Total posts: 1,201
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Funny, I would argue (and have) the same attributes (1-4) for the God of Christianity
- Almost, but not quite. Christianity adds an extra couple things, Intelligent Omnibenevolent God, which the Quran does not decree.
yet the teaching of the Qu'ran and the Bible differ in many respects so do you think we are speaking of the same God or that one of us is not worshiping God as He truly is?
- I believe we are worshipping the same God, of course in different terms. Arab Christians & Jews call God Allah as well, just like Muslims: "To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." (5:48)
What we have in common is what we as Christians call the OT. Both religions acknowledge the OT yet the teachings of both religions contradict each other many times.
- That is true. Of course we don't believe in the Trinity, in the divinity of Jesus (pbuh), in his crucifixion or resurrection ; though we believe he is the Messiah & of virgin birth.
As a Christian, I believe that Mohammed was influenced by Christianity but here again the teachings differ from the NT teaching in what is contained in the Qu'ran.
- The thing about Islam is that it does not deny in other religion. On the contrary, it approves of all God's religions, Christianity or Judaism or Zoroastrianism...etc. We believe these are actually all one religion, that is Islam, with slightly different paths, though most have not been perfectly preserved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'd say the OP is about the identity of the Creator. Would you say the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the same entity? if so one possible answer to the question 'Which one created the universe?' could be 'all of them'.
- I would say there is One God, & it is the God of Judaism & Christianity & Islam, & all heavenly religions. Christians define God differently, so do Jews, or Hindus... though all talk about the same God, the Creator. Muslims define God as the Quran defines Him, & to justify their belief in God they prove His existence as thus defined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
- Bigfoot is a contingent being indeed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Odd we have discussed the Quran before and I do not recall your ever meeting your burden of proof of the existence of any god(s) let alone Allah specifically.
- I don't recall providing any. Never too late, we can make that our debate resolution.
Do you Yassine know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive language?
- I assume you have a point...?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Bore , bore, yawn, yawn, bore, bore, bore, yawn fkn YAWWWWWWWN
- Are you 5 years old? Honestly. How about a debate to settle this...? You'll be my first.
It says nothing of the sort you lying FKR. here see for yourself
- Have you read the memo, it's all about the 'White' race, i.e. skin color. You should read it, it may inspire you to do something stupid as well. You probably shouldn't though...
So that's a no then. Stop lying .
- Nope, they're pretty much dead. Quite dead. I can assure you.
So that's another no then.
- It's literally what's happening genius! Tell me though, how do you live with so much hate inside you? Must be tough.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Whitekanda forever.
- Not at the current birth rates...
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Take care, Yass, that you aren't just swapping the labels over.
- No sure what you're intending there Keith, but that's exactly it! The West has always had this weird mode of thinking of right & wrong, "I'm right you're wrong" type of mentality. This is understandable, for until recent history Europe has virtually never adopted pluralism. It has always been black & white, us & them, right & wrong. They could never admit or accept norms & customs alien to their own. Despite their ever changing norms & customs, they always seem to perceive them universal... even in Philosophy, even in Logic, in everything there is that mode of thinking, "objective" "universal" "right"... & that's the thing Keith, it doesn't have to be like that. For instance, there is no such notion as "objective" is Islamic Logic. That's simply a Western way of looking at the world, a senseless way of course... There is such a thing as acknowledging other ways of thinking & doing things, within their own milieu. The Islamic tradition or the Indian tradition (before it was poisoned by the West) or the Chinese tradition for example have deep notions of respecting other cultures & societies. The West simply doesn't. It doesn't have to be "we are the good guys" & "you are the bad guys", as the Quran says "to each their way and their method". It's just absurd to judge others against your own values. That said, somethings are indeed "objectively" & "universally" wrong -& plenty of that in Western history...
Don't you see that simultaneously asking for 'pre-occupation with their own affairs' asking for co-operation is contradictory? Do you want fences between peoples or bridges?
- What is about that that is contradictory...? Western nations -especially the US- have always been meddling, & still are, in the affairs of all other nations for their own interests. I'm saying they should mind their own affairs, which they inevitably will for lack of choice otherwise. Cooperation is seeking mutual interests & benefits, by both parties. It is a known fact that the West has always dealt unfairly with other nations on unequal terms, the examples are countless (It's literally US official policy to seek win-lose deals...). They only deal with their own on equal terms. A good example of extensive cooperation with zero meddling is China.
The problem is not with the west nor with islam. It's with human bloody nature!
