[quote]dhickey wrote:
I don’t recall who the prophet before the son of god was supposed to be but moses doesn’t sound right. Jesus said this prophet was his cousin John after he died, if I recall correctly. Convenient. Pretty special family. [/quote]
Take away the “son of god” stuff, and you got the Quranic position as well.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I thought it wasn’t so much a revival as Mohammed claimed to be the last and final prophet in the Abrahamic tradition, though this was Jesus’ claim 500 years earlier.
He did? I thought Jesus was God, not a prophet in Christian belief.
This is where the Roman influence came in. In the Roman tradition the emperor was considered to be a god. This is why the Gospel of Thomas, which doubted the divinity of Jesus was ripped out of the bible by the Romans.
The Ebionites didn’t consider Jesus to be god, they considered him to be the Prophet Moses prophesised in Deuteronomy. The Ebionites were Jesus original Jewish followers. Like all Jews they obeyed the commandment “Do not have any other gods before me”.
I don’t recall who the prophet before the son of god was supposed to be but moses doesn’t sound right. Jesus said this prophet was his cousin John after he died, if I recall correctly. Convenient. Pretty special family.
[/quote]
A little nepotism never hurt anyone hehehe…
[quote]lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
I don’t recall who the prophet before the son of god was supposed to be but moses doesn’t sound right. Jesus said this prophet was his cousin John after he died, if I recall correctly. Convenient. Pretty special family.
Take away the “son of god” stuff, and you got the Quranic position as well.[/quote]
The “son of God” part is the most important part for us (Romans 3:23), despite all of Mohammed’s anathemas against that position.
Jesus claims to be God in every gospel book (“Before Abraham was, I AM”, “The son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath”, …). The “Gospel of Thomas” was thrown out because it was much later, it wasn’t written by an eyewitness or anyone who interviewed eyewitnesses, and it didn’t agree with the original, much earlier gospels.
Jesus also spoke of “one who would come after him” in Acts, I think.
Christians take this to be The Holy Spirit.
The Marcionites believe it to be Marcion.
And the Muslims believe it to be Muhammad.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
This is where the Roman influence came in. In the Roman tradition the emperor was considered to be a god. This is why the Gospel of Thomas, which doubted the divinity of Jesus was ripped out of the bible by the Romans.
Jesus claims to be God in every gospel book (“Before Abraham was, I AM”, “The son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath”, …). The “Gospel of Thomas” was thrown out because it was much later, it wasn’t written by an eyewitness or anyone who interviewed eyewitnesses, and it didn’t agree with the original, much earlier gospels. [/quote]
All those gospels were written down after the fact and were based upon oral traditions. The Romans ripped out parts of the bible that did not suit their purposes and ordered all other bibles destroyed. That is why the Gnostic bible that was found at Nag Hammadi is the only one we have.
The Roman takeover of Christianity was not motivated by a scholarly desire to see that only the most authentic parts of the bible were maintained. It was not a friendly takeover either. The Romans knew that religion is an effective tool for controlling the masses.
The spin that we get fed today is that it was this great event when Constantine converted to Christianity and made it the state religion. The reality is all the things in Christianity that turn people off today were a result of that event.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
This is where the Roman influence came in. In the Roman tradition the emperor was considered to be a god. This is why the Gospel of Thomas, which doubted the divinity of Jesus was ripped out of the bible by the Romans.
Jesus claims to be God in every gospel book (“Before Abraham was, I AM”, “The son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath”, …). The “Gospel of Thomas” was thrown out because it was much later, it wasn’t written by an eyewitness or anyone who interviewed eyewitnesses, and it didn’t agree with the original, much earlier gospels.
All those gospels were written down after the fact and were based upon oral traditions. The Romans ripped out parts of the bible that did not suit their purposes and ordered all other bibles destroyed. That is why the Gnostic bible that was found at Nag Hammadi is the only one we have.
[/quote]
Where did you get this? You’re making the Muslim argument about Christianity now. The New Testament documents are reliable. You can read our defense here:
The oldest complete manuscript of the New Testament we have dates back to 100 AD, prior to the formation of the Roman Catholic church. http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm
I don’t participate in a state religion. I’m sure there are state versions of Christianity out there, for example the Church of England, however you’re not answering to the church at the day of judgment, so it doesn’t matter one iota eschatologically what the church says or does. Jesus’ claims in Scripture are what matters then.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
bostonbigticket wrote:
Islamo Fascist is a misnomer. Most Islamic nations dont fall under the typical tenants of fascism. Just because a government is bad and dictatorial does not make it fascist.
Of course I m arguing semantics, but as a political scientist it aggrivates me when people toss around the term fascist towards every “evil” government.
There you have it. Wikipedia trumps your so-called “education”. Nerd.[/quote]
Oh yea Wikipedia is a reliable source…lol
Also the article attempts to define the current usage of the word in the media and popular culture. My point is the two should never have been brought together to convey the attempted meaning.
Can you make parrallels between current Islamic governments and the facsists of spain, portugal, and germany in the twentieth century? Yes you can but you can also make comparisons between those governments and the U.S. government.
This is just another example of how are society has degraded its own language, changed the meaning of words, used euphemisms that have watered down the language.
[quote]bostonbigticket wrote:
Can you make parrallels between current Islamic governments and the facsists of spain, portugal, and germany in the twentieth century? Yes you can but you can also make comparisons between those governments and the U.S. government.
