What is the good and evil of religion?

[Rozalia]

There's a difference between radical and reactionary.

 

I will disagree with people who don't share my views of course. However I wouldn't call everyone who doesn't share them extremist. The vast majority of the population fit into the "centre ground" and though I might disagree with them I wouldn't say their views are extremist. You are trying to make yourself seem like you're part of the "normal" majority being persecuted by an "elitist" minority. In reality you are yourself part of a very small minority of people and have a very combatative viewpoint. As you've said before, you don't agree with any existing party. Politically, you're an outsider. You identify with radical political decisions, such as disenfranchisement of foreign born citizens, women being encouraged to be home owners, bestiality and polygamy being legalised, and many other points of view that are way outside the recognised norm for Western countries.

 

Uh yeah, you can disagree with people who are nearly indistinguishable from yourself. Hard hitting stuff. 

 

Uh what? By that I assume you're saying I think women's place is in the home, in the kitchen, and all that. I assumed what you had said before was in response to Andrezj Kolarov but it was actually towards me/both? Ridiculous, utterly ridiculous, you just can't resist going to that well can you? On said issue I am as usual far more "Liberal" than you. I told him I understood his viewpoint but that giving people gender roles wasn't something that I liked/supported so doing something such as for one (many things can be done) like paying a good amount for "donated" children by women who would have normally had an abortion can increase the birthrate without the enforcing of the woman in the kitchen. How you get from that to, "you think women should be in the kitchen" is something I can't understand in my mind, though perhaps yours can reveal it to me. 

 

As for Polygamy/Polyandry (why do people always leave off Polyandry? Pushing the "male domination" aspect I assume) I support that 100% yes. Bestiality I lean towards it yes, more so now that nobody here had any actual arguments against it, nothing I'd put at the top of my priorities of course but if it came up then why not I suppose. 

Edited March 31, 2016 by Rozalia

[Spite]

You really are deluded. You made it clear you supported the idea of women staying at home and having children. Your idea that paying women to have babies and give them up for adoption is a good thing is frankly absurd and shows a real lack of understanding about people.

 

And the group that support parties who are almost indistinguishable from myself (in your words) represent the vast majority of people in the country. The only people who aren't represented in that group are nutters like the BNP and the communist party, and lone lunies like yourself who are convinced they're right and everyone else in the world just can't see it.

[EliteCanada]

I was talking more about muslim youth in non-muslim countries. However if you look at the Arab spring as an example, I think it's clear that radical islamic groups (of various sorts) have attracted a lot more support than socialist groups or other radicals. The only muslim nation where socialist radicals are a significant factor is amongst the Kurds.

 

 

I believe you're still misunderstanding me. I don't disagree that radical Islamic groups draw a lot of support (relative to other groups), but what I am saying is that I don't think there is a trend amongst Muslim youth to radicalize towards religious affairs. 

 

TLDR: although those groups gathering a lot of support I would say that the majority of Muslim youth (anywhere) don't tend towards radical religious groups (do they have radical beliefs and ideologies? Yes ofc, but not necessarily towards religion and perhaps instead to state, family or other ideologies). I have no proof for this ofc or numbers (is there even a meta-analysis on how Muslim youth radicalize towards? Unlikely and easily confounded for so many reasons), but just a thought.

Edited March 31, 2016 by EliteCanada

[Spite]

I believe you're still misunderstanding me. I don't disagree that radical Islamic groups draw a lot of support (relative to other groups), but what I am saying is that I don't think there is a trend amongst Muslim youth to radicalize towards religious affairs.

 

TLDR: although those groups gathering a lot of support I would say that the majority of Muslim youth (anywhere) don't tend towards radical religious groups (do they have radical beliefs and ideologies? Yes ofc, but not necessarily towards religion and perhaps instead to state, family or other ideologies). I have no proof for this ofc or numbers (is there even a meta-analysis on how Muslim youth radicalize towards? Unlikely and easily confounded for so many reasons), but just a thought.

