Cartoons published in Denmark make Muslims worldwide go berserk.
Article here:…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Islam - Religion Of Intolerance - Comments Page 9
Cartoons published in Denmark make Muslims worldwide go berserk.
Article here:…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments376 - Jordan Richardson
Oh I see what you did there.
377 - Patrick
Jordan:
I presume, based on my readings, that Islam wants to take over the world, and kill everyone who doesn't agree that there is only one god: Allah, and that Muhammad was the last prophet, with the last word on this subject. I'm willing to listen to other viewpoints, and specifically, to any muslim who feels he or she can express an opinion on the matter without violating religious precepts.
I assume, since I haven't gotten an answer to the BIG Question (#350)from such a muslim, that "Allah is all-tolerant, all-loving, and all-merciful", and that most muslims try to emulate Allah by imitating a Muhammed who was also "all-tolerant, all-loving, and all-merciful", as a working hypothesis, until evidence comes along to refute the hypothesis; whatever my preconceptions (see the first paragraph).
This has been interesting so far.
By the way, I missed the Rorschach business. What number has the link?
Patrick
378 - zingzing
patrick,
we've said "yes," and we've said "no," and we've said "sometimes." none of these answers do it for you. if there is an other answer we can give you, please, let us know.
here are some, maybe one will be correct:
"toledo"
"travel options"
"near-sighted"
"i mean far-sighted! shit, i always do that."
"7, but only on the second tuesday of the month"
"almond butter"
"pants down"
"rumblestrip"
"$55.99"
"counter-clockwise, until smooth"
let me know. thanks.
379 - zingzing
damn it. take all my fun away by actually saying something with some merit. that's what i get for not refreshing before i comment, i guess.
380 - Clavos
Double-entry bookkeeping?
Hhhmmm...
And how does that make you feel?
381 - Dr Dreadful
I feel like finishing my accounts and sitting down to watch ESPN with a sandwich.
382 - Patrick
Zingzing:
I thought you weren't a muslim. You're answers don't count.
Patrick
PS Keep them coming anyway. I believe if you take the time, you will find that your answers weren't "Yes", or "No", but "sometimes". This is the same as "It depends"; and so it does. But it doesn't get me an answer, from a muslim, to the BIG Question (#350).
383 - Clavos
A sandwich, eh?
Interrressting...
Did your mother give you sandwiches when you were little?
384 - Dr Dreadful
Did your mother make you lie on a couch and ask you leading questions when you were little?
And lose the beard, man. It looks ridiculous.
385 - Clavos
Hhmm.
Agression issues.
Well, time's up; see you next week.
386 - Dr Dreadful
Perhaps I should've gone with Carl Rogers...
387 - Clavos
Hhmm...
What do you mean by "gone with?"
388 - Cindy D
LOL! @ Clav
389 - Jordan Richardson
Patrick, you're missing the point.
The answer in terms of your question isn't a black and white answer or a yes or no answer. It IS a "sometimes" answer and it does depend on a lot of factors, namely cultural and theological factors.
It depends on how you interpret the Qur'an, what your views are on abrogation, and so on. You're asking for a simplified answer to how a particular deistic concept feels and no follower of Islam is going to answer you in a concrete fashion.
390 - Patrick
Jordan:
That is exactly my point.
Patrick
391 - Jordan Richardson
But you keep claiming you haven't received an answer to your BIG question....
Ah, whatever.
392 - Patrick
Jordan:
Exactly! I haven't received an answer from an authority on the BIG Question, such as a Muslim (of whatever philosophical bent), yet.
Keep the comments coming, though.
Patrick
393 - Dr Dreadful
Oh, for crying out loud, Patrick...
The answer is 42. End of argument.
394 - Jordan Richardson
Patrick, I've studied Islam and world religions for about 15 (give or take) years now. Do I need to convert to Islam in order for my answers to have validity to you?
And if Doc's answer doesn't suffice, I don't know what to tell you. It is 42.
395 - Patrick
Doc:
No argument, although the answer is not enlightening.
Patrick
396 - Dr Dreadful
And Patrick, in all seriousness and if you're not just dicking us around for your own amusement, if you really want an answer to your question from an actual Muslim you could do a lot worse than to go and ask it on a Muslim blog.
