The Islamic Caliphate

[dom dom bullets]

[

TimeBomb there is some truth in what you're saying but you can't blame all the arab's problems on the west

He always does this. Or if he can't find a way to blame he just throws in an unrelated atrocity committed by the west to try and compare.

[Ulysses]

The only involvement the west has had in the rise of ISIS is by taking out Hussein (who kept the fanatics in check) and putting a Shia in power. Maybe the west also helped create a power vacuum in Syria by backing assad's downfall (but this is something I imagine you supported) which also allowed ISIS to move in.

Tbh there's something very funny about this whole ISIS thing. This is a group that until recently had around 20k fighters, but controls half of iraq's oilfields (who's buying the oil?), and is simultaneously defeating the Kurds (backed by the US, trained by Israeli SF), the entire Iraqi army (trained and backed by the US, with US equipment) - [allegedly 800 fighters ran off 30k Iraqi fighters], the FSA (backed by the US), pro-Assad forces (backed by Iran and Russia), the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah (backed by Iran and gave the Israeli army problems a few years ago) in 2 countries. And no country admits to funding them. Something doesn't add up. Ulysses?

 

This was a good article: 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/16/syria-s-saudi-jihadist-problem.html. This one as well

[Mr. Martinez]

The only involvement the west has had in the rise of ISIS is by taking out Hussein (who kept the fanatics in check) and putting a Shia in power. Maybe the west also helped create a power vacuum in Syria by backing assad's downfall (but this is something I imagine you supported) which also allowed ISIS to move in.

Tbh there's something very funny about this whole ISIS thing. This is a group that until recently had around 20k fighters, but controls half of iraq's oilfields (who's buying the oil?), and is simultaneously defeating the Kurds (backed by the US, trained by Israeli SF), the entire Iraqi army (trained and backed by the US, with US equipment) - [allegedly 800 fighters ran off 30k Iraqi fighters], the FSA (backed by the US), pro-Assad forces (backed by Iran and Russia), the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah (backed by Iran and gave the Israeli army problems a few years ago) in 2 countries. And no country admits to funding them. Something doesn't add up. Ulysses?

No it doesn't.

ISIS is Israel's creation.

This whole thing is their doing.

 

The former employee at US National Security Agency (NSA), Edward Snowden, has revealed that the British and American intelligence and the Mossad worked together to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Snowden said intelligence services of three countries created a terrorist organisation that is able to attract all extremists of the world to one place, using a strategy called “the hornet’s nest”.

NSA documents refer to recent implementation of the hornet’s nest to protect the Zionist entity by creating religious and Islamic slogans.

According to documents released by Snowden, “The only solution for the protection of the Jewish state “is to create an enemy near its borders”.

Leaks revealed that ISIS leader and cleric Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi took intensive military training for a whole year in the hands of Mossad, besides courses in theology and the art of speech.

I won't post a source because there isn't one.

Time has this to say..

 

Conspiracy theories are nothing new in the Middle East, but the latest to come from Tehran is a self-protecting mechanism that could ultimately backfire

Iran’s English-language daily newspaper, the Tehran Times, recently ran a front-page story describing the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria’s (ISIS) June offensive in Iraq as part of a U.S.-backed plot to destabilize the region and protect Israel. The story was an English translation of a scoop by the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), which cited a purported interview with National Security Agency (NSA) leaker Edward Snowden.

According to the article, Snowden had described a joint U.S., British and Israeli effort to “create a terrorist organization capable of centralizing all extremist actions across the world.” The plan, according to IRNA, was code-named Beehive — or in other translations, Hornet’s Nest — and it was devised to protect Israel from security threats by diverting attention to the newly manufactured regional enemy: ISIS.

The IRNA story appears to build on, or may have even started, an Internet rumor that has assumed truthlike proportions through multiple reposts and links. No mention of a “hornet’s nest” plot can be found in Snowden’s leaked trove of U.S. intelligence documents, and even though Snowden has not publicly refuted the claim, it is safe to assume that the quoted interview never took place. (IRNA has been known to report stories from the satirical Onion newspaper as fact.) Yet Iranian government officials and independent analysts in Iran alike cited IRNA’s report as definitive proof of ISIS’s American and Israeli origins.

Back when former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in power, it was not unusual to see IRNA echoing specious wild theories dreamed up by the leadership, but since the more moderate Hassan Rouhani assumed the presidency in August 2013, the security establishment’s nuttier fantasies of deranged plots against Iran have been largely reined in. That is, until ISIS spilled out of Syria and started setting up camp next door in Iraq, where Iran has tight ties with the Shi‘ite-dominated government in Baghdad.

Even before the Snowden scoop made the rounds of Iran’s media, military commanders, citing their own sources of intelligence, struck a similar theme. On June 18, Fars News Agency quoted Major General Hassan Firoozabadi, Chief of Staff of Iran’s armed forces, saying that ISIS “is an Israel and America[n] movement for the creation of a secure border for the Zionists against the forces of resistance in the region.” That Iran’s media, along with its leaders, is focusing on ISIS’s supposed external backers — as opposed to its origins in local terrorist groups, al-Qaeda and popular discontent in both Syria and Iraq — demonstrates a concerted effort to streamline the national narrative in order to project power and preserve stability. As an example of another Western plot against Iran, ISIS can be managed — so goes Iran’s thinking. But as a new, potentially more destabilizing threat on Iran’s borders, ISIS poses challenges that the leadership is still struggling to understand and respond to. The only problem is that dismissing ISIS as a Zionist conspiracy could end up undermining Iran far more than any supposed American plot.

In its previous incarnation as an Iraqi al-Qaeda affiliate, ISIS has been responsible for thousands of Shi‘ite deaths in terrorist attacks since its formation in 2003. The group’s current success in Iraq — by some estimates it now controls a third of Iraq’s territory, including the city of Mosul — has as much to do with its considerable funding and military prowess as it does the weaknesses of the Iraqi state, led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, an Iranian-backed Shi‘ite who has alienated Iraq’s large Sunni minority. Now that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has declared himself the emir of a caliphate spanning the Syrian-Iraqi border, he continues to advocate violence against members of the Shi‘ite sect, whom he calls apostates, and has threatened to destroy Shi‘ite holy sites in an attempt to ignite an Islamic sectarian civil war. That would likely cause the Iranian-backed government in Baghdad to collapse, forcing Iran to send in troops and sparking a region-wide conflagration.

Yet Iranian government officials refuse to accept that there is a sectarian root to ISIS’s agenda, or that ISIS was able to advance in part because of Sunni discontent. When American leaders suggested that al-Maliki’s Shi‘ite chauvinism may have played a role in rallying Sunni support for the ISIS advance into Iraq, and suggested he step down, Iranians saw it as a direct threat to their influence. “When ISIS started advancing into Iraq, the first thing the Americans said was that Maliki should be changed,” says Hossein Shariatmadari, editor in chief of the government-owned conservative daily Kayhan. “Maliki was democratically elected, so what does he have to do with it? Nothing. The Americans wanted to cut the ties between Iran and Iraq.”

Instead Iran has declared the group a region-wide terrorist threat that funded and peopled by outsiders, including the U.S., Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies. So far Iran says it has not gotten directly involved in Iraq, though it is prepared to do so if necessary. (Official statements aside, there is significant evidence of Iranian support in the form of military weaponry, assistance and training, if not troops on the ground.) But if Iran does take a hand in the battle against ISIS, it will do so in the name of fighting terrorism — and not for the cause of supporting its Shi‘ite ally in government.

That’s a canny move that could explain, in part, the government line, says a Western diplomat in Tehran. To go in with an overtly sectarian agenda would invite a regional backlash that could harm Iranian interests and threaten the state. “It is in the best interest of Iran to present this group as terrorists, because that way no one can accuse Iran of backing Shi‘ites against a Sunni movement,” says the diplomat.

But if Iran continues to back Maliki against the will of a disgruntled, powerful and armed Sunni minority in Iraq, it could still invoke a backlash all the same. Which might explain why the government line also plays up the American and Mossad angle a familiar trope. If it all collapses, Iran can still blame the West for the debacle, says the diplomat. “If Iran can convince its people that there is a plot against the country that must be countered, while at the same time providing a narrative of counterterror to the world, they are protecting their interests and hedging their bets at the same time.”

Why IRNA had to concoct something so obviously fictional as a fake Snowden interview to bolster the narrative is still unclear. Even Shariatmadari, editor of Kayhan, is mystified. “I thought this interview was strange too, because all this happened after Snowden had access to those documents,” he tells TIME. Nonetheless, he ran the story on his front page as well.

[Mr. Martinez]

Make your own mind up..

[Mr. Martinez]

This also seemed fitting..

What else is there to add here, it is simple really: if need i) distraction from domestic scandal, ii) a ready source of emergency offshore oil or pushing US E&P companies to drill , or iii) a script for a Hollywood movie provisionally titled "Wag the dog", then just bomb the living crap out of Iraq. Even US presidents (all of them beginning with the first Bush) have figured it out.

Behold, the biggest contribution to the civilized world by the US military-industrial complex and their administration puppets:

Operation Desert Shield

Operation Desert Storm

Operation Provide Comfort I and II

Operation Southern Watch

Operation Desert Strike

Operation Northern Watch

Operation Desert Fox

Operation Southern Focus

Operation Iraqi Freedom

Operation New Dawn

Operation [Provide Humanitarian Aid]

P.S. Dear Iraqi people, our condolences.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-11/complete-annotated-history-us-presidents-bombing-iraq-back-middle-ages

[Guest eights]

Not bum licking or anything but this way this Ulysses geezer shuts it down each time is quite astonishing

D no-ledge is d powah

[Yuri]

Martinez I beg you stop spamming that Iranian propaganda

[Mr. Martinez]

Iranian propagada

The media tries to go on like ISIS was born out of a civil war in Syria against Assad.

People that actually understand foreign affairs understand how it happened but try to attribute it as pure complacency on behalf of bush' administration. Check this timely released doc. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/losing-iraq/

When you look at it though, US Policy in Iraq since even before the invasion was 'coincidentally' designed and implemented to alienate sunni muslims. To say it was mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake that has led to a situation where it's easy for a mossad trained Caliph to brainwash an entire group is beyond a joke.

The doc above goes into a surprising amount of detail. Remind yourselves of bush's massacre in Felucia, the joke that was Paul Bremmer. As with everything on this topic, it would be funny if it was sickening. And before Yuri tries to talk to me about islam is a evil etc, the whole thing above is a rinse repeat situation since before your mums mums mums was born.

[Flojo]

 

 

 

Tbf he demonstrated why the comparison was silly in the 1st place.

 

1 problem exists because of religion.

 

1 problem exists regardless of religion.

 

People who are actual high ranking representatives of a religious organisation covering up pedophilia is a less damning reflection of that religion than a rogue group who have no authority over other muslims? Nah mate, not in my book.  

 

People who are Muslims can look at ISIS and honestly say "they don't reflect my values and I don't identify with them at all", can a Catholic person really say that knowing that the person they deem closest to god at the head of the organisation was aware of pedophiles but did nothing about it? the foundations of it are rotten to the core.

 

 

 

You're delusional. Of course not all muslims are islamists, but the fact remains that ISIS fighters and other Islamists see themselves as peerless adherents of their faith. Do they have scripture do back up their beliefs and actions. Yes they do.  What has Breivik got to do with anything? What a baseless comparison. In what way was Breivik motivated by the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

 

A large proportion of the world is on fire as a result of Islamism. From China to Nigeria, to Palestina, to Syria, to Kenya, to Libya. And you want to compare this Phenomenon to Breivik and the Catholic Sex abuse scandal? These Islamist groups contain thousands upon thousands of Breiviks. Why are the vast majority of terrorist organisations Islamist?

 

ISIS is not a just some rogue group, they are well-financed, well-equipped organisation, that runs a substantial land mass containing some 6 million people - they are close to taking Baghdad.

 

And it is simply untrue to say that Pope Benedict did nothing about it. Where is your outrage at the fact that child marriage is entirely permissible in Islam? 

 

 

Religious scriptures for the most part are open to interpretation which is why there are so many factions that interpret various verses differently. There are moderates and extremists of every religion and I think western society freeing itself from the influence of the Church on a societal level has a lot to do with people not being killed in the name of religion as was the norm when the church ruled with an iron fist.

 

I'm not delusional I just get sick of Christians trying to put their religion on some moral pedestal as if it's any better, for your information I think they're all baseless so the point scoring that goes back and forth between any followers of the big religions is odd to me.

 

I don't even agree with a lot of Muslim teachings but I respect that it isn't a progressive religion in the way that Christianity is because it goes against everything that religion is supposed to be - a word free from doctoring that doesn't compromise it's message regardless of the context. Yet here in 2014 we have Christian's pointing at Islam and saying 'look how archaic and barbaric it is, look how demeaning it is to women'.

 

Like say comparable atrocities haven't been committed in the name of Christianity previously, half of the planet had it forced upon them. Crusades anyone?

Like say the church didn't reinforce those same repressive principles on women but suddenly change their tune when society progressed and they didn't want to be seen as one of those same archaic religions they now point and snigger at to make themselves feel good about how humane their religion is.

Why are their suddenly female pastors? have they found some new chapters of the 'word' that negates the Church's stance on this issue for the past century?

 

This need for the Christian church not to be seen as archaic is exactly the reason why the debate about gay couples being married in churches was being had not so long ago, because once again they're trying to keep up with societal changes so they can't be seen as outdated.

 

It's incredible watching people that believe in an all powerful god who has held a grudge against billions of people and overseen centuries of suffering based on the actions of some bint who wanted a granny smith try to make reasoned arguments about why their religion is more humane.

 

And the west has to take responsibility for a sizeable chunk of the places that are on fire because as you know they've contributed to the state of Africa and the Middle East as it is today.

[Flojo]

 

 

Oh comon your telling me the amount of wars, fighting etc etc just happens to be in DIFFERENT Islamic countries and has nothing to do with Islam? When most are claiming that the words in the Quran or Allah has instructed them to carry out the bullshit that they do?

And you wanna compare that to 8,000 old white men who happen to be priests who play with children like we don't already know about it being common with white old men regardless of religion

How many of these priests claimed that the reason they fondle children is because Jesus had told them to or because of words in the bible?

How many terrorists commit attrosoties claiming that Allah has instructed them to or because of words in Quran?

You're spectacularly missing the point. It can be argued that these man don't represent Islam anymore than Breivik represents Christianity.

But the pedophile priests who are actually figures of authority within the Catholic Church aren't some rogue guys who've concealed their deviancy, their actions have been excused time and time again which means they are representative of the church and that type of behaviour is tolerated.

And you didn't answer before, aren't you a Black African?

Ye iam

 

 

So how did your people become aware of Christianity, how was this belief system embedded within Black African society?

 

Did someone knock on your ancestors' door with a pamphlet which led to a civilised chat over a cup of cocoa?

[Yuri]

Iranian propagada

The media tries to go on like ISIS was born out of a civil war in Syria against Assad.

People that actually understand foreign affairs understand how it happened but try to attribute it as pure complacency on behalf of bush' administration. Check this timely released doc. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/losing-iraq/

When you look at it though, US Policy in Iraq since even before the invasion was 'coincidentally' designed and implemented to alienate sunni muslims. To say it was mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake that has led to a situation where it's easy for a mossad trained Caliph to brainwash an entire group is beyond a joke.

The doc above goes into a surprising amount of detail. Remind yourselves of bush's massacre in Felucia, the joke that was Paul Bremmer. As with everything on this topic, it would be funny if it was sickening. And before Yuri tries to talk to me about islam is a evil etc, the whole thing above is a rinse repeat situation since before your mums mums mums was born.

Nobody thinks ISIS was born out of Syria

/

Oh look Jewish conspiracy theories

[Guest Chelsea Jack]

Not bum licking or anything but this way this Ulysses geezer shuts it down each time is quite astonishing

D no-ledge is d powah

 

fam....

[darkman]

 

Tbf he demonstrated why the comparison was silly in the 1st place.

 

1 problem exists because of religion.

 

1 problem exists regardless of religion.

 

People who are actual high ranking representatives of a religious organisation covering up pedophilia is a less damning reflection of that religion than a rogue group who have no authority over other muslims? Nah mate, not in my book.  

 

People who are Muslims can look at ISIS and honestly say "they don't reflect my values and I don't identify with them at all", can a Catholic person really saying that knowing that the person they deem closest to god at the head of the organisation was aware of pedophiles but did nothing about it? the foundations of it are rotten to the core.

 

 

 

[Flojo]

 

 

Tbf he demonstrated why the comparison was silly in the 1st place.

 

1 problem exists because of religion.

 

1 problem exists regardless of religion.

 

People who are actual high ranking representatives of a religious organisation covering up pedophilia is a less damning reflection of that religion than a rogue group who have no authority over other muslims? Nah mate, not in my book.  

 

People who are Muslims can look at ISIS and honestly say "they don't reflect my values and I don't identify with them at all", can a Catholic person really saying that knowing that the person they deem closest to god at the head of the organisation was aware of pedophiles but did nothing about it? the foundations of it are rotten to the core.

 

 

 

 

What you slanting your face for

 

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome and the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church. The importance of the Roman bishop is largely derived from his role as the traditional successor to Saint Peter, to whom Jesus gave the keys of Heaven and the powers of "binding and loosing," naming him as the "rock" upon which the church would be built.

 

[Ulysses]

 

 

 

 

Tbf he demonstrated why the comparison was silly in the 1st place.

 

1 problem exists because of religion.

 

1 problem exists regardless of religion.

 

People who are actual high ranking representatives of a religious organisation covering up pedophilia is a less damning reflection of that religion than a rogue group who have no authority over other muslims? Nah mate, not in my book.  

 

People who are Muslims can look at ISIS and honestly say "they don't reflect my values and I don't identify with them at all", can a Catholic person really say that knowing that the person they deem closest to god at the head of the organisation was aware of pedophiles but did nothing about it? the foundations of it are rotten to the core.

 

 

 

You're delusional. Of course not all muslims are islamists, but the fact remains that ISIS fighters and other Islamists see themselves as peerless adherents of their faith. Do they have scripture do back up their beliefs and actions. Yes they do.  What has Breivik got to do with anything? What a baseless comparison. In what way was Breivik motivated by the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

 

A large proportion of the world is on fire as a result of Islamism. From China to Nigeria, to Palestina, to Syria, to Kenya, to Libya. And you want to compare this Phenomenon to Breivik and the Catholic Sex abuse scandal? These Islamist groups contain thousands upon thousands of Breiviks. Why are the vast majority of terrorist organisations Islamist?

 

ISIS is not a just some rogue group, they are well-financed, well-equipped organisation, that runs a substantial land mass containing some 6 million people - they are close to taking Baghdad.

 

And it is simply untrue to say that Pope Benedict did nothing about it. Where is your outrage at the fact that child marriage is entirely permissible in Islam? 

 

 

Religious scriptures for the most part are open to interpretation which is why there are so many factions that interpret various verses differently. There are moderates and extremists of every religion and I think western society freeing itself from the influence of the Church on a societal level has a lot to do with people not being killed in the name of religion as was the norm when the church ruled with an iron fist.

 

I'm not delusional I just get sick of Christians trying to put their religion on some moral pedestal as if it's any better, for your information I think they're all baseless so the point scoring that goes back and forth between any followers of the big religions is odd to me.

 

I don't even agree with a lot of Muslim teachings but I respect that it isn't a progressive religion in the way that Christianity is because it goes against everything that religion is supposed to be - a word free from doctoring that doesn't compromise it's message regardless of the context. Yet here in 2014 we have Christian's pointing at Islam and saying 'look how archaic and barbaric it is, look how demeaning it is to women'.

 

Like say comparable atrocities haven't been committed in the name of Christianity previously, half of the planet had it forced upon them. Crusades anyone?

Like say the church didn't reinforce those same repressive principles on women but suddenly change their tune when society progressed and they didn't want to be seen as one of those same archaic religions they now point and snigger at to make themselves feel good about how humane their religion is.

Why are their suddenly female pastors? have they found some new chapters of the 'word' that negates the Church's stance on this issue for the past century?

 

This need for the Christian church not to be seen as archaic is exactly the reason why the debate about gay couples being married in churches was being had not so long ago, because once again they're trying to keep up with societal changes so they can't be seen as outdated.

 

It's incredible watching people that believe in an all powerful god who has held a grudge against billions of people and overseen centuries of suffering based on the actions of some bint who wanted a granny smith try to make reasoned arguments about why their religion is more humane.

 

And the west has to take responsibility for a sizeable chunk of the places that are on fire because as you know they've contributed to the state of Africa and the Middle East as it is today.

 

 

You're just ranting now. Again you unwittingly use Christian morality and a Christian worldview to make moral judgements.

 

You don't get it do you. Of course atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity. The whole point of my argument was that any atrocity committed in the name of Christianity cannot be justified by the Gospels. Compare and contrast the lives of Jesus and Muhammad (Who Muslims view as the perfect human being). Muhammad was a warrior, he slaughtered people, he owned thousands of slaves. The Caliphs who followed Muhammed were, for all intents and purposes, imperialists and colonialists. Again compare and contrast, with the apostles of Jesus Christ, and the early church fathers, who were martyred in the worst possible ways.  

 

Christianity was forced on who? You cannot force someone to be a Christian. Christianity, for the most part, was spread throughout the world by missionaries who could only compel men with their bibles. Again compare and contrast with an Islamic tradition of forced conversion under the threat of violence, or second-class citizenship, as we see today with ISIS. There are large tracts of the British and French Empires who kept their indigenous religions, for example: in India, North Africa, Burma, Northern Nigeria. But no, as you said, these european empires forced half the world to be Christian, as evidenced by the new KICC megachurch in New Dehli. On the other hand Christian communities which have existed, since antiquity, in dioceses such as Mosul, continue to thrive... Oh wait...nvm.

 

True Christianity is the same as the religion practiced by the early church fathers. Every religion has heretics. But no-one in the church issues fatwas against them. What repressive principles did Church enact against women? You are ignorant of how revolutionary Pauline teaching was for women in the 1st century. In what way has the Bible been doctored? Don't make such baseless statements if you cannot back it up.  

 

So you in your words, you respect Islam because it is not a progressive religion despite being a progressive yourself, yet you deride some Christian denominations for being progressive. Makes a lot of sense. 

 

But it's telling that you refer to the crusades, an event that happened several centuries ago, that bears no relevance to today. Remind me again what the topic of this thread is again. It's not a Christian Caliphate we're talking about. You just engage in shameless whataboutery to deflect from a very modern problem of Islamism. 

[Ulysses]

 

 

 

Oh comon your telling me the amount of wars, fighting etc etc just happens to be in DIFFERENT Islamic countries and has nothing to do with Islam? When most are claiming that the words in the Quran or Allah has instructed them to carry out the bullshit that they do?

And you wanna compare that to 8,000 old white men who happen to be priests who play with children like we don't already know about it being common with white old men regardless of religion

How many of these priests claimed that the reason they fondle children is because Jesus had told them to or because of words in the bible?

How many terrorists commit attrosoties claiming that Allah has instructed them to or because of words in Quran?

You're spectacularly missing the point. It can be argued that these man don't represent Islam anymore than Breivik represents Christianity.

But the pedophile priests who are actually figures of authority within the Catholic Church aren't some rogue guys who've concealed their deviancy, their actions have been excused time and time again which means they are representative of the church and that type of behaviour is tolerated.

And you didn't answer before, aren't you a Black African?

Ye iam

 

 

So how did your people become aware of Christianity, how was this belief system embedded within Black African society?

 

Did someone knock on your ancestors' door with a pamphlet which led to a civilised chat over a cup of cocoa?

 

 

So what? 

 

Christianity was an african religion before it was a western european religion. There was a Bishop of Aksum before there was an Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

Whether we like it or not European missionaries brought modernisation to Africa. For example, these missionaries brought western education, trade and medicine with them. Missionaries were not allowed in every part of Nigeria, but the regions they were allowed in, continues to be the wealthiest and more educated parts of nigeria. Why do you think there is such an economic and educational disparity between Northern and Southern Nigeria, to this day?

 

A lot black people romanticise traditional african religions. But there is nothing romantic about human sacrifice, the killing of twins, cannibalism, or the practice of ensuring that when a king dies, his servants are buried alive with him.

[Guest Chelsea Jack]

nah the way this don keeps fucking up the set and getting reloads in the rave... JESU

[ag.]

 

 

 

 

Oh comon your telling me the amount of wars, fighting etc etc just happens to be in DIFFERENT Islamic countries and has nothing to do with Islam? When most are claiming that the words in the Quran or Allah has instructed them to carry out the bullshit that they do?

And you wanna compare that to 8,000 old white men who happen to be priests who play with children like we don't already know about it being common with white old men regardless of religion

How many of these priests claimed that the reason they fondle children is because Jesus had told them to or because of words in the bible?

How many terrorists commit attrosoties claiming that Allah has instructed them to or because of words in Quran?

You're spectacularly missing the point. It can be argued that these man don't represent Islam anymore than Breivik represents Christianity.

But the pedophile priests who are actually figures of authority within the Catholic Church aren't some rogue guys who've concealed their deviancy, their actions have been excused time and time again which means they are representative of the church and that type of behaviour is tolerated.

And you didn't answer before, aren't you a Black African?

Ye iam

 

 

So how did your people become aware of Christianity, how was this belief system embedded within Black African society?

 

Did someone knock on your ancestors' door with a pamphlet which led to a civilised chat over a cup of cocoa?

 

 

So what? 

 

Christianity was an african religion before it was a western european religion. There was a Bishop of Aksum before there was an Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

Whether we like it or not European missionaries brought modernisation to Africa. For example, these missionaries brought western education, trade and medicine with them. Missionaries were not allowed in every part of Nigeria, but the regions they were allowed in, continues to be the wealthiest and more educated parts of nigeria. Why do you think there is such an economic and educational disparity between Northern and Southern Nigeria, to this day?

 

A lot black people romanticise traditional african religions. But there is nothing romantic about human sacrifice, the killing of twins, cannibalism, or the practice of ensuring that when a king dies, his servants are buried alive with him.

 

christianity was definitely not an african religion before it was western

/

aged western religious practice seems just as mad in places so what, what is ur point

[Bobby Reds]

LOL @ thinking all missionaries did was compel people with their bibles

 

them missionaries are sent in by the people first, just to see whats what.

 

bring their diseases with them aswell, and then wanna talk about medicine.

[time_bomb]

nah the way this don keeps f*cking up the set and getting reloads in the rave... JESU

 

but the majority of it is factually inaccurate 

[Guest eights]

 

 

 

 

 

Tbf he demonstrated why the comparison was silly in the 1st place.

 

1 problem exists because of religion.

 

1 problem exists regardless of religion.

 

People who are actual high ranking representatives of a religious organisation covering up pedophilia is a less damning reflection of that religion than a rogue group who have no authority over other muslims? Nah mate, not in my book.  

 

People who are Muslims can look at ISIS and honestly say "they don't reflect my values and I don't identify with them at all", can a Catholic person really say that knowing that the person they deem closest to god at the head of the organisation was aware of pedophiles but did nothing about it? the foundations of it are rotten to the core.

 

 

 

You're delusional. Of course not all muslims are islamists, but the fact remains that ISIS fighters and other Islamists see themselves as peerless adherents of their faith. Do they have scripture do back up their beliefs and actions. Yes they do.  What has Breivik got to do with anything? What a baseless comparison. In what way was Breivik motivated by the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

 

A large proportion of the world is on fire as a result of Islamism. From China to Nigeria, to Palestina, to Syria, to Kenya, to Libya. And you want to compare this Phenomenon to Breivik and the Catholic Sex abuse scandal? These Islamist groups contain thousands upon thousands of Breiviks. Why are the vast majority of terrorist organisations Islamist?

 

ISIS is not a just some rogue group, they are well-financed, well-equipped organisation, that runs a substantial land mass containing some 6 million people - they are close to taking Baghdad.

 

And it is simply untrue to say that Pope Benedict did nothing about it. Where is your outrage at the fact that child marriage is entirely permissible in Islam? 

 

 

Religious scriptures for the most part are open to interpretation which is why there are so many factions that interpret various verses differently. There are moderates and extremists of every religion and I think western society freeing itself from the influence of the Church on a societal level has a lot to do with people not being killed in the name of religion as was the norm when the church ruled with an iron fist.

 

I'm not delusional I just get sick of Christians trying to put their religion on some moral pedestal as if it's any better, for your information I think they're all baseless so the point scoring that goes back and forth between any followers of the big religions is odd to me.

 

I don't even agree with a lot of Muslim teachings but I respect that it isn't a progressive religion in the way that Christianity is because it goes against everything that religion is supposed to be - a word free from doctoring that doesn't compromise it's message regardless of the context. Yet here in 2014 we have Christian's pointing at Islam and saying 'look how archaic and barbaric it is, look how demeaning it is to women'.

 

Like say comparable atrocities haven't been committed in the name of Christianity previously, half of the planet had it forced upon them. Crusades anyone?

Like say the church didn't reinforce those same repressive principles on women but suddenly change their tune when society progressed and they didn't want to be seen as one of those same archaic religions they now point and snigger at to make themselves feel good about how humane their religion is.

Why are their suddenly female pastors? have they found some new chapters of the 'word' that negates the Church's stance on this issue for the past century?

 

This need for the Christian church not to be seen as archaic is exactly the reason why the debate about gay couples being married in churches was being had not so long ago, because once again they're trying to keep up with societal changes so they can't be seen as outdated.

 

It's incredible watching people that believe in an all powerful god who has held a grudge against billions of people and overseen centuries of suffering based on the actions of some bint who wanted a granny smith try to make reasoned arguments about why their religion is more humane.

 

And the west has to take responsibility for a sizeable chunk of the places that are on fire because as you know they've contributed to the state of Africa and the Middle East as it is today.

 

 

You're just ranting now. Again you unwittingly use Christian morality and a Christian worldview to make moral judgements.

 

You don't get it do you. Of course atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity. The whole point of my argument was that any atrocity committed in the name of Christianity cannot be justified by the Gospels. Compare and contrast the lives of Jesus and Muhammad (Who Muslims view as the perfect human being). Muhammad was a warrior, he slaughtered people, he owned thousands of slaves. The Caliphs who followed Muhammed were, for all intents and purposes, imperialists and colonialists. Again compare and contrast, with the apostles of Jesus Christ, and the early church fathers, who were martyred in the worst possible ways.  

 

Christianity was forced on who? You cannot force someone to be a Christian. Christianity, for the most part, was spread throughout the world by missionaries who could only compel men with their bibles. Again compare and contrast with an Islamic tradition of forced conversion under the threat of violence, or second-class citizenship, as we see today with ISIS. There are large tracts of the British and French Empires who kept their indigenous religions, for example: in India, North Africa, Burma, Northern Nigeria. But no, as you said, these european empires forced half the world to be Christian, as evidenced by the new KICC megachurch in New Dehli. On the other hand Christian communities which have existed, since antiquity, in dioceses such as Mosul, continue to thrive... Oh wait...nvm.

