I get it Varq but come on, one happened in the 5th century and one happened in the 21st century. One side had enlightenment and a renaissance, the other wants to return to the 7th century. The Christians grow in their faith, even Popes have admitted past atrocities were wrong. Meanwhile Islam still commits atrocities like the one in Nigeria where Boko Haram just exterminated 2000 people. And not one Islamic Country’s citizens, not one Iman, not one Islamic leader has condemned this act.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I get it Varq but come on, one happened in the 5th century and one happened in the 21st century. One side had enlightenment and a renaissance, the other wants to return to the 7th century. The Christians grow in their faith, even Popes have admitted past atrocities were wrong. Meanwhile Islam still commits atrocities like the one in Nigeria where Boko Haram just exterminated 2000 people. And not one Islamic Country’s citizens, not one Iman, not one Islamic leader has condemned this act.[/quote]
What you’re saying is that the Christians in Alexandria should get a pass because their religion had only had 415 years to work its shit out. I can see that, and I’ve made the point before: it’s only the year 1436 by the Islamic calendar, so I guess it’ll take them a few more centuries before Islam attains the level of enlightenment and, ultimately, banality that Christianity has now in the year 2015, all else being equal. And all things are NOT equal.
Then again, for the Jews in the Hypatia story, it was already the 46th century, so they really should have known better than to trick those Christians and kill them like that. Really poor sportsmanship.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
And not one Islamic Country’s citizens, not one Iman, not one Islamic leader has condemned this act.[/quote]
Yup. Not one Islamic leader has condemned this. Not a siiiiingle one.
Well… with the possible exception of the leaders of Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, as well as Turkey, and Al-Azhar, the leading Sunni organisation … but they’re probably not sincere.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/07/392055/Turkey-condemns-Paris-shooting
Incidentally, the Church finally admitted that the earth moved around the sun in 1822, 190 years after Galileo had told them so (it would, of course, be another 170 years before Pope John Paul II apologised posthumously to Galileo about the mix-up).
Which means that if Islam follows the same timeline, it ought to admit that the earth orbits the sun around about the year 2215.
It’s 2015, anything even resembling Sharia law has no place in the 14th century and there is no defense for people who support it. Events that happen hundreds of years have nothing to do with modern society. It’s ridiculous to say one has been around longer than another, so the younger religion gets pass on their medieval beliefs, how high do you have to be for that sound rational?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Just for your reference, the first person to propose a heliocentric model of the sun, stars and planets was Aristarchus of Samos (a Greek), some 200 years before Christ, 1700 years before Copernicus, and 1800 years before Galileo.
[/quote]
Well that throws a monkey-wretch into my ideas. I’ve never heard of this guy before.
To be fair, I knew that the Greeks had some issues with the geocentric model, but I didn’t know of a guy who outright went and proposed a heliocentric model.
But the overall point I wanted to make remains- We’re ultimately limited by what we know at the time, and it is absolutely foolish to claim that we know enough to make a definitive claim on many things. I just need an even better example now…
[quote]Aggv wrote:
It’s 2015, anything even resembling Sharia law has no place in the 14th century and there is no defense for people who support it. Events that happen hundreds of years have nothing to do with modern society. It’s ridiculous to say one has been around longer than another, so the younger religion gets pass on their medieval beliefs, how high do you have to be for that sound rational? [/quote]
But something resembling Sharia law was practiced in the 14th and 15th centuries of Christianity, if you’ll recall. Christendom managed to outgrow the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition and all the other joys of theocracy, and eventually, I imagine, so will the Muslim world. No, they don’t get a pass for Charlie Hebdo. But neither should we be surprised at medieval beliefs from a society based on a religion that, by our timeline, is still in its medieval period.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
And not one Islamic Country’s citizens, not one Iman, not one Islamic leader has condemned this act.[/quote]
Yup. Not one Islamic leader has condemned this. Not a siiiiingle one.
Well… with the possible exception of the leaders of Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, as well as Turkey, and Al-Azhar, the leading Sunni organisation … but they’re probably not sincere.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/07/392055/Turkey-condemns-Paris-shooting[/quote]
The wife of the king of jordan was even at the big french protest with the world leaders, someone in this thread asked who the hot woman there was.
While interesting Varqanir, I don’t think a timeline is an appropriate way to model the development of Islam. Especially considering that there has been substantial contact with Christendom and Judaism since Islam’s inception and plagiarizing of the other two.
I think that if we looked a little deeper at the substance of what each religion has as doctrine, it would come as no surprise that Christianity and Judaism grew out of their respective forms of barbarism. I’m not aware of any verses in Christian or Jewish religious texts that call for the subjugation of non-Christians or non-Jews. Not saying there isn’t any, just that I’m not aware of them. Continuing with that line of thought, I think the same can be said of the treatment of women (this could be expanded simply as “other”), special taxes on “other”, theocratic institutes, etc.