Amongst any group there are degrees of political activity. The lowest form of this is going out and casting a vote, then perhaps protesting, political activism, and highest of all I guess is revolutionary activism (and terrorism).

 

I think if you look at a country like the UK, there are probably a lot more muslims voting, campaigning and participating in mainstream parties than anything islamist. However I don't count this as extremist behaviour.

 

I see no evidence anywhere that there are extremist statist muslims. I don't even know how you could be an extremist "family" muslim.

[Rozalia]

You really are deluded. You made it clear you supported the idea of women staying at home and having children. Your idea that paying women to have babies and give them up for adoption is a good thing is frankly absurd and shows a real lack of understanding about people.

 

And the group that support parties who are almost indistinguishable from myself (in your words) represent the vast majority of people in the country. The only people who aren't represented in that group are nutters like the BNP and the communist party, and lone lunies like yourself who are convinced they're right and everyone else in the world just can't see it.

 

Was going to say some things I'd rather not because as a big opponent of gender roles all this you're throwing at me is really bizzare ground for me, but looking at my post previously I will out of fairness give you the benefit of the doubt as it does seem I misspoke a bit there. What I was trying to say was I agreed with him that native people needed to have more births, don't agree with gender roles though, and that instead we should promote other things to increase the birthrate. Such a thing is in line with what you say later with the childcare provisions. Now that it's cleared up I hope you understand. 

 

As for paying women I don't see anything absurd about it, call it government investment to promote a higher birthrate. Government investment is a normal enough thing, and nothing wrong with trying out new solutions to problems. Take for example prostitution and drugs which are problems I say can be solved by making them a business, thats an "odd" view, but it'd work in my view. You can of course disagree.

 

UKIP by opposing the EU are not the norm. Greens also are outside it. BNP and Communists too as you say. You know what I'm going for so why waste my time? Can you not pass the chance up to put me simply among extremists? I suppose not. I'd take the lone loonie comment more seriously if you didn't keep putting me in boxes and assuming views I must hold because X. You can't think I'm a lone loony if you don't stop calling me a Conservative, Fascist, or whatever else you've labeled me in the past. 

 

Your final comment is such a weak one it's barely worth addressing (you can throw that at pretty much anybody) but I'll do so. My views have constantly evolved since I decided politics was something to care about, I wasn't always anti war, I wasn't always Nationalistic, I wasn't always so much for personal freedoms I'd support something even like Polygamy/Polyandry. I confronted views I held, perhaps "normal" views as you put it and discarded them for they were wrong. Believing yourself to be always right is a personality thing, and yes I can be combative, however immune to change I am not and I can tell when something is wrong and should be dropped. I'm sorry you couldn't convince me I was wrong by calling me a lunatic when I talked about bestiality for one example, but that would be due to your own argument's weakness rather then me believing I'm always right. 

Edited March 31, 2016 by Rozalia

[Nationalist]

You really are deluded. You made it clear you supported the idea of women staying at home and having children. Your idea that paying women to have babies and give them up for adoption is a good thing is frankly absurd and shows a real lack of understanding about people.

 

And the group that support parties who are almost indistinguishable from myself (in your words) represent the vast majority of people in the country. The only people who aren't represented in that group are nutters like the BNP and the communist party, and lone lunies like yourself who are convinced they're right and everyone else in the world just can't see it.

There should be no payment. It is womans duty to stay at home and make children for the nation with healthy men to breed healthy children. Overall making the gene pool stronger. 

[EliteCanada]

Amongst any group there are degrees of political activity. The lowest form of this is going out and casting a vote, then perhaps protesting, political activism, and highest of all I guess is revolutionary activism (and terrorism).

 

I think if you look at a country like the UK, there are probably a lot more muslims voting, campaigning and participating in mainstream parties than anything islamist. However I don't count this as extremist behaviour.

 

I see no evidence anywhere that there are extremist statist muslims. I don't even know how you could be an extremist "family" muslim.

 

Ah.

