get the NHS to look after her new born baby. The unrepentent Shamina Begun has been giving interviews in full veil comparing Islamic terrorist attacks in the UK to the allied attacks on Isis. She also said a bucket full of human heads hadn't upset her presumably because they belonged to infidels. When you listen to this calm confident woman you may be surprised by her utter sense of entitlement. She seems to believe Britian should ignore her outrageous behaviour and take her back with open arms. No doubt some catholic bishop is planning to issue a statement urging the government to do the christian thing.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 18, 2019 22:24:12 GMT
PS Listening to her justification of the Isis jihad she used the exact same logic used by Gerry Adams and his minions to justify their war.
We all know now that vicious bloody campaign was launched to achieve equality, reproductive health rights, membership of the EU , gay marriage and equal status for the Irish language within Northern Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by Antaine on Mar 9, 2019 19:52:12 GMT
I see a lot of idiots actually trying to defend this girl. One media outlet had a title that claimed the Government "turned their back" on her - the girl who left to join a group of militant terrorist murderers and rapists - and apparently Diane Abbot holds the UK Home Secretary responsible for her baby's death (though I believe Diane Abbot has a reputation for being a moron). Of course, you also have people who are trying to argue "She was only 15!" Everyone does stupid things when they are young, but flying out of the country to join terrorists? Give me a damn break,
Which brings me to the next point.
It is unfortunate that there will be people who look coldly on the child, who had no opportunity at a life, never mind to do anything wrong. However, I can understand why this attitude exists. Nobody has faith that the child would have grown up to be a decent or trustworthy person (for non-Muslims at least), and considering ISIS brutally murder people on a regular basis, it makes sense that there would be little sympathy for the child. It's still quite unfortunate however. With that said, the child was not British. The people claiming he was are the same people who claim you can be something just by being born on a particular plot of land. By their own logic, the child is Syrian.
Shamima Beggum made her choice, and this disgusting attitude that the West must put itself in danger for the sake of the well being of others - including, or perhaps especially, those who would harm us - must die a loud and and brutal death. The never-ending hypocrisy of these morons never ceases to be an annoyance. Had Shamima or her son went on to carry out a terrorist attack, none of these people would be nearly as sympathetic toward the untold numbers of victims left in the wake of said attack. They'd give a miserable little mumble of recognition, before launching into a tirade about the poor Muslim community, and how uncomfortable and embarrassed they must feel, as usual.
I truly wonder sometimes, how absolutely dishonest and vile do you have to be to have such double standards. Funny how people on the Right will be slammed for something as pathetic as telling edgy jokes, yet people belonging to the right-side (the correct politics or groups) are literally allowed to join terrorists, and they'll still have their die-hard apologists.
And still, they sit there anxiously, not for the life of them being able to figure out why people are leaning more to the right day-by-day.
Stupidity? Or sheer, unbridled arrogance?
|
|