I’m sure you’re aware of the “Golden Age” of Islam, that resulted in great developments in culture and science that were quashed by Fundamentalists.
When you look at the Enlightenment and Scientific revolution, western civilization embraced this new knowledge, and we haven’t turned back since. Islam has had a substantial amount of time to change it’s course and behavior. There are over 1.5 billion Muslims, with a majority in 49 countries, for the most part, these countries are shitholes by comparison to Western countries.
In summary, Islam will not grow out of it’s infancy, it’s reached adulthood complete with the full expression of it’s disgusting “genetic” foundations, the Qu’ran. The next stage for Islam will be war and an attempt to destroy Western Civilization, fully aided by a fifth pillar of Western born incognizant-Marxist multiculturalists.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/07/392055/Turkey-condemns-Paris-shooting[/quote]
Re-read my post. I was talking about the Nigeria mass murder of 2000, and I regress, I posted a comment myself that one iman in Nigeria called for a united Muslim/Christian alliance to stamp out Boko Haram. So I was wrong. 1 iman did stand up to them.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
It’s 2015, anything even resembling Sharia law has no place in the 14th century and there is no defense for people who support it. Events that happen hundreds of years have nothing to do with modern society. It’s ridiculous to say one has been around longer than another, so the younger religion gets pass on their medieval beliefs, how high do you have to be for that sound rational? [/quote]
SERIOUSLY EDITED:
The older religion, being Christianity, indeed gets a pass because their religion has evolved due to the Renaissance and Enlightenment and the fact that the head of the religion has condemned those actions.
Yet Muslim 7th Century code of law still persists.
So we agree.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
And not one Islamic Country’s citizens, not one Iman, not one Islamic leader has condemned this act.[/quote]
Yup. Not one Islamic leader has condemned this. Not a siiiiingle one.
Well… with the possible exception of the leaders of Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, as well as Turkey, and Al-Azhar, the leading Sunni organisation … but they’re probably not sincere.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/07/392055/Turkey-condemns-Paris-shooting[/quote]
The wife of the king of jordan was even at the big french protest with the world leaders, someone in this thread asked who the hot woman there was.[/quote]
Nobody went to Nigeria.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
It’s not because the religion is younger, Buddhism and Hinduism are both younger than Christianity.
[/quote]
…
Buddha is said to have died sometime around 400 B.C., and since he started the philosophy/religion you could say said religion started at around 400 B.C. Hinduism is a very broad religion, but it is absolutely certain that the traditions and mythos within it are FAR older than Christianity, possibly older than Judaism itself.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I’m not aware of any verses in Christian or Jewish religious texts that call for the subjugation of non-Christians or non-Jews. Not saying there isn’t any, just that I’m not aware of them. Continuing with that line of thought, I think the same can be said of the treatment of women (this could be expanded simply as “other”), special taxes on “other”, theocratic institutes, etc.[/quote]
Anything in there supporting slavery?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
It’s 2015, anything even resembling Sharia law has no place in the 14th century and there is no defense for people who support it. Events that happen hundreds of years have nothing to do with modern society. It’s ridiculous to say one has been around longer than another, so the younger religion gets pass on their medieval beliefs, how high do you have to be for that sound rational? [/quote]
The younger religion, being Christianity, indeed gets a pass because their religion has evolved due to the Renaissance and Enlightenment and the fact that the head of the religion has condemned those actions.
If this is not the case, when was the last time you heard of a Christian mob burning someone at the stake for heresy? And why aren’t they still doing it today?
It’s not because the religion is younger, Buddhism and Hinduism are both younger than Christianity. Do Hindu’s still burn women on funeral pyres?
Yet Muslim 7th Century code of law still persists.
[/quote]
I thought Hinduism was a lot older than Christianity.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
It’s 2015, anything even resembling Sharia law has no place in the 14th century and there is no defense for people who support it. Events that happen hundreds of years have nothing to do with modern society. It’s ridiculous to say one has been around longer than another, so the younger religion gets pass on their medieval beliefs, how high do you have to be for that sound rational? [/quote]
The younger religion, being Christianity, indeed gets a pass because their religion has evolved due to the Renaissance and Enlightenment and the fact that the head of the religion has condemned those actions.
If this is not the case, when was the last time you heard of a Christian mob burning someone at the stake for heresy? And why aren’t they still doing it today?
It’s not because the religion is younger, Buddhism and Hinduism are both younger than Christianity. Do Hindu’s still burn women on funeral pyres?
Yet Muslim 7th Century code of law still persists.
[/quote]
I thought Hinduism was a lot older than Christianity. [/quote]
Yeah, I know, that’s what I meant. Sorry about the confusion! I meant to say older.
All it comes down to is quickly reading and thus not fully comprehending what was read and being too quick to jump on someone for something you think he meant when in fact you totally agree with his stance.
Re-read the original post, I edited the crap out of it.