A repost.
Yes, I agree Islam will be the dominant religion. The West has become far too materialistic, decadent, and-I daresay-too secular, to keep up demographically. The cultural push to marry (and keep it intact) and multiply isn’t exactly as popular as it used to be.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
A repost.
Yes, I agree Islam will be the dominant religion. The West has become far too materialistic, decadent, and-I daresay-too secular, to keep up demographically. The cultural push to marry (and keep it intact) and multiply isn’t exactly as popular as it used to be. [/quote]
The only trump card that Christianity has, of course, being nuclear weapons. If the Christian West ever gets around to feeling seriously demographically threatened, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Christian countries attempting to stem the tide through judicious use of hydrogen bombs. This may be the real reason for the West’s almost hysterical insistence that Islamic countries never develop a nuclear program.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
A repost.
Yes, I agree Islam will be the dominant religion. The West has become far too materialistic, decadent, and-I daresay-too secular, to keep up demographically. The cultural push to marry (and keep it intact) and multiply isn’t exactly as popular as it used to be.
The only trump card that Christianity has, of course, being nuclear weapons. If the Christian West ever gets around to feeling seriously demographically threatened, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Christian countries attempting to stem the tide through judicious use of hydrogen bombs. This may be the real reason for the West’s almost hysterical insistence that Islamic countries never develop a nuclear program.[/quote]
Eh, I don’t know that there really is a Christian west anymore. Yeah, yeah, I know what polls say, “I call myself a Christian because I go to midnight mass once a year.” I’d say the secular west, really.
You’re probably saying it tongue in cheek, but I don’t believe it has anything to do with a fear of demographics. Instead, everyone has become familiar with homicidal martyrdom. Namely, the suicide bomber. And what’s a nuke, if not the ultimate suicide bomb.
The ultimate retarded suicide bomber.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And what’s a nuke, if not the ultimate suicide bomb.[/quote]
Stanley Kubrick evidently thought so, too.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The ultimate retarded suicide bomber.
Sloth wrote:
And what’s a nuke, if not the ultimate suicide bomb.
Stanley Kubrick evidently thought so, too.[/quote]
Now, photoshop on some middle-eastern dress, if you get the picture. Understand, I’m not convinced that such a thing would happen. But, it’s certainly reasonable to be fearful of the possibilty. After all, Al Qaeda has already stated they would use such a weapon. However, I don’t think we should go around taking action against entire nations because of what might happen.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, photoshop on some middle-eastern dress, if you get the picture. [/quote]
Middle-eastern? You mean like Ohio or Indiana?
I did find this one, already made.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I tell you seriously, this is one of the two or three most important things the human race has to lay aside. [/quote]
The other two being?
I hope something more thoughtful than “guns and nuclear weapons.”
My two picks would be chauvinistic nationalism and racial bigotry. As Emo Phillips once said, why hate a man for his religion, his nationality or the color of his skin, when there are so many other good reasons to hate him?
[quote]
P.S. what does “Chushin” mean? “Schwarzfahrer” means “fare dodger” (lit.: black driver). [/quote]
I always thought it was a play on Schwarzritter (The Black Knight, lit. “black rider”)
Since Chushin hasn’t answered, I will. The word chushin is Japanese for “center” or “vortex.” It has various esoteric connotations in Buddhism and the martial arts.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
If you wanted to do a side-to-side body count comparison, I daresay Christianity would come out way ahead, not necessarily because Christians are more vicious than Muslims, but because they’ve been at it longer, and are more technologically efficient.
I disagree. The Muslims were more skilled at warfare than the Europeans ever were and by the time the Europeans began making technological improvements, the Turks did likewise and kept up. Ottoman Turks: Best army, best navy in Europe for 300 years. The reason they did not conquer all of Europe was because their Empire went the other way into the Middle East and Africa.[/quote]
No,that is incorrect.The Ottoman Turks didn’t conquer Europe because they were stopped by Spain and the Holy League at Lepanto,1571.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Again, Christianity had as it’s very base, a pacifist Christ, apostles, and early martyrs to reform itself to. That is to say, not in opposition to it’s very foundation.