 

Let me explain with a different example then. In North America you have tens of millions of Christian youth and adults. Yet amongst "Christian" youth you don't see a tendency to radicalize towards religion, but instead just a general tendency to radicalize (whether it be in your sense of fashion or towards communism/fascism/anarchy/or what have you), Muslim is just another name for a follower of Islam. Just being religious to that faith doesn't mean you can't radicalize towards state affairs or family affairs. You care only for your family and you would do anything for them including keeping them under lock and watch every possible minute of the day? You're probably radicalizing towards social reform geared towards the family that would likely allow for further patriarchal domination over the home.

[Rozalia]

There should be no payment. It is womans duty to stay at home and make children for the nation with healthy men to breed healthy children. Overall making the gene pool stronger. 

 

I disagree completely as progress women have made shouldn't have to be thrown away for such a thing. You can promote births without locking them up in the home if you support people enough. Significant parental leave and good child caring services can make it so a couple/group (Polygamy should boost birthrates too) can make it so people don't see having a child as a negative. The paying thing I talked about is more for the poor/young women who instead of having an abortion would perhaps be tempted by a nice sum of cash to not have an abortion. You got to obviously make sure the orphanages are up to snuff so such children grow up well.

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

There should be no payment. It is womans duty to stay at home and make children for the nation with healthy men to breed healthy children. Overall making the gene pool stronger.

 

Oh an you must be the one who endorses rape. Give me a break you radical !@#$

[Ikhan]

There should be no payment. It is womans duty to stay at home and make children for the nation with healthy men to breed healthy children. Overall making the gene pool stronger. 

I am starting to think you are actually Captain Vietnam...

[Moreau]

I am starting to think you are actually Captain Vietnam...

 

Is that you Alexei? Pssh, I don't need you agreeing with me twice in one day. 

[Spite]

Ah.

 

Let me explain with a different example then. In North America you have tens of millions of Christian youth and adults. Yet amongst "Christian" youth you don't see a tendency to radicalize towards religion, but instead just a general tendency to radicalize (whether it be in your sense of fashion or towards communism/fascism/anarchy/or what have you), Muslim is just another name for a follower of Islam. Just being religious to that faith doesn't mean you can't radicalize towards state affairs or family affairs. You care only for your family and you would do anything for them including keeping them under lock and watch every possible minute of the day? You're probably radicalizing towards social reform geared towards the family that would likely allow for further patriarchal domination over the home.

It's a false analogy though. Let me explain my opinion better through the magic of bullet points:

 

- America is a Christian majority country with a strong Christian ethic. Therefore people there do not have to choose between a Christian ethic and an American one.

- Christianity and Islam are fundamentally different in their attitude to politics. Whilst Jesus famously said "render unto caesar what is caesar's", Muhammad was a political leader and political leadership is part of his legacy. For islam, Church and state are one, and this makes islam in Western lands come into conflict with the state more frequently than Christianity (hence extremism)

- nevertheless, most people who are actually evangelical Christians AND also radicals would tend to be Christian radicals, rather than socialists or whatever. I'm sure there are Christians living in the outback determined to introduce a socialist state to America or whatever but most terrorism in America is committed by extremists bombing abortion clinics or whatever.

- Arguably the best evidence for this is that a country like the UK with almost no Christians (real ones anyway) has almost no Christian extremism. I think for anyone who is truly very religious, their radicalisation is going to go in a religious direction.

 

Remember that the difference between religious ideology and all other ideologies is that for the most part people are indoctrinated into a religious ideology from a very young age. Going out and reading a lot of socialist literature may make you a socialist, but it's unlikely to make you a terrorist.

[Nationalist]

Oh an you must be the one who endorses rape. Give me a break you radical !@#$

Never said I did.

 

I endorse the support of having healthy people marry healthy people to overall make the gene pool stronger in a form of eugenics. Allowing otherwise ruins the gene pool and makes the nation weaker. You allow people with autism to breed and you get more autism. Destructive traits can be alienated and removed via a process of government mandated breading. 