This is just another example of how are society has degraded its own language, changed the meaning of words, used euphemisms that have watered down the language.[/quote]
You lost me. I could see your point if people were using Islam to mean facism but there not. Islamo Facism. Islamo is describing a specific type of facism. How is that incorrect use of language?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
bostonbigticket wrote:
Can you make parrallels between current Islamic governments and the facsists of spain, portugal, and germany in the twentieth century? Yes you can but you can also make comparisons between those governments and the U.S. government.
This is just another example of how are society has degraded its own language, changed the meaning of words, used euphemisms that have watered down the language.
You lost me. I could see your point if people were using Islam to mean facism but there not. Islamo Facism. Islamo is describing a specific type of facism. How is that incorrect use of language?[/quote]
So you think it is correct use of the language?
How about:
Amerofascism?
Hispanofacism?
Christofacism?
Anglofacism?
Feel free to concoct as many variants as you wish…they are all laughable abuses of the English language.
“Islamofacism” was some ‘clever’ writers mental masturbation fantasy,and I’m appalled that it actually stuck around. The English language is expressive enough,it doesn’t need made up terminology.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
dhickey wrote:
bostonbigticket wrote:
Can you make parrallels between current Islamic governments and the facsists of spain, portugal, and germany in the twentieth century? Yes you can but you can also make comparisons between those governments and the U.S. government.
This is just another example of how are society has degraded its own language, changed the meaning of words, used euphemisms that have watered down the language.
You lost me. I could see your point if people were using Islam to mean facism but there not. Islamo Facism. Islamo is describing a specific type of facism. How is that incorrect use of language?
So you think it is correct use of the language?
How about:
Amerofascism?
Hispanofacism?
Christofacism?
Anglofacism?
Feel free to concoct as many variants as you wish…they are all laughable abuses of the English language.
“Islamofacism” was some ‘clever’ writers mental masturbation fantasy,and I’m appalled that it actually stuck around. The English language is expressive enough,it doesn’t need made up terminology.
[/quote]
So Islamic Facism is ok but Islamofacism is not? They are both just as descriptive. From the perspecitve of an English teacher I can kind of see the point in making up a word or abbreviation. The original argument was from the prospective of a Poly Sci. Ooops I mean Political Scientist. Anohter mental masturbation.
You either want to speak the language properly,or you don’t.The devil’s in the details,isn’t it?
But please explain to me how an English teacher sees the point in making up words?
And the use of language doesn’t have anything whatsoever to do with the perspective of the argument.
So keep masturbating…
[quote]dickeyh wrote:
…
[/quote]
Well, it is a neologism.
I personally prefer the use of the term Islamism, which is more correct and encompassing than “Islamofascism”. But use which ever you want. It’s worth noting that the latter is nowadays used almost exclusively by xenophobes, racists and other bigots. It’s a convenient way to associate Islam with fascism.
There’s a good deal of people on this board who are overtly calling for religious discrimination, genocide, concentration camps , etc. That makes some (me included) to question the underlying motives when the word is thrown all around the place.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
So Islamic Facism is ok but Islamofacism is not? They are both just as descriptive. [/quote]
Cool. Then please explain what they describe and how that relates to fascism.
[quote]lixy wrote:
dickeyh wrote:
…
Well, it is a neologism.
I personally prefer the use of the term Islamism, which is more correct and encompassing than “Islamofascism”. But use which ever you want. It’s worth noting that the latter is nowadays used almost exclusively by xenophobes, racists and other bigots. It’s a convenient way to associate Islam with fascism.
There’s a good deal of people on this board who are overtly calling for religious discrimination, genocide, concentration camps , etc. That makes some (me included) to question the underlying motives when the word is thrown all around the place.[/quote]
Remember that they do not need any motives nor have any need to justify it.
They can.
End of story.
There are even more Americans than Iraquis.
Majority rule!
[quote]orion wrote:
Remember that they do not need any motives nor have any need to justify it.
They can.
End of story.
There are even more Americans than Iraquis.
Majority rule![/quote]
You ruined what could have been a most excellent reply by adding those two last sentences.
[quote]lixy wrote:
You ruined what could have been a most excellent reply by adding those two last sentences.[/quote]
Methinks you missed the inherent sarcasm of the post.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I personally prefer the use of the term Islamism, which is more correct and encompassing than “Islamofascism”. But use which ever you want. It’s worth noting that the latter is nowadays used almost exclusively by xenophobes, racists and other bigots. It’s a convenient way to associate Islam with fascism.
There’s a good deal of people on this board who are overtly calling for religious discrimination, genocide, concentration camps , etc. That makes some (me included) to question the underlying motives when the word is thrown all around the place.[/quote]
When I said Pakistan was going to be governed by the terror elements when the Islamists gain control of the government, you objected said I did not know what an Islamist was. Is an Islamist the same as a Islamic extremist or not?
There are ties between Fascism and Islam. Check your history.
I question the motives of calling terrorists whose main goal is to disrupt an elected government “freedom fighters”.
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
Remember that they do not need any motives nor have any need to justify it.
They can.
End of story.
There are even more Americans than Iraquis.
Majority rule!
You ruined what could have been a most excellent reply by adding those two last sentences.[/quote]
You expect me to deliver whenever I post?
Flattering.
I think.
[quote]orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
So Islamic Facism is ok but Islamofacism is not? They are both just as descriptive.
Cool. Then please explain what they describe and how that relates to fascism.[/quote]
Again, to me Islamofacism is describing a particular type of facism. I don’t relate Islamism to facism. I don’t relate facism to Islamism.
Facism is an authoritarian political ideology. Islamofacisim to me simply provides detail on the what type of political ideology.