397 - Patrick
Jordan:
Yes.
Patrick
398 - Patrick
Doc:
Riiiiiiiight! That'll shut me up alright.
Patrick
399 - Jordan Richardson
Alright, done:
Al-hamdulillah 'ala kool ahal. Mubarak!
The answer is still 42, Patrick.
400 - Dr Dreadful
Not trying to shut you up. I did say 'in all seriousness'. Let us know what you find out.
401 - Cindy D
Dr.D,
@#393
Ah, my very favorite book ever written. The answer to life, the universe and everything!
With all the advances in special effects etc. I always wonder why they cannot ever seem to make a good movie out of it.
Well, so long, and thanks for all the fish.
402 - Dr Dreadful
Yeah, Cindy, I was majorly disappointed in the movie too. So much potential there, especially with the phenomenal cast they put together: Stephen Fry as the Book and Alan Rickman as Marvin were perfect choices. But somehow it just didn't gel.
Maybe if Douglas had still been alive... ah well. Life. Don't talk to me about life...
403 - Cindy D
Dr.D,
Did you see the BBC TV production? In some ways it was better--maybe because I saw it first (though, not what I would call good).
However, if you have never done so, you owe it to yourself to acquire the original BBC Radio Production from the 70s. (Going to that link I discovered they have made some new additions to the radio series in 2004 and beyond, what fun!) It makes the whole thing come alive. It is exactly what a reader of the book wants in a production. I guarantee it to be an utter delight.
I listen to it every so often when I have sufficiently forgotten enough to make it fun again.
404 - Cindy D
Oh, I just discovered Douglas Adams wrote the BBC Radio series before he wrote the books. No wonder they were so wonderful.
405 - Dr Dreadful
Yes, the original radio show is the definitive version, in my view, although the books come a close second. The trilogy (in all five parts!) is the book I would want with me if I ever happened to be stranded on a desert island.
I remember listening to the radio episodes when they first came out: it was like nothing else on radio at the time, before or since. I don't own them but I have borrowed them from the library numerous times. I do possess a copy of the original radio scripts, annotated by Adams (in his inimitable style) and by the show's producer, Geoffrey Perkins. (Actually, I lent it to a friend about two years ago and it really is about time she gave it back...!)
I've also seen the TV show a few times. Like you, I'm not crazy about it but it is a sight better than the movie - possibly because it involved many of the radio cast members reprising their roles.
406 - Dan Miller
Cindy D,
I think the best version of HHG is the one actually read by Douglas Adams. At one time I had the cassettes, but they were attacked by salt water on the boat. Oh well.
Dan
407 - Cindy D
That's a good one Dan. I accidentally bought that once when I was replacing my BBC cassette tapes with CDs.
I will actually have to try listening to it. I started to, but maybe unfairly, put it aside and once again put the BBC production on.
pssst...Dan...we don't say HHG anymore. It's now H2G2.
408 - bliffle
In fact, no religion can continue to exist unless it is absolutely intolerant of every competitor to it's 'god' and its Holy Texts. The very idea of allowing accomodation with a contrary belief is intolerable. Because a religions 'god' is all powerful and the Holy Text is sacrosanct.
Intolerance is an absolute essential of an absolute religion. And that goes for christianity, too.
Anything less than unending hostility to other religions is simply a ruse designed to seduce and proselytize.
At least Islam is relatively (but only relatively) honest. "There is no god but (our) god".
And it shows up in their policy of: demand everything and give nothing.
409 - Jordan Richardson
"Because a religions 'god' is all powerful and the Holy Text is sacrosanct."
That all depends on one's individual philosophy. I'd suggest for more information on this type of thing, you should look into some liberal theology on the various world's religions. Bishop John Shelby Spong, while pretty close to a heretic amongst orthodox Christians, is a good place to start for a different Christian perspective. And each religion in the world, believe it or not, has their version of a Spong or a John Dominic Crossan, who tinkers and adapts dogma to make it more fluid and more inclusive. Liberal and progressive members of various faiths believe that the path they have chosen is right for THEM (as individuals), but by no means assert to know what is right for YOU (or others). This pluralism is catching on and it would do individuals like Bliffle a great deal of good to look into some of the more liberal theology out there, even if it does fly in the face of all that is "known" about religion.
