Horseshit scholes. A survey conducted by the Saudis themselves showed that 95% of educated men between 25 and 41 supported Osama bin Laden. It’s got nothing to do with poverty or education.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Horseshit scholes. A survey conducted by the Saudis themselves showed that 95% of educated men between 25 and 41 supported Osama bin Laden. It’s got nothing to do with poverty or education.[/quote]
Most Saudis don’t live in poverty? Don’t lack freedoms and don’t live under a foreign backed dictatorship?
Saudi Arabia has one of the largest slave labour work forces up there with Dubai and the vast vast majority of the wealth is controlled by a tiny percentile.
And you are surprised support for UBL is large in a completely Muslim country?
Also no reputable source shows 95% of educated men supporting UBL, although I am sure many do, conditions and indoctrination being what they are.
Anyway your argument largely props up my stance.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@smh - you got a problem with how Sabbath breakers were dealt with?[/quote]
I wouldn’t say that I have a problem with it so much as I would say that I’m suspicious of the coincidence I mentioned in my first post to Dr. S.[/quote]
So if you don’t have a problem with it presumably you wouldn’t argue that it is necessarily immoral given the circumstances. Yes, morality is universal but that doesn’t mean it has to be uncoupled from context.[/quote]
Oh, I would absolutely call it immoral. When I said I didn’t have a problem with it, I meant that I’m not bent out of shape about it (because I think it’s nothing more than the recorded superstitions of an ancient people).
But if there is an actual God who actually wanted people put to death for raking the leaves on the wrong day? Then I welcome my eternity with Satan, because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
[/quote]
Haven’t we seen this discussion before? Do you not find it exceedingly boring?
If you, smh, of all people, cannot see the value of the literature, and the genius of the Redactors, then this is not a flaw in The Book, but it is a gap in your self-education.
There is nothing shameful about that, and I respect you anyway. It is, however, nothing to be proud about.
[/quote]
Woah woah. I see great value in the literature–I love it–and one of my favorite occasions on PWI is when you are going into some wonderfully rich Scriptural tangent. This does not chage my view of it as superstition. Superstition can be beautiful, even enlightening.
But if it were all true? That would be a different story.
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
Most Saudis don’t live in poverty?
[/quote]
That’s right they don’t. Especially the men between 25 and 41 who have university degrees.
Of course they lack freedoms. They don’t want the kind of freedom you’re talking about. They want to take freedom away. The kind of freedom they want is to be able to murder their female relatives without threat of sanction - stuff like that. Do you really not know this stuff?
They use foreigners as slave labour not Saudi men with university degrees.
No.
How do you know no reputable study shows that? It was conducted by the Saudis themselves. The New York Times didn’t question the validity of the study.
[quote]
Anyway your argument largely props up my stance.[/quote]
No it doesn’t. It demolishes it.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@smh - you got a problem with how Sabbath breakers were dealt with?[/quote]
I wouldn’t say that I have a problem with it so much as I would say that I’m suspicious of the coincidence I mentioned in my first post to Dr. S.[/quote]
So if you don’t have a problem with it presumably you wouldn’t argue that it is necessarily immoral given the circumstances. Yes, morality is universal but that doesn’t mean it has to be uncoupled from context.[/quote]
Oh, I would absolutely call it immoral. When I said I didn’t have a problem with it, I meant that I’m not bent out of shape about it (because I think it’s nothing more than the recorded superstitions of an ancient people).
But if there is an actual God who actually wanted people put to death for raking the leaves on the wrong day? Then I welcome my eternity with Satan, because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
[/quote]
Haven’t we seen this discussion before? Do you not find it exceedingly boring?
If you, smh, of all people, cannot see the value of the literature, and the genius of the Redactors, then this is not a flaw in The Book, but it is a gap in your self-education.
There is nothing shameful about that, and I respect you anyway. It is, however, nothing to be proud about.
[/quote]
Woah woah. I see great value in the literature–I love it–and one of my favorite occasions on PWI is when you are going into some wonderfully rich Scriptural tangent. This does not chage my view of it as superstition. Superstition can be beautiful, even enlightening.
But if it were all true? That would be a different story.[/quote]
You believe in free will, that you are master of your fate, and that there is a whole social construct that protects you.
I would call that a beautiful superstition…right now, and not 3000 years from now. If it were true, that would be a different story.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
Most Saudis don’t live in poverty?
[/quote]
That’s right they don’t. Especially the men between 25 and 41 who have university degrees.
Of course they lack freedoms. They don’t want the kind of freedom you’re talking about. They want to take freedom away. The kind of freedom they want is to be able to murder their female relatives without threat of sanction - stuff like that. Do you really not know this stuff?
They use foreigners as slave labour not Saudi men with university degrees.
No.
How do you know no reputable study shows that? It was conducted by the Saudis themselves. The New York Times didn’t question the validity of the study.
[quote]
Anyway your argument largely props up my stance.[/quote]
No it doesn’t. It demolishes it.[/quote]
Of course they don’t want those freedoms, there are no protests being shut down and political prisoners, all people there want the same thing.
Just like the people of Iran don’t want those type of freedoms like free elections and weren’t recently shot in the head on live television for it.
You are right.
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
Most Saudis don’t live in poverty?
[/quote]
That’s right they don’t. Especially the men between 25 and 41 who have university degrees.
Of course they lack freedoms. They don’t want the kind of freedom you’re talking about. They want to take freedom away. The kind of freedom they want is to be able to murder their female relatives without threat of sanction - stuff like that. Do you really not know this stuff?
They use foreigners as slave labour not Saudi men with university degrees.
No.
How do you know no reputable study shows that? It was conducted by the Saudis themselves. The New York Times didn’t question the validity of the study.
I never said any of that. I said that educated Saudi men overwhelmingly supported OBL which demonstrates it has nothing to do with poverty. Your claim that it is related to lack of freedom is even more absurd. You’re arguing that the secular people who want more freedoms are being driven to Islamic fundamentalism because they’re being denied western freedoms. How does that make any sense? Never mind.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
Most Saudis don’t live in poverty?
[/quote]
That’s right they don’t. Especially the men between 25 and 41 who have university degrees.
Of course they lack freedoms. They don’t want the kind of freedom you’re talking about. They want to take freedom away. The kind of freedom they want is to be able to murder their female relatives without threat of sanction - stuff like that. Do you really not know this stuff?
They use foreigners as slave labour not Saudi men with university degrees.
No.
How do you know no reputable study shows that? It was conducted by the Saudis themselves. The New York Times didn’t question the validity of the study.
I never said any of that. I said that educated Saudi men overwhelmingly supported OBL which demonstrates it has nothing to do with poverty. Your claim that it is related to lack of freedom is even more absurd. You’re arguing that the secular people who want more freedoms are being driven to Islamic fundamentalism because they’re being denied western freedoms. How does that make any sense? Never mind.[/quote]
The vast vast vast majority of Islamic fundamentalists are living in poverty, under dictatorships etc.
Of course people not in poverty can be fundamentalists, however well educated financially sound people are a tiny minority of the Islamic fundamentalist population.
No one said only poverty and dictatorships create fundamentalists, obviously the religion itself and other causes can create fundamentalism, but most people holding fundamentalist views do so because of poverty and foreign backed dictatorships etc in combination with the vileness of the religion itself.
To deny that is like saying gang membership is in no way related to poverty. The overwhelming majority of gang bangers have bad educations and live in poverty, a few bloods and BGF members being from middle class households who went to college do not negate that.
To argue the opposite is to argue the exception negates the rule
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
The vast vast vast majority of Islamic fundamentalists are living in poverty, under dictatorships etc.
[/quote]
Nonsense. The average AQ terrorist has a university degree.
Actually the opposite is true. I’m afraid you don’t really understand the nature of what we’re dealing with. Islam began as a nationalist movement of the Arabs led by the Quraysh tribe. As someone who is not a Muslim it is difficult to imagine religion being Intertwined with politics. You’re looking through a Marxist lens and trying to attribute conditions and causes that simply do not exist.
I’m afraid not. Poverty has absolutely nothing to do with it. Neither do “foreign backed dictatorships” - in many cases that’s what’s keeping the crazies in check. Just as foreign backed military juntas kept foreign backed Marxists in check during the Cold War.
No it’s not like that. Poverty and gangs are related because gang culture is a culture of the impoverished. Wahhabism is largely a culture of wealthy, educated psychopaths.
Nope.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
The vast vast vast majority of Islamic fundamentalists are living in poverty, under dictatorships etc.
[/quote]
Nonsense. The average AQ terrorist has a university degree.
Actually the opposite is true. I’m afraid you don’t really understand the nature of what we’re dealing with. Islam began as a nationalist movement of the Arabs led by the Quraysh tribe. As someone who is not a Muslim it is difficult to imagine religion being Intertwined with politics. You’re looking through a Marxist lens and trying to attribute conditions and causes that simply do not exist.