My point is that Islam has…well, Muhammad and his message from Medina and beyond. Any possible reformation would move fowards in spite of it’s very foundation. I believe this could make things much more difficult.
Sure, but look at Judaism, which is of course the progenitor of both Christianity and Islam. The Jewish faith developed from Mosaic and Levitican law, a more intolerant, misogynistic, inciting of racial hatred and genocide set of rules the world has never seen.
The first thing the Israelites did upon receiving the Divine Word was… well, wander aimlessly in the desert. But the next thing they did was to invade a neighboring country, slaughter the inhabitants, convert them forcibly to their religion, and enslave the rest. Mohammed had some fine role models in Moses and Joshua.
Judaism reformed. Christianity reformed. Buddhism and Hinduism reformed. Give it time.
When the Caliphate is restored, Muslims will go back to being the preeminent scholars and poets and scientists and engineers of the world, just like they were in the 11th century.[/quote]
When the Caliphate is restored all that happens? It sounds like you can’t wait for Dhimmitude status to be bestowed upon you. Good luck with all that.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
If you wanted to do a side-to-side body count comparison, I daresay Christianity would come out way ahead, not necessarily because Christians are more vicious than Muslims, but because they’ve been at it longer, and are more technologically efficient.
I disagree. The Muslims were more skilled at warfare than the Europeans ever were and by the time the Europeans began making technological improvements, the Turks did likewise and kept up. Ottoman Turks: Best army, best navy in Europe for 300 years. The reason they did not conquer all of Europe was because their Empire went the other way into the Middle East and Africa.
Not if we’re comparing two thousand years of Christianity to 1400 years of Islam. Also, I suspect you’re only counting Muslim deaths by Christian hands versus Christian deaths by Muslim hands. I’m counting the whole enchilada: Muslims vs. everyone else on one side, and Christians vs. everyone else on the other.[/quote]
I’m counting deaths in the name of Christianity and Islam. The Colonization of the world by Europeans started out with a religious zeal, then changed to one of pure economics and natural resources. That they traded slaves, conquered India and parts of Africa had little to do with religion and more to do with riches, would you agree or not?
The war between the Catholics and Protestants was a religious war. That I am in agreement with. I also agree with the inquisition and war against Jews, but as the Middle Ages ended, the religious reasons for conquest had changed, no? It was replaced by nationalism.
The deaths by Muslims were always done with religious overtones and not only took place in Africa and the Middle East, but parts of Asia Minor, Asia, Russia, Europe, India ect. Their history is one of unending religious warfare.
That is my take.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
No,that is incorrect.The Ottoman Turks didn’t conquer Europe because they were stopped by Spain and the Holy League at Lepanto,1571.
[/quote]
You are right.
But after that, they set their sights on the Middle East, Persia and Egypt and never attempted to attack Europe again.
Lepanto’s one battle they lost. There’s about 50 more they won.
The Europeans never conquered the Ottomans. That’s how powerful they were. Russia tried, but lost thanks to Europe’s help.
This always turns into “who killed the most in the past” debate.
[quote]Tokoya wrote:
When the Caliphate is restored all that happens? It sounds like you can’t wait for Dhimmitude status to be bestowed upon you. Good luck with all that.
[/quote]
Tell me, Toyoka, when people make predictions about climate change, or economic collapse, do you automatically assume they are looking forward to these things?
I’m not looking forward to anything, just predicting a scenario that I believe to be an inevitability. One which, in any case, I’ll probably not live to see.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I’m counting deaths in the name of Christianity and Islam. The Colonization of the world by Europeans started out with a religious zeal, then changed to one of pure economics and natural resources. That they traded slaves, conquered India and parts of Africa had little to do with religion and more to do with riches, would you agree or not?[/quote]
I’d say that anything to do with religion also has to do with riches, or more precisely that religion has historically been used as a justification for plunder, enslavement and conquest.
Nationalism is just another form of religion. And people are always telling me that America is a Christian Nation, anyway.
Having never met Muhammed, Saladin, Suleyman, Mehmed and Bin Laden, and having never accompanied them on their campaigns, I can’t speak for their true motives. But most political leaders are pragmatists, and they conquer territory for economic reasons. In order to do this, they fire their people with religious zeal, convincing them of the purity of their own endeavor, and the demonic evil of the infidel enemy.
We do the same thing, of course.
By your reckoning, were the Holocaust, pogroms, and the Serbian ethnic cleansing campaigns done for nationalistic, economic, or religious purposes? And what about the current War On Islam…er, Terror? Is it to protect America, to protect American economic interests, or to make the world safe for Christianity…er, Democracy? I’d say all three.
In any event, if a Christian or a Muslim swings the sword, pulls the trigger or drops the bomb, I’ll count any deaths that result as deaths caused by a Christian or a Muslim, regardless of whether he said “In the Name of Jesus” or “Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim” beforehand.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
By your reckoning, were the Holocaust, pogroms, and the Serbian ethnic cleansing campaigns done for nationalistic, economic, or religious purposes? And what about the current War On Islam…er, Terror? Is it to protect America, to protect American economic interests, or to make the world safe for Christianity…er, Democracy? I’d say all three.
[/quote]
Holocaust: Nationalism, economics. They were killing Jews not because they didn’t believe in Christ. The hatred which fueled it was derived from the middle ages though. The Nazis killed the Jews to further their Nationalism and the Ayran race because they thought the Jews were subhuman. They killed Jews even if they converted to Christianity. They also robbed them, which helped their war machine economically.
The Serbs’ ethnic cleansing had to do more with religion and Nationalism because they were fighting this war since the middle ages. Kosovo was vengeance for the conquest by the Turks 500 years ago. Yeah, religious war, I’d say.
I agree with the motives for the WOT, though I do not see American or British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan converting the Muslims to Christianity, or killing them soley because they are Muslims.
The other side is waging religious war. They blew up the Karbala Mosque, tried to exterminate the Yezidiz, ect.
Like I said before, if a Christian pulls the trigger, and another person falls down dead, that’s one point for Christianity. If a Muslim pulls the trigger, that’s one point for Islam. That’s how I keep score.
Well can argue semantics all day, but here is my take on it: all wars are about economics, but the soldier fights for his religion.
Unless a man is a psychopath, he will probably have a hard time killing another man, burning down his house, raping his wife and daughter, and killing his children… unless he believes his actions are sanctioned by God.
If he has been convinced by his leaders that the enemy before him is also an enemy of his God, then his actions are justified in his own mind.
Most Christians believe that their leaders are just, and guided by God. The political will of the nation, therefore, is perceived as an extension of the will of God.
Most Muslims likely believe the same.
Meanwhile, of course, God has his own agenda.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Do you really feel that this is an accurate description of the activities of, say, the current US or British fighting man? And of his beliefs about why his actions are acceptable? <Sceptical, but honest questions> [/quote]
I’d say it is an accurate description of the activities of fighting men of all nations in all wars throughout history. If you can find evidence of any army in any war whose soldiers did not engage in atrocity, I should be interested to hear of it.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Unless a man is a psychopath, he will probably have a hard time killing another man, burning down his house, raping his wife and daughter, and killing his children… unless he believes his actions are sanctioned by God.
Do you really feel that this is an accurate description of the activities of, say, the current US or British fighting man? And of his beliefs about why his actions are acceptable? <Sceptical, but honest questions> [/quote]
I’ll answer for myself. No. I think our soldiers generally fight with a noble cause in mind. In this case, they’re fighting for democracy. And, freedom from first a relatively secular dictatorship, and now freedom from a sectarian theocracy taking it’s place. Problem is, it really shouldn’t be their fight.