Going even further back, you could check out Honest to God by John A.T. Robinson or other books by early liberal theologians. I think there's a schism there that often goes ignored by the largely Evangelical Christian population in North America and many would be well served to check some of that out.
Point is to say that while many religions do owe their survival, in part, to being "intolerant" (I may quibble semantics on this term in usage here another time) of other paths, many religious avenues have often been inhabited by those with varying views. It just seems, as is always historically the case, that those viewpoints aren't as commonly heard. But they are there, even in Islam. Irshad Manji springs to mind.
410 - Irene Wagner
Bliffle. And? Atheism would cease to exist if it admitted the possiblity of God, and began to be anything other than absolutely intolerant of every competitor to its own worldview. It would then no longer be atheism, but would instead be agnosticism. Communists have taken the idea of intolerant atheism to a new level through systematic efforts to exterminate---physically exterminate---people of all faiths.
Adherents to various religions have also taken intolerance to that same level. The reason the major faiths of the world continue to exist today after millenia is that they STOPPED doing that. Moderate Islam will keep on going long after the hatred inherent to radical Islam has burned its adherencts out. As for the Jews, their own religion teaches them they'll get so many people mad at them God will have to come down and rescue them before they are exterminated. That's what I believe, too. Today Catholics and Protestants, for example, may tease each other about being "heretics"--and even have serious arguments about doctrine that can get every bit as heated as political fights I've read here-- but for the most part they can work together and with Jews and moderate Muslims--even atheists--on human rights issues for example, that draw people who share a common humanity together.
Sure, some Christians can be just as obnoxious about spreading Christianity as some "New Atheists" are about spreading atheism. In fact, some of the most obnoxious atheists were brought up in the most obnoxious Christian families. Some apples never fall too far from the tree, I guess. Or to put it more charitably, many of the problems people have with the family's religion are, at root, problems with mom and dad, not God.
411 - Jordan Richardson
Amen to that last paragraph, Irene. Preach!
412 - Irene Wagner
Pretty spooky, Jordan Richardson. We agree, sort of, which is spooky enough, and then posted only a minute apart. 'Course I'm a fundamentalist Christian, which is why the forces of the Universe conspired to give me the last word.
413 - Jordan Richardson
That also explains why it's raining over here. ;)
414 - Clavos
My parents were a devout Catholic (mom) and an equally convinced atheist dad.
I have been both.
Now, I'm indifferent to the whole god/religion thing; I've found I'm happiest and do just fine without embracing either.
415 - Irene Wagner
Thankyou Clavos.
The phrase "many of the problems people have with the family's religion" should be "the problems many people have with the family's religion" in comment--yikes #410. SOMEBODY'd better have the last word! This had better be mine, anyway. :)
416 - bliffle
Of course atheism must be as intolerant as a religion since it professes absolutely there is no god. Same intolerance as any religion.
The villain in all these beliefs is intolerance. If one has an absolute belief then one cannot be tolerant of opposing or contrary views.
Indifference is more appropriate than belief. There's no good reason to believe in any god nor in any holy texts.
417 - Dr Dreadful
Of course atheism must be as intolerant as a religion since it professes absolutely there is no god.
That's an illogical statement. It's not possible to be intolerant of something that doesn't exist.
418 - RJ Elliott
I don't think he meant that atheists are intolerant of God. I think he meant that atheists are intolerant of people who believe in God.
I'd say he's right. To confirm this theory, all one needs to do is go to alt.atheism in Google Groups and type a post along the lines of, "Hi everyone. I'm an Evangelical Christian. How are you today?" and wait for the shitstorm... :-/
419 - Jordan Richardson
Hate to say it, and you may have to bookmark this, but RJ's right. The recent tomes from the New Atheists (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, that other guy) confirm this intolerance in bold, obnoxious ways.