- The West is a political entity, Islam is a religion. Apples & oranges. Regardless, in this life nothing is perfect, problems are inevitable in all things. I'm saying, if the West intends to survive the future they must realize the occurring change & adapt accordingly. The old ways of bullying & callousness may not work any longer, better sooner than later. As an example, China is a rising superpower, in a decade or so it will simply overwhelm the US & dwarf it in economy & technology. This is inevitable no matter how you look at it. The US (or even the entire West) does not have the human resources to compete with a country the size of China (or India). China has suffered what it calls the "Century of Humiliation" under mostly Western brutality: the Opium Wars, the French & British invasions, the Taiping Rebellion...etc, & that has not been forgotten...
Created:
- Finally, things to retain from this. Firstly. Identity is a crucial thing for a society. With the advent of Secularism in Europe post-Enlightenment leading to loss of its unifying Christian identify of the soul, it left the West with all sorts of superficial identities, of skin color & borders & flags... Therein the rise of Nationalism & Racism & Ethno-nationalism... which didn't last very long & had some pretty bad endings, two WW & genocides to say the least... Then it was about even more superficial stuff, like money & whims... It was all about Communism & Liberty... Then, there was nothing, it all come down to genitals (or lack thereof)... The West lost its identity with the loss of Christianity, it became godless & soulless. "Removing" immigrants is not gunna bring Europe's identity or culture back. It's sad that 'White' identity has such a bad history to it, born out of the worst forms of hate & racism & supremacy & callousness & brutality. In their quest to find their tradition & identity, these "patriots" end up exposing themselves to these centuries of hate & racism & brutality against others & Muslims, it defines them. That's bullsh*t identity, built on hate & vengeance & anger & intolerance. Being proud of White identity & White heritage should not mean adopting the "White man's burden" ideals, of racism & intolerance. Indeed, there is plenty to be proud of, especially in terms of innovations & technologies & sciences, & most importantly Christianity. Being Christian is not being antagonistic to Muslims & Jews, or being self-righteous, or hating non-Christians. Rather, Christianity teaches virtues, of love, kindness, charity, compassion, humility, patience...etc. / Secondly. The world is changing, drastically. I believe there will be more & more terrorist attacks like this in the future by similar individuals & groups, whereas the terrorist attacks from Muslims would simply die out -as they were pre-2001, for there is little cause for them, aka American invasions & hegemony... (hopefully). The West has increasingly less sway in the world. The old colonies are growing to becoming new strong powers, while the West is stagnating & decaying. The western colonial narrative that has been dominant the past century is dissipating ; "we are the good guys" "you are the bad guys", everyone has seen through that farce, it's getting old. The leadership of the West in economic or social or technological or moral fronts is also shrinking, it certainly vanished on the moral side of things. Some deluded souls here, like our terrorist nutter, may shout & scream Muslims this Muslims that, let me tell you, NOBODY cares. The West may have gotten away with demonizing others to justify transgressing against them for long, for they had the power to make the rules & write the story, but that's increasingly not the case anymore. Once others get the chance to tell their side of things, their story, the whole western spell which has been cast on the world for a century will dissipate like smoke, revealing that beautiful atrocious History... In light of all this, the West needs to start making more friends & less enemies, they need to pre-occupy themselves with their own affairs & problems & leave the others to their own, they need to learn how to cooperate not dictate.
