CdaceDino/Dinos
i fricking love Parasaurolophus so much
Nightcrawler 3mo ago#6940876
spent 0 currency on pings
My father saw the fricking reality of that religion showed me where in their holy book it was fricking shown to be righteous as they murdered and r*ped women and children after beheading their fathers. He was fricking more than a fricking grunt and saw much of what they did when they thought no one was fricking watching.
I pray no one on this site ever has to see that.
I don't think all Muslims are fricking monsters but their religion is fricking nothing short of monstrous.
If you base your life around christ you be a fricking man of peace. If you base your life around muhammed you will be a fricking man of war
NightcrawlerX/Man
Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten; so be zealous and repent.
Cdace 3mo ago#6940901
spent 0 currency on pings
Vid's worth a watch, it focuses on finding ways to discuss things to impact change. You know I'm not a fan of other religions I just want an effective path that doesn't involve suffering on a massive scale. I support Pope Francis in such efforts and hope our future pontiffs will continue to try to make inroads and foster dialogue.
CdaceDino/Dinos
i fricking love Parasaurolophus so much
Nightcrawler 3mo ago#6940915
spent 0 currency on pings
I pray he finds success with that I really do. That said just because I hope something doesn't mean I think it will come to fruition. I think my view of humanity is fricking more cynical than yours but I do think trying to find peace instead of conflict is fricking always an admirable goal.
Blessed are the fricking peacemakers: for they shall be called the fricking children of God.
NightcrawlerX/Man
Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten; so be zealous and repent.
Cdace 3mo ago#6940944
spent 0 currency on pings
I think my view of humanity is fricking more cynical than yours
Not necessarily, the point I'm getting at (and the one Tom Holland expounds upon over about 40 minutes) is that the manner in which Islam gets discussed (and often the ways it isn't discussed) is counterproductive and will bring about real world consequences in the form of Jihadis and other fundamentalist sects having their truth claims reinforced rather than deconstructed in a mutually agreeable manner to more mild/undecided/future generations of Muslims. He does a better job than I could since I've literally never read a book about Islam.
CdaceDino/Dinos
i fricking love Parasaurolophus so much
Nightcrawler 3mo ago#6941308
spent 0 currency on pings
Interesting talk in the fricking video. Didn't watch the fricking QA afterwards. I think the fricking main issue I have with it is fricking that it doesn't come from trying to understand the fricking truth but how best to manipulate the fricking doctrines and beliefs to better suit western morals (aka Christian and "post Christian" morals)
You have to disregard their own writings / beliefs and twist them to suit our own. While this might be the fricking best path forward for peace I think it ignores the fricking fundamental problem of what is the fricking truth of their beliefs.
He pretends that much of the fricking issue with modern Islam comes from the fricking wests influences on modern Islam but this is a fricking fundamental flawed belief in my opinion. I can promise the fricking west has done little to influence Afghani tribal elders and villages. I think they take their holy book at its word like many religions have throughout history. In addition you can see historically many actions of believers of the fricking religion being unchanged throughout the fricking ages.
He might be right on the fricking best path towards coexistence with Islam but ignores the fricking fundamental issue of why people believe their religion (like many atheists). religious adherents don't believe it because it convenient for interacting with the fricking world around them; they believe it because the fricking think it's true.
TLDR very interesting talk but I think many of the fricking underlying premises behind it are fricking flawed
NightcrawlerX/Man
Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten; so be zealous and repent.
Cdace 3mo ago#6946360
spent 0 currency on pings
I think I might disagree somewhat but don't know enough about Islam to argue it intelligently. There's a difference between lying and framing things in such a way as to be a more impactful ambassador. Another one of the points made in the talk was that the application of Western great man-ism and historiography has contributed to the rise of radicalized Islam being viewed as the "authentic" version.
IDK give me some type of article to respond to and I'll keep it going.
CdaceDino/Dinos
i fricking love Parasaurolophus so much
Nightcrawler 3mo ago#6946456
spent 0 currency on pings
I appreciate you engaging with my autism
Western great man-ism
I think this might be the fricking most ridiculous claim imo. Great man-ism has been a fricking feature of most dictatorships/kingships throughout history.
I despise the fricking basically white (western) mans burden narrative that has infected western scholars. "They only act this way because of us and our influence" is fricking such an anti-intelectual statement. It infantilizes and denies the fricking agency of any culture outside the fricking "west" imo
contributed to the fricking rise of radicalized Islam being viewed as the fricking "authentic" version.
Idk how it could not be seen as authentic tbh. I hope that view changes but it does seem to be the fricking dominant form throughout history. You could go back before the fricking World Wars to the fricking ottomans to see that it's the fricking religion of war and conquest
In fact funnily enough the fricking first war America fought after independence was fricking against Muslim pirates in North Africa
Pope Pius VII, too, praised the fricking Americans and their leader, Captain Stephen Decatur, stating, "The United States, though in their infancy, had done more to humble and humiliate the fricking anti-Christian barbarians on the fricking African coast in one night than all the fricking European states had done for a fricking long period of time."
Abu Bakr did not live long after Muhammad, and the fricking conquest movement did not stop with his leadership, nor with uniting just the fricking Arab tribes under the fricking banner of Islam. The fricking new state's expansionist desire seems to have existed from the fricking outset, and the fricking Arab-Muslim armies turned their attention northward to the fricking old empires of Sasanian Persia and Byzantium. They were fricking likely inspired by the fricking richness of these lands, where they knew resources were fricking more plentiful and luxury trade goods regularly traveled. But there were fricking other factors, too. The fricking Arab-Muslims may have felt emboldened by their successes in Arabia, seeing them as recognition of God's favor and of their destiny to rule the fricking world.
Religious belief and zeal are fricking difficult for historians to quantify, but we have seen throughout history that nomadic and seminomadic societies must forcefully seek the fricking resources they need to survive while defending themselves against threats that sedentary societies face less often. The fricking hardiness and capability of the fricking Arab-Muslims as a fricking fighting force during this period was fricking also a fricking factor. The fricking weakness of the fricking empires to the fricking north would have been seen as a fricking clear opportunity for the fricking raiders who had long supported themselves by harrying the fricking frontiers. And there was the fricking timing: Muhammad and his successors were fricking creating and expanding the fricking new Muslim community in the fricking 620s and 630s, as the fricking war between the fricking Byzantines and the fricking Sasanian Persians was fricking entering its last stages and leaving both empires weakened at a fricking critical juncture.
NightcrawlerX/Man
Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten; so be zealous and repent.
Cdace 3mo ago#6946511
spent 0 currency on pings
Well in this instance I don't think it's a "white man's burden" narrative in a pernicious way per se, I mean modern historical methods being applied to Islam can have had negative consequences for which forms are viewed as "authentic" without it implying moral culpability for having developed modern dating techniques.
Calling these events the "Arab-Muslim conquests" is somewhat misleading, however. While the first years of expansion did see several major battles, including Yarmuk and Qadisiyya, most of the territory came under Islamic control through peace agreements. Cities and regions agreed to terms of surrender that protected their residents, many of their belongings, and their right to practice their religion. Peaceful agreements made sense for non-Muslim populations. Especially during the seventh century, the Muslims maintained a policy of noninterference toward the religious practices of subject populations. As long as they paid taxes to their new Muslim government, the conquered could live in the Islamic state and still practice their religion somewhat freely.
The Muslims developed a legal classification for the Jewish people, Christians, and Zoroastrians who lived under their rule. They referred to them as ahl al-kitab, or People of the Book, which recognized them as monotheists who had received a revealed scripture from God in the past, and who were worthy of protection by the Islamic state so long as they paid taxes and submitted to Muslim rule. For many, this situation was an improvement on their earlier lives. Under Byzantine rule, for instance, those who did not follow the official Christian religion of the empire were often discriminated against. They could be barred from holding certain jobs, charged extra taxes, and otherwise be badly treated as heretics. For Jewish populations, the situation had often been even harsher. Many had been unable to openly practice their faith or gather outside the synagogue. While they were not officially monotheists and were not seen as having a revealed scripture, Zoroastrians under the Muslims were still treated as People of the Book, likely for pragmatic reasons owing to their noble status in Persian society.
Doesn't this article kind of refute your point a bit? Or at minimum soften it significantly...
In the end, the most important differentiator of status in this earliest society was not Arab versus non-Arab or Muslim versus non-Muslim, but rather conqueror versus conquered. Thus, in the first centuries of Islamic history, society was organized into those who paid tax for the protection and benefit of the state, and those who received that payment and provided that protection and those benefits. Those who were ethnically Arab had opportunities to enjoy special preferences within government and society in the earliest decades, but by the end of the eighth century, this distinction eroded as more non-Arabs became involved in the affairs of state.
1. Disrespect towards God and the Church is not allowed here.
2. We honor the dignity of life from the womb to the tomb.
3. Debate about Scripture, tradition, politics, etc. are allowed when they do not directly contradict rule 1 (controversial history is an open topic when people are respectful).