And Bliffle, my spiritual compulsion is the reason I believe in God. There's no way I can factually defend it, which is why I rarely get in the business of apologetics. But I do feel a compulsion to believe in an infinite deity, which is as good a reason as any to centre my life in such a fashion. My beliefs do not lead to intolerance and I do not believe that apathy is the only safe ground on which to go through this crazed existence. I think religion is at its most intolerant when individual adherents begin to characterize God or deistic identities in ways that serve their interests or ways that exemplify the characteristics they'd most like to see.
In some way, I'm indifferent to what God is really like and to identifying her (or him or it) and am more passionate about the application of the teachings of Christ and other "prophets" to my life. To me, that is my religion. To others, it's heretical. Go figure.
420 - Christopher Rose
It depends how you mean it, bliffle. I don't mind people believing in gods or astrology or any other unsubstantiated theory for that matter. I just get intolerant when they try and insert their personal views into the legal or education systems for example.
421 - Clavos
bliffle @#416:
I was agreeing with you (yes, it does happen!) throughout that post, until this:
"There's no good reason to believe in any god nor in any holy texts."
Which, by virtue of being stated (as opposed to simply being held as a private principle), is intolerant.
422 - Dr Dreadful
Well, of course RJ is right to an extent [pauses, turns head to one side and down, screams silently behind hand ;-)], although his example is hardly representative of a broad spectrum of opinion. Those special interest boards tend to devolve to a bunch of people patting one another on the back about how great their particular special interest is. I mean, if you were to drop by a model railroading board and say, "So - grown men playing with toy trains. You're really a sad bunch of mofos, aren't you?" the reaction would not be polite.
But my response to Bliffle really has its roots in the post that started this whole (sub-)discussion: namely, Patrick's question about whether Allah specifically - not Islam - was intolerant of other faiths. The whole atheism-intolerance thing, to my mind, was just flipping that around.
423 - Druxxx
Jordan
You get to the problem with religion and why I believe there is a god but refuse to follow any religion.
Your relationship with god has to be personal. Different religions try to lump people together under one set of beliefs. Usually these beliefs become self serving. People become brainwashed and stop thinking for ones self.
RJ is right in that religion at its core has to be intolerant to keep being a specific religion. To keep itself autonomous. If religions got all progressive like Jordan talks about, there would eventually become one religion or none at all. You would have believers and atheists. Tolerance would eventually make a specific religion obsolete.
424 - Jordan Richardson
I think religion has to keep that way at its core to keep in touch with human nature. Let's face it: people love feeling exclusive. They love knowing something nobody else knows, practicing something nobody else practices, they love believing they're superior.
The teachings of Christ and most religious prophets from Lao Tzu, Confucius, and most others was based around NOT believing in superiority but rather believing in unity. We're all "God's creation" for instance, and therefore need to work together in compassion and love. That's why Christ's FIRST teachings and Paul's reiteration of those teachings spoke of love and compassion before any of the other dogmatic stuff took place (one can argue how dogmatic Christ was a later date, as I think there's a sound argument that the majority of contemporary Christian dogma has little to do with what Christ actually taught and said, ie. Trinity theology).
When religion learns to more purely follow the teachings of they prophets and leaders they ascribe to, I think you'll see a shift in the tolerance factor. People will start believing that a particular path is best for them and will believe that other paths may be better for their brothers and sisters, all of whom are seeking to find their way through this life as we hurtle through the cosmos.
Dogma that has evolved through time and has been flimsily related to scriptures is something I've always had a problem with. Examples of this are, of course, the Trinity (which didn't come into form as we know it until around the 4th century and was based almost entirely around two highly suspect verses from the Bible, including Comma Johanneum, 1 John 5:7, which is absent from the Greek texts) and the sort of dispensationalist garbage brought about by Darby in the 1800s and popularized by the Left Behind fictional series. Yet these things become dogma in contemporary churches simply because tradition has passed them down. So again this shows a diversion from original texts and teachings and shows the arrogance of the human condition to impose regulations and restrictions for the sole purpose of exercising control through fear and faulty theology.
My theologian friend often says that sound theology unearths how unsound theology actually is.
425 - RJ Elliott
"I mean, if you were to drop by a model railroading board and say, "So - grown men playing with toy trains. You're really a sad bunch of mofos, aren't you?" the reaction would not be polite."
I lol'd IRL...