 

True Christianity is the same as the religion practiced by the early church fathers. Every religion has heretics. But no-one in the church issues fatwas against them. What repressive principles did Church enact against women? You are ignorant of how revolutionary Pauline teaching was for women in the 1st century. In what way has the Bible been doctored? Don't make such baseless statements if you cannot back it up.  

 

So you in your words, you respect Islam because it is not a progressive religion despite being a progressive yourself, yet you deride some Christian denominations for being progressive. Makes a lot of sense. 

 

But it's telling that you refer to the crusades, an event that happened several centuries ago, that bears no relevance to today. Remind me again what the topic of this thread is again. It's not a Christian Caliphate we're talking about. You just engage in shameless whataboutery to deflect from a very modern problem of Islamism. 

 

 

if this is 100% true then SMH

[Flojo]

You're just ranting now. Again you unwittingly use Christian morality and a Christian worldview to make moral judgements.

 

You don't get it do you. Of course atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity. The whole point of my argument was that any atrocity committed in the name of Christianity cannot be justified by the Gospels. Compare and contrast the lives of Jesus and Muhammad (Who Muslims view as the perfect human being). Muhammad was a warrior, he slaughtered people, he owned thousands of slaves. The Caliphs who followed Muhammed were, for all intents and purposes, imperialists and colonialists. Again compare and contrast, with the apostles of Jesus Christ, and the early church fathers, who were martyred in the worst possible ways. 

 

 

 

Maybe I am ranting but like I said Christians pointing at Islam and acting as if it's backwards and barbaric does my nut in. I'm of the opinion that the major religions have done more harm than good and will continue to do so. The premise of them all is for the most part the same and although there are differences,  the numerous contradictions, obscure outlines of morality which are fair game for being interpreted in a variety of ways dependent on what the agenda is of the reader amongst other things makes them all round about as believable as each other for me. That's why I find the idea of reasoned posturing between people of different faiths weird, if you're going to use reasoning to point out the flaws in other religions then do it across the board and apply it to your own as well.

 

Christianity was forced on who? You cannot force someone to be a Christian. Christianity, for the most part, was spread throughout the world by missionaries who could only compel men with their bibles. Again compare and contrast with an Islamic tradition of forced conversion under the threat of violence, or second-class citizenship, as we see today with ISIS. There are large tracts of the British and French Empires who kept their indigenous religions, for example: in India, North Africa, Burma, Northern Nigeria. But no, as you said, these european empires forced half the world to be Christian, as evidenced by the new KICC megachurch in New Dehli. On the other hand Christian communities which have existed, since antiquity, in dioceses such as Mosul, continue to thrive... Oh wait...nvm.

 

 

In Brazil and other parts of South America the Europeans outlawed the natives practicing their own religions and forced them to practice Catholicism, one way the natives got round this was by drawing similarities between the god of their religions and the Catholic Saints thus allowing them to covertly worship their gods whilst not risking the wrath of their occupiers. To this day there are a lot of people who practice these religions in secret so as not to be discriminated against. I learned about this reading about Bolivar and his efforts to free the continent from the Europeans

 

 

The number of Umbandistas in Brazil is estimated at 400,000 — a small slice in this nation of 200 million.

 

But it could be much higher.

 

Many practice secretly — to avoid discrimination, threats, and vandalism — the price they often bear for adhering to a religion many Brazilians consider the devil's work. This is a predominantly Catholic nation, but Umbanda historian Pedro Miranda said discrimination comes mostly from a different corner.

 

"The Pentecostals preach constantly against the religious acts that occur within the Umbanda temples," he said.

 

Pentecostals, or Evangelicals, have flourished here in recent decades, and now make up almost a fifth of Brazil's population. Umbandistas say they've always been targets, both before and after the 1989 signing of Brazil's constitution, which protects religious freedom. For years, the threats came from the government — which at times banned the practice or forced followers to register with authorities.

 

 

I don't really understand anybody who accepts a religion at face value without looking at the context in which it became part of their cultural makeup, as a black person I feel that the circumstances in which these 'mainstream' religions were embedded within our culture and who instigated it is hugely important.

 

True Christianity is the same as the religion practiced by the early church fathers. Every religion has heretics. But no-one in the church issues fatwas against them. What repressive principles did Church enact against women? You are ignorant of how revolutionary Pauline teaching was for women in the 1st century. In what way has the Bible been doctored? Don't make such baseless statements if you cannot back it up. 

 

 

 

I get the feeling you're a Christian and I might have offended you here, if so I apologise but the idea that any religious text has survived through the ages through the numerous edits and translations with no degree of error is something I find to difficult to believe.

 

I always like to hear the opinions of people who had a vested interest to subscribe to a belief or cause but admitted that what they thought initially believed was wrong, especially with something like religion that means making a huge mental and spiritual investment. 

 

I'm not sure if you're aware of the work of Bart Ehrman, he's a New testament scholar and former Christian who eventually became agnostic. He's dedicated his life to not just understanding the bible but also to linking it to the historical and societal context into which it was written. He argues that forgery was rife amongst Christian writers of the time and that some of the books of the bible were written in the name of Apostles by writers years later, he also argues that there are a lot of mistranslations in the new testaments.

 

Closer to home look at the difference in opinion between various religious denominations on the validity of Apocrypha, if people of the same faith can't even agree between themselves on what's entirely legit than I think it's fair to say down the line it's been doctored. With all that said that's not what I find weirdest about progressive religions, it's more so the efforts to reinterpret scripture in an attempt to find a new angle to suit societal changes.

 

So you in your words, you respect Islam because it is not a progressive religion despite being a progressive yourself, yet you deride some Christian denominations for being progressive. Makes a lot of sense.

 

 

That's exactly what I'm saying, my respect for something isn't based on whether or not I necessarily agree with it. It's pretty simple, if the word is the word as religious people often profess then how it's interpreted and applied shouldn't change over time which is why the notion of a progressive religion is surely an abomination in itself.

 

If you're religious the way in which society moves shouldn't influence the principles at the foundation of your religion, they are the word of god and don't alter for anyone which is why I asked about female pastors. For hundreds of years females were prohibited from holding high ranking positions in the church and scriptures were presented as the basis for this (I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man Timothy 2:12) . With the advancement of feminism in society on the whole we've seen the church follow suit and embrace the idea that gender isn't an issue like they once thought it was, my question is what about the scripture that they've been reading for centuries has changed to the point whereby there's been such a big shift on this? Or is it more a case of moving with the times?

 

 

But it's telling that you refer to the crusades, an event that happened several centuries ago, that bears no relevance to today. Remind me again what the topic of this thread is again. It's not a Christian Caliphate we're talking about. You just engage in shameless whataboutery to deflect from a very modern problem of Islamism.

 

 

You're right but this links in with what I mentioned earlier about Western society freeing itself from the constraints of religion in a way that Islamic states didn't. I do object to people painting the problems of the world as rooted in Islam or any other religion for that matter because I actually think people on the whole are just fucked, we'll always find something to justify whatever fuckery we do.

[Benicio del Toney]

 

I don't even agree with a lot of Muslim teachings but I respect that it isn't a progressive religion in the way that Christianity is because it goes against everything that religion is supposed to be - a word free from doctoring that doesn't compromise it's message regardless of the context. Yet here in 2014 we have Christian's pointing at Islam and saying 'look how archaic and barbaric it is, look how demeaning it is to women'.

 

In your noble pursuit of impartiality you have actually descended to levels of lunacy.

 

How can you say you respect a non progressive religion that doesn't compromise it's message regardless of context?

 

Try to look past this trivial point scoring stuff you have in your head for a minute, think about religion in a worldly context.

 

How can civilization and science make such advances and yet perspective not advance also.

 

You said yourself scriptures are open to interpretation why would you expect that interpretation not to become refined as we move forward as a society?

 

One doesn't interpret a line from Shakespeare at 3 years old as one does at 23, in essence you are saying we should maintain the viewpoint of a 3 year old for our entire lives.

 

It's this type of rigid adherence to religion which has fuelled the situation with Israel Palestine on both sides, as I said in that thread it seems out of place in today's world.

 

The son of the Hamas leader in the video you posted converted to Christianity, it's fair to say he would disagree with your view on what religion is supposed to be, as would many others.

[Guest eights]

I don't even agree with a lot of Muslim teachings but I respect that it isn't a progressive religion in the way that Christianity is because it goes against everything that religion is supposed to be - a word free from doctoring that doesn't compromise it's message regardless of the context. Yet here in 2014 we have Christian's pointing at Islam and saying 'look how archaic and barbaric it is, look how demeaning it is to women'.

One doesn't interpret a line from Shakespeare at 3 years old as one does at 23, in essence you are saying we should maintain the viewpoint of a 3 year old for our entire lives.

This is exactly what I always tell a Muslim brother when he tells me the bible has been "changed'

[time_bomb]

 

 

I don't even agree with a lot of Muslim teachings but I respect that it isn't a progressive religion in the way that Christianity is because it goes against everything that religion is supposed to be - a word free from doctoring that doesn't compromise it's message regardless of the context. Yet here in 2014 we have Christian's pointing at Islam and saying 'look how archaic and barbaric it is, look how demeaning it is to women'.

 

In your noble pursuit of impartiality you have actually descended to levels of lunacy.

 

How can you say you respect a non progressive religion that doesn't compromise it's message regardless of context?

 

Try to look past this trivial point scoring stuff you have in your head for a minute, think about religion in a worldly context.

 

How can civilization and science make such advances and yet perspective not advance also.

 

You said yourself scriptures are open to interpretation why would you expect that interpretation not to become refined as we move forward as a society?

 

One doesn't interpret a line from Shakespeare at 3 years old as one does at 23, in essence you are saying we should maintain the viewpoint of a 3 year old for our entire lives.

 

It's this type of rigid adherence to religion which has fuelled the situation with Israel Palestine on both sides, as I said in that thread it seems out of place in today's world.

 

The son of the Hamas leader in the video you posted converted to Christianity, it's fair to say he would disagree with your view on what religion is supposed to be, as would many others.

 

 

But theres a difference in applying the original teachings to a modern day society and completely changing what was originally written. As flojo pointed out in one post, gays getting married in a church? That is not progressive, its completely against the religion.