I’m afraid not. Poverty has absolutely nothing to do with it. Neither do “foreign backed dictatorships” - in many cases that’s what’s keeping the crazies in check. Just as foreign backed military juntas kept foreign backed Marxists in check during the Cold War.
No it’s not like that. Poverty and gangs are related because gang culture is a culture of the impoverished. Wahhabism is largely a culture of wealthy, educated psychopaths.
Nope.[/quote]
The average AQ member does not have a degree. In Yemdn the sheik recruited mainly fishermen and extremely poor labourers who worked the land. In Nigeria the AQ and other AQ backed cells were comprised of unemployed poor men and poor working men.
This denial of fundamentalism having to do with poverty, occupation and dictatorship is just not backed by the reality.
Chechnya is the best example. Islam I’m Chechnya was so lax and far away from fundamentalism that it was only a part of most peoples lives at occasions like weddings and other culturally traditional events and holidays.
The Russian invasion and war changed that, people channeled their misery and hatred into religion and turned to fundamentalism, the opiate of the oppressed, the sigh of the burdened and oppressed, the self percieved remedy to oppressive conditions.
Same in Afghanistan when the USSR invaded. A very moderate society where lots of women didn’t wear headscarves and young teens and women often wore makeup and attended school and the national universities turned into a fundamentalist society that stoned women.
Poverty did not stone women, but reactionary ideology with a combination of war, poverty and occupation and a foreign backed PDA dictatorship all created fundamentalist sentiment that lead to women being stoned.
Ah I see you posted a RamzPaul video in the diversity thread.
Why am I not surprised someone holding your position on this would support a white nationalist and darling of stormfront’s opinion on diversity?
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
Islam is no more violent than Christianity
[/quote]
Evidence please?
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
The average AQ member does not have a degree.
[/quote]
From The New York Times: "We examined the educational backgrounds of 75 terrorists behind some of the most significant recent terrorist attacks against Westerners. We found that a majority of them are college-educated, often in technical subjects like engineering.
AQ in Yemen relies upon blood ties and tribal alliances.
Terrorists who go abroad to attack Western targets need to be bi or multi-lingual, understand western culture and be able to blend in etc.
Occupation? And you’re back to dictatorship being a cause without addressing what I said about that? This discussion is not really going anyway.
Chechnya has been hotbeds for ethnic/nationalist violence under the banner of Islam for centuries. You really don’t understand this. As I said, you need to get your head around how religion and politics are entwined in some societies. Maybe read about how it functioned in Rome if you want to get a sense of what I’m talking about:
You’re confusing cause and effect. The radicalisation of Afghanistan was due to:
- Thousands of foreign mujahideen(holy warriors) flooding into the country.
And
- Egyptian and Saudi radicals and Pakistani/Saudi intelligence Wahhabising the Pashtun and the foreign fighters.
You don’t understand the nature of mass movements and the impulses that drive them. I would highly recommend Eric Hoffer’s classic book The True Believer.
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
Ah I see you posted a RamzPaul video in the diversity thread.
Why am I not surprised someone holding your position on this would support a white nationalist and darling of stormfront’s opinion on diversity?
[/quote]
I don’t “support” RamzPaul. And I’m not a “white nationalist.”
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
So, Lance Armstrong (and anyone else with testicular cancer) or any kid with a botched circumcision can’t go to church…
23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
Gotta keep those BASTARDS out! I mean, it’s all THEIR FAULT that their father fucked someone out of wedlock and knocked her up! What if she were married though? Then it would be OK, her husband would just be a cuckhold…
21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
21:16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
21:17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
Two wives sounds great! Sign me up! And way to teach people how to be a dick to their kids…
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
That would mean that ALL of Generation Y would be stoned to death.
22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
22:16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
STONE THE WHORES!!!
22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
22:30 A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt.
So if you rape a “betrothed damsel” in the city, they both get put to death cuz OBVIOUSLY she didn’t scream loud enough. But if she is raped in a field, then you don’t have to stone her. BUUUT, if you rape her and she is a VIRGIN, all you have to do is pay her father 50 bucks and you’re good to go…
And we think the MUSLIMS have a fucked up book! LOL[/quote]
You obviously do not understand the rules of the paaaatriaaarchaayyy… TM.
First, the rule to give your first born what is due to him by law even if his mother is a bitch. protects the child. Dem rules are dem rules and you dont get to break them just because your current favorite sucks better dick.
Second, the virgin thing is a pottery barn thing. You break it, you own it. That means, enjoy your rape son, since you made her unmarriageable, you gonna marry her and pay for her for the rest of your life.
Also, 50 shekels of silver was probably a lot.