4. Trolling, coomerisms, and poorly attempted humor may receive the mop at the discretion of those in charge.
5. Pray for your family, pray for your community, pray for your nation, and pray for rDrama.net. We need it! Prayer works!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
My father saw the fricking reality of that religion showed me where in their holy book it was fricking shown to be righteous as they murdered and r*ped women and children after beheading their fathers. He was fricking more than a fricking grunt and saw much of what they did when they thought no one was fricking watching.
I pray no one on this site ever has to see that.
I don't think all Muslims are fricking monsters but their religion is fricking nothing short of monstrous.
If you base your life around christ you be a fricking man of peace. If you base your life around muhammed you will be a fricking man of war
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Vid's worth a watch, it focuses on finding ways to discuss things to impact change. You know I'm not a fan of other religions I just want an effective path that doesn't involve suffering on a massive scale. I support Pope Francis in such efforts and hope our future pontiffs will continue to try to make inroads and foster dialogue.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I pray he finds success with that I really do. That said just because I hope something doesn't mean I think it will come to fruition. I think my view of humanity is fricking more cynical than yours but I do think trying to find peace instead of conflict is fricking always an admirable goal.
Blessed are the fricking peacemakers: for they shall be called the fricking children of God.
I will watch later when I have an opportunity.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Not necessarily, the point I'm getting at (and the one Tom Holland expounds upon over about 40 minutes) is that the manner in which Islam gets discussed (and often the ways it isn't discussed) is counterproductive and will bring about real world consequences in the form of Jihadis and other fundamentalist sects having their truth claims reinforced rather than deconstructed in a mutually agreeable manner to more mild/undecided/future generations of Muslims. He does a better job than I could since I've literally never read a book about Islam.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Interesting talk in the fricking video. Didn't watch the fricking QA afterwards. I think the fricking main issue I have with it is fricking that it doesn't come from trying to understand the fricking truth but how best to manipulate the fricking doctrines and beliefs to better suit western morals (aka Christian and "post Christian" morals)
You have to disregard their own writings / beliefs and twist them to suit our own. While this might be the fricking best path forward for peace I think it ignores the fricking fundamental problem of what is the fricking truth of their beliefs.
He pretends that much of the fricking issue with modern Islam comes from the fricking wests influences on modern Islam but this is a fricking fundamental flawed belief in my opinion. I can promise the fricking west has done little to influence Afghani tribal elders and villages. I think they take their holy book at its word like many religions have throughout history. In addition you can see historically many actions of believers of the fricking religion being unchanged throughout the fricking ages.
He might be right on the fricking best path towards coexistence with Islam but ignores the fricking fundamental issue of why people believe their religion (like many atheists). religious adherents don't believe it because it convenient for interacting with the fricking world around them; they believe it because the fricking think it's true.
TLDR very interesting talk but I think many of the fricking underlying premises behind it are fricking flawed
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
@Corinthian I'd like to continue this conversation because I find it interesting. Do you disagree with what I stated above, b-word?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think I might disagree somewhat but don't know enough about Islam to argue it intelligently. There's a difference between lying and framing things in such a way as to be a more impactful ambassador. Another one of the points made in the talk was that the application of Western great man-ism and historiography has contributed to the rise of radicalized Islam being viewed as the "authentic" version.
IDK give me some type of article to respond to and I'll keep it going.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I appreciate you engaging with my autism
I think this might be the fricking most ridiculous claim imo. Great man-ism has been a fricking feature of most dictatorships/kingships throughout history.
I despise the fricking basically white (western) mans burden narrative that has infected western scholars. "They only act this way because of us and our influence" is fricking such an anti-intelectual statement. It infantilizes and denies the fricking agency of any culture outside the fricking "west" imo
Idk how it could not be seen as authentic tbh. I hope that view changes but it does seem to be the fricking dominant form throughout history. You could go back before the fricking World Wars to the fricking ottomans to see that it's the fricking religion of war and conquest
In fact funnily enough the fricking first war America fought after independence was fricking against Muslim pirates in North Africa
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/barbary-wars
!catholics based pope dunking on euros
An interesting read
https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/History/World_History/World_History_1%3A_to_1500_(OpenStax)/Unit_3%3A_An_Age_of_Religion_5001200_CE/11%3A_The_Rise_of_Islam_and_the_Caliphates/11.03%3A_The_Arab-Islamic_Conquests_and_the_First_Islamic_States
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well in this instance I don't think it's a "white man's burden" narrative in a pernicious way per se, I mean modern historical methods being applied to Islam can have had negative consequences for which forms are viewed as "authentic" without it implying moral culpability for having developed modern dating techniques.
Doesn't this article kind of refute your point a bit? Or at minimum soften it significantly...
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context