 

Most rapists are psychopaths and have various psychological problems which isn't the kind of thing that needs being spread around, so no, I do not support rape. 

Edited April 1, 2016 by Tulip Boy

[Nationalist]

Amongst any group there are degrees of political activity. The lowest form of this is going out and casting a vote, then perhaps protesting, political activism, and highest of all I guess is revolutionary activism (and terrorism).

 

I think if you look at a country like the UK, there are probably a lot more muslims voting, campaigning and participating in mainstream parties than anything islamist. However I don't count this as extremist behaviour.

 

I see no evidence anywhere that there are extremist statist muslims. I don't even know how you could be an extremist "family" muslim.

If you truly support a cause you fight for it and are willing to go out and kill for it. Anybody who supports a cause and protests peacefully is a lier. 

[Spite]

I'm guessing Tulip is going to remove himself from the gene pool then.

[EliteCanada]

It's a false analogy though. Let me explain my opinion better through the magic of bullet points:

 

- America is a Christian majority country with a strong Christian ethic. Therefore people there do not have to choose between a Christian ethic and an American one.

- Christianity and Islam are fundamentally different in their attitude to politics. Whilst Jesus famously said "render unto caesar what is caesar's", Muhammad was a political leader and political leadership is part of his legacy. For islam, Church and state are one, and this makes islam in Western lands come into conflict with the state more frequently than Christianity (hence extremism)

- nevertheless, most people who are actually evangelical Christians AND also radicals would tend to be Christian radicals, rather than socialists or whatever. I'm sure there are Christians living in the outback determined to introduce a socialist state to America or whatever but most terrorism in America is committed by extremists bombing abortion clinics or whatever.

- Arguably the best evidence for this is that a country like the UK with almost no Christians (real ones anyway) has almost no Christian extremism. I think for anyone who is truly very religious, their radicalisation is going to go in a religious direction.

 

Remember that the difference between religious ideology and all other ideologies is that for the most part people are indoctrinated into a religious ideology from a very young age. Going out and reading a lot of socialist literature may make you a socialist, but it's unlikely to make you a terrorist.

 

Fair points. Hadn't thought of it that way (although in hindsight I should've; your posts definitely hinted to that line of thinking).

[SoS]

If you truly support a cause you fight for it and are willing to go out and kill for it. Anybody who supports a cause and protests peacefully is a lier.

I admire the monks that set themselves on fire. You should do that.

[Mutsuo Toi]

I admire the monks that set themselves on fire. You should do that.

 

>Monk set himself just because the American kill commie bastard in my homeland

>Admire it

 

 

True monk don't do involved political communist shit like this. 

Edited April 2, 2016 by lizard noob

[Nationalist]

I'm guessing Tulip is going to remove himself from the gene pool then.

Nice way of attacking me and not addressing my point. Lefties never learn.

[Spite]

If you manage to rub your braincells together enough to generate a point, I'll respond to it. Until then I'll just assume you're making stupid posts as a form of attention seeking, much like Captain Vietnam and lizard noob.

[SoS]

And 2lip boy.

[Abu Haddad]

I believe you misunderstood what he was saying. He's speaking scripture not religion itself. The Christian bible having been made, and remade throughout the years by priests and popes so as to contort the "original" bible's message to meet the, sometimes, political requirements of the time.

 

I have no idea if that's the case with Quaran or not however. 

 

TLDR: where the religion came from is not what he was referring to as you appear to have construed the message to mean

the quran is in its pure unchanged form

[Doktor Avalanche]

the quran is in its pure unchanged form

Were there not four versions until Caliph Uthman authorized a single version?

[Spite]

Were there not four versions until Caliph Uthman authorized a single version?

Don't come here with your facts Admodeus

[Moreau]

Were there not four versions until Caliph Uthman authorized a single version?

Don't come here with your facts Admodeus

 

No. There were four different styles of reciting the Quran, all of which were approved by the Prophet (saw), but it was later decided just to have the Prophet's favourite style as the only one way for the sake of unity.