Now, if you rape a woman already claimed by someone else, you die, because you cannot possibly do anything to make this right again.
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
The bible was written in a hard time where people lacked understanding of things, this is reflected in the book. Or did god morally evolve at the exact same rate as us and now needs to write a second edition. The Bobby Seale of gods.[/quote]
As long as you remember that our things today are written in a time of abundance which makes a lack of understanding far less painful than it would have been in a time of struggle.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Or did He–perfect almighty omnibenevolent invincible He–have to bend His morality to the Bronze Age mind, decreeing or directly inspiring barbaric gibberish because, well, “they’re just not ready for the actually moral stuff yet”?[/quote]
Ya gotta problem wid dat?[/quote]
I suppose that the Almighty is as free as anybody else to be a moral relativist…[/quote]
Well, in a way, He is the only one free to being a moral relativist.
On the other way, what he says goes, do maybe he cannot be anything other than being a moral absolutist, issuing decrees?
Anyhow, you lack the awe of religious people, but lets say an alien landed, with an IQ of about 10000.
Oh, you will pass judgement on this entities decisions?
Because you feel it in your gut, torn and conflicted between your biological and cultural programming that you are by default, that this aliens decisions are wrong, wrong, wrong…
So, you have an opinion?
Good stuff.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Or did He–perfect almighty omnibenevolent invincible He–have to bend His morality to the Bronze Age mind, decreeing or directly inspiring barbaric gibberish because, well, “they’re just not ready for the actually moral stuff yet”?[/quote]
Ya gotta problem wid dat?[/quote]
I suppose that the Almighty is as free as anybody else to be a moral relativist…[/quote]
Well, in a way, He is the only one free to being a moral relativist.
On the other way, what he says goes, do maybe he cannot be anything other than being a moral absolutist, issuing decrees?
Anyhow, you lack the awe of religious people, but lets say an alien landed, with an IQ of about 10000…
[/quote]
No, let’s make the analogy at least halfway valid and say instead that some people who lived a long, long time ago said an alien landed, with an IQ of about 10000, and they further said that this alien made these various decisions which–golly-gee what a coincidence!–are uncannily like the decisions characteristic of the ancient people doing the telling.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@smh - you got a problem with how Sabbath breakers were dealt with?[/quote]
I wouldn’t say that I have a problem with it so much as I would say that I’m suspicious of the coincidence I mentioned in my first post to Dr. S.[/quote]
So if you don’t have a problem with it presumably you wouldn’t argue that it is necessarily immoral given the circumstances. Yes, morality is universal but that doesn’t mean it has to be uncoupled from context.[/quote]
Oh, I would absolutely call it immoral. When I said I didn’t have a problem with it, I meant that I’m not bent out of shape about it (because I think it’s nothing more than the recorded superstitions of an ancient people).
But if there is an actual God who actually wanted people put to death for raking the leaves on the wrong day? Then I welcome my eternity with Satan, because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
[/quote]
Haven’t we seen this discussion before? Do you not find it exceedingly boring?
If you, smh, of all people, cannot see the value of the literature, and the genius of the Redactors, then this is not a flaw in The Book, but it is a gap in your self-education.
There is nothing shameful about that, and I respect you anyway. It is, however, nothing to be proud about.
[/quote]
Woah woah. I see great value in the literature–I love it–and one of my favorite occasions on PWI is when you are going into some wonderfully rich Scriptural tangent. This does not chage my view of it as superstition. Superstition can be beautiful, even enlightening.
But if it were all true? That would be a different story.[/quote]
You believe in free will, that you are master of your fate, and that there is a whole social construct that protects you.
I would call that a beautiful superstition…right now, and not 3000 years from now. If it were true, that would be a different story.[/quote]
Ah yes, the old “you believe in things too.”
Yes, I do believe in things.
I believe in things that, on the evidence available to me, I determine to be true, or most reasonable.
You know what would make the parallel more perfect, though?
If I write down the things I believe, and somebody finds this document a few millennia from now, and, despite my recorded beliefs no longer being accordant with the evidence available to the much-more-technically advanced society to which this somebody belongs, this somebody and a few billion of her followers decide that, “yeah, this looks about right.”
By the way, if free will is true, this is a fantastic thing.
If the Bible is true, and we are each of us utter subjects of an all-knowing, jealous, omnipotent, stern, inescapable supreme king, this is not so fantastic.
So, while I agree with you regarding the OT’s worth as literature, I remain adamant that the desire for it all to be true is a dangerous one. It is one thing to be a slave and to be unable to win one’s freedom; it is another to hope for slavery and to be glad of one’s chains.
Edited