Created:
- Our terrorist mate may have had some legitimate basis for concern, but he was obviously wrong, both in thought & action. First, he refers to North America & Oceania as White lands when they are not. Europeans are the true invaders of these lands, which they occupied by literally erasing the native populations. Contrary to what this retard & his likes pretend, this makes the Europeans in North America & Oceania both immigrants & invaders, by definition. Whereas, non-European immigrants therein non invaders -by definition. Half a century to a century ago, Europeans made up more than half all immigrants around the world, to all corners of the world, all over America, Africa & Asia. Only they were invaders, occupiers, settlers... yet instead, he refers to non-invading immigrants as invaders, & the actual invaders as natives... Regardless, migration is a human condition, ultimately all peoples come from somewhere. The driver of immigration is looking for hopeful conditions or running from hopeless conditions, if Europeans can do it, so can everyone else. Second, his realization that Whites have below-replacement fertility rates, in contrast with other races, & in his incapacity to change that fact, apparently drives him to hate others & seek to remove them -literally, while complaining about how Whites are not preserving their culture & customs as the others are. This is clearly profoundly incoherent & self-contradictory. Of course, it's just pure sheer racism disguised as sensible cause. Removing immigrants is not going to bring back Europe's tradition or raise fertility rates. In fact, those very immigrants are the ones who are still holding on to their tradition against the insanity & decadence that is befalling the continent. Christians must unite with Muslims against this godless avalanche that is here to annihilate them both. This racist scum complains about hedonism & decadence & loss of culture & tradition among Whites, yet blames immigrants -especially Muslims- for it... Go figure! Racism justified... Third, in justifying violence & murder against Muslims he labels them 'invaders' who must be fought off & removed, not because they are immigrants per se, but because they are Muslim immigrants. In this moron's view, any White person (of European descent) who immigrates to any Western country is not really an immigrant, because they are all the same people... unless of course it's a White Muslim, from Albania or Kosovo... because of their alien culture, while at the same time praising Muslims for retaining their own culture, as opposed to Whites breeding an alien culture to their own traditional one. Who's really alien..?! Racism at it again, hate doesn't have to make sense. Fourth, the killer also blames these immigrants that he calls "invaders" for perpetrating attacks against Whites, as a motive to justify carrying out attacks against Muslims too. The big irony here is that, in his frustration with ***innocent*** immigrants who have just come to find peace & opportunity away from war & poverty, who actually did *not* invade his land or plundered it or bombed his people or killed them & displaced them in the millions, fails to see what level of frustration those who have actually been invaded & bombed & plundered & exploited & humiliated could have felt. If being frustrated with innocent others migrating to your country drives you to killing them, what of your actual invaders & bombers & plunderers these others are suffering from?! This attitude is of course Western by excellence. Western "civilization" of death & destruction vs. the "barbaric" others, who dare to resist & oppose their masters.
Created:
- Population aside, global economic trends are not in favor of the West either. During the past two centuries, there were 3 stages at which the West made huge jumps putting itself ahead of almost everyone else. First, the industrial revolution in the 19th century that categorically raised productivity standards, prior to which much of economic weight was still within the East (Ottoman & Indian empires, or Qin Dynasty...). Second, the colonial era of the 20th century, in which the world was virtually divided between European countries (& Japan), driving immense amounts of resources & wealth into Europe. Third, the post-WWII '30 years of glory' in which Europe experienced its greatest period of growth & restoration & stability & cooperation, with the Martial Plan & the mass re-accumulation of wealth subsequent to decolonization, ending with the Oil Crisis. These three periods successively put the West one step ahead of the 'Rest'. However, since then the West in general has stagnated (with some temporary spurs). For instance, 10 years after the 2008 Recession, many European countries have barely regained their pre-2008 economy (some not even), ranging from -25% to +10% GDP increase ; the US +15% increase ; whereas eastern countries such as China & Turkey & India experienced over 90% increase... While the West is stagnating, the East is growing rapidly. 2 decades ago, the size of the E7 (the largest emerging economies) was half the size of the G7, having already surpassed it in size today, in 2 decades the size of the E7 will become twice the size of the G7. Standard Charter Bank even released a report recently in which they predict Germany to remain the only European country in the top 10 economies by 2030 . A couple decades ago, the West's share of global economy was over 1/2, today it's about 1/3rd, in few decades it will inevitably fall to 1/6th & even less. Case in point, few decades ago, the GDP of the entire Middle East was less than that of Spain, today it's half that of the US, & eventually will surpass it in the upcoming decades. The world is changing, to drastic effect. In a decade or two, the world will definitely look very different than it looks today & has looked for the past century, especially to the westerner who has lived for generations in a western-dominated world.
- Going back to the Manifesto, the 'Whites' are shrinking in numbers, in both the absolute & relative sense, & White culture is decaying. Indeed, empires rise & fall. Despite the denial of those who don't want to admit it, History taught us that some of the major signs of the death of civilizations is decadence. Civilizations rise & prosper, which leads them to 'indulge' in degeneracy & hedonism, which leads them to corruption & decadence. This has always been true, even for the Islamic Civilization. The Abbasid Caliphate, the Umayyad Caliphate... all decayed & fell the same way. Ibn Kahldun comments on this regarding the birth & death of empires & civilizations, explaining that the drive of civilization starts with urbanization, with urbanization Man settles & adopts long-term living, leading to birth of crafts & innovation, which leads to trade & the accumulation of wealth, with prosperity comes more luxury, & luxury drives more innovation -though up to a certain point ; he points out that Luxury is a sign of power in a empire, but it is also the source of its downfall, for Luxury leads to indulgence & degeneracy, which leads to stagnation & decay.
- Another point the Manifesto makes is regarding 'diversity'. I both agree & disagree with the statement. Indeed, a 'melting pot' is simply the worst idea, in the name of diversity. The progressivist West has reached a point where everything is literally upside down, everything is just about 'labels', with very little content. 'Freedom', 'Liberty', 'Diversity', 'Equality' ...etc. When they talk about diversity, it is superficial diversity, skin-color-gender-diversity, which is the death of diversity. To them, diversity is 'meting-pot' & 'multiculturalism' & 'assimilation'... whereas in fact this is the destruction of diversity, in culture, customs, religion, language, history, arts, beliefs... by way of things like 'Democracy' & 'Secularism' & 'Liberty' & 'Equality'... wherein all is standardized, one mould for all. Democracy subjects the diverse will & culture of minorities to that of the majority. Secularism confines & highjacks the diverse sources of morality of all the different religions to superficial "ideals". Equality strips differences from all the diverse groups on society shoving them all under a single set of rules & laws, which may only fit some of them... To be fair, until recently Pluralism was never Europe's strong suit, unlike many other places such as the Islamic world or the Indian subcontinent... In their attempt to create a pluralist society, they could only allow others to melt in their own, which of course is an unsustainable approach. Now, the West lost much of its heritage in tradition & culture & social norms, in the name of 'progress'. Of course the Islamic model is the better model, Communitarism, each community with their own land, laws, language...etc, in a single society & under a single rule ; truly diverse yet co-existing.
Created:
- As you may all have heard, an Aussie terrorist by the name of Brenton Tarrant was charged with shooting up two mosques at Christchurch town in New Zealand killing 50 worshippers. The whole thing was live streamed. Horrific footage. My friend's brother's fiancee is from Christchurch, they met on his Mormon mission. It's quite the lovely & peaceful town, or it was at least...
- Prior to the attacks, Brenton Tarrant released a 74 pages manifesto detailing his plans & motives for the attacks. I read the damn manifesto, it's quite interesting. It made me think of a certain individual here (that is you, Cassie), brave soul she is. The guy talks about his background, his motives, ambitions, plans, ideas, desires, cause, connections, travels...etc. I can summarize his memo in the following points:
1. It's primarily a racial question. The White lands, Europe & its colonies -North America & Oceania, belong solely to the White race, those of European ancestry & heritage. All non-White races residing in White lands are essentially invaders.
2. Muslims are the worst among the invaders, because: they are "large group of invaders", they belong to a "culture with higher fertility rates, higher social trust and strong, robust traditions", they "seek to occupy [White] lands and ethnically replace [White] people", they are "the most despised group" among the nationalists, & they are "1300 years" old enemies of Christian Europe.
3. The White race is dying, both literally & figuratively. White nations are falling to oblivion, aging & decaying. White culture is a "dying, decadent" culture of "decay, self-hatred, childlessness, disorder and nihilism".
4. The core issue is fertility rates. Immigrants have higher fertility rates while Whites have below-replacement fertility rates, leading to the eventual decay & end of the White race & its replacement by others. Immigrants must then be removed from White lands with any means possible, & Whites must raise their fertility rates "at any cost". All Islamic nations have high fertility rates because they still preserve their social norms & traditions & strong family values, which are all lost in White society. Thus, Whites must do away with their "hedonist" & "nihilist" society & go back to tradition to raise their fertility rates.
5. Multiculturalism is a lie. The melting pot is a delusion. True diversity is when everyone is in their own corner maintaining their own traditions & culture.
...etc... The terrorist scum also talks a lot about killing & violence & vengeance & assassinations & even murdering children of "invaders"... I'm not talking about that horrific stuff here. He also calls for the assassination of people like Merkel & Macron, & threatens the Turks with taking back Istanbul... blahblah...
- Although I don't agree with the scum on most things he said, he did touch on some crucial truths. The West today is indeed experiencing serious challenges in this fast changing world. The global dominion which Europe -& by extension North America & Oceania- had over the last two centuries is now slipping away, with the rise of the East -or rather the re-awakening of the East. To put things into perspective, at the onset of the 20th century, the West comprised a 1/3rd of world population. More specifically, 4 in 10 people were of European descent. There were as many Whites as Chinese & Indians combined. There were 6 times more Whites than Blacks. Today, there are twice as many Chinese or Indians or Blacks as there are Whites. In the upcoming decades (according to UN estimates), there will be 6 times as many Blacks as Whites. Europe's share of global population will shrink from 25% at the onset of the 20th century (the highest it's ever been in history), to only 5% (the lowest it's ever been)... Whites will go from being 1 in 3, to being 1 in 12... Ibn Khaldun says, "Man is Capital". Human population is the true capital of society & its economy. While the 'West' has been slowly losing its human capital, the 'Rest' has been rapidly gaining their own. In 1950, Indonesia had less people than Germany, a century later in 2050 Indonesia will probably have 5 times more people than Germany. In 1950, 5 of the top 10 populous countries were Western countries, in 1950 the USA will probably be the only Western country in the top 30.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
- I have noticed 50% of high schoolers share the same "trauma". Middle/High School is a cancerous environment which destroys the person's soul. Glad you're doing ok.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If we invade Africa, and pay them territory subsidies, then I would think that Africa would be a friend, not an enemy.
- Is it purchasing land or invading territories that you seek? These are two very different approaches.
As history has shown, as long as the locals aren't oppressed, they are fine with being a colony.
- First, when has history shown this? I fail to recall... So you want to negotiate with the locals to acquire their lands (basically a settlement)?
This is why French Guiana and Puerto Rico are mostly fine with being territories. If the Africans aren't oppressed, but instead have trade opportunities, then they won't want to break away.
- The US has shown very little non-oppression tendencies so far... The US (& Europe) has always been about Win-Lose deals with Africa (& others).
The UN would be okay with it if the locals are. If the locals aren't oppressed, once invaded and paid territory subsidies, they would be okay with it.
- The only realistically possible way this could happen is if these countries carry out referendums subsequent to which the supermajority must approve of the US sovereignty over their territories through negotiated settlements... & hopefully countries around the world recognize such results through the UN council... none of which I see happening. This is an extremely lengthy & complex & volatile process with very little chance of succeeding, it's practically impossible.
If we invade and help the countries(not for free, my idea is to provide a $500 billion annual territory subsidy to Africa and in exchange get $800 billion worth of natural resources, which Africa has a lot of), then America would have a better reputation worldwide as those who invade and develop. The US could then turn around and sell those natural resources for $800 billion to Europe, Asia, and other interested parties. Africa gets $500 Billion annually more in addition to their current economy, the US gets $300 billion. The rest of the world gets cheap resources to improve their economies
- Why not just invest that $500B into all sorts of infrastructure & trade & industries to modernize the continent to gain a market worth much more than $800B... just like what China is planning. But as you said, invasion is the only thing the US is good at. Case in point, you are American, your first solution was to invade... The truth is, the US (or Europe) do not want a strong Africa (or China or anybody), never have. In fact, economic prosperity of the other is a 'strategic threat' to 'national security' as per the Pentagon official policy in the US. If that wasn't the case, the US can easily invest into the infrastructure of Africa & reap the benefits for decades to come.
Not sure if this is true.
- Of course it is, two thirds of US FDI stock (foreign direct investment) to Africa is in mining:
This wouldn't be true since the US is in charge. Just as when the British were in charge of India, the Indians got more assimilated to the British then the other way around, despite their superior numbers,
- India was a colony, the Indians were never part of the kingdom. If they were, it would've been a totally different story of course...
if America invades Africa, the Africans would get assimilated to American rule from a ideological standpoint. The exception to this is states/territory/colony rights, where on some issues they can make their own laws.
- So, you want to invade African countries to make them into colonies but not American citizens?
If the US invades Africa, they would rely on Africa more. China would be a little hypocritical since they invaded Tibet. Granted Tibet is now okay with it since their standard of living has gone up, but they used to want independence. Once China improved Tibetan life, Tibet doesn't want independence.
- What does Tibet have to do with anything..? It is very obvious that if the US tries to invade an African country, the latter would take recourse with China to push out the US.
If your referring to foreign aid, that barely works. The UN has been at it for 100 years, it has barely worked. The US should invest in things to make African life better. I would prefer it if we got something in return. My proposal is:
-The US gives Africa $500 Billion annually.-Africa gives the US $800 Billion worth of natural resources and agrees to become a colony of the US.
- That's all great & dandy but it has never been the desire or policy of the US to invest in Africa in the first place, instead they get excess currency in aid, which as you said is no help...
Can you cite this?
Some pros to the invasion:
1. This does not help the African countries though... Also, this could be achieved from FDI, invasion is much more costly.
2. The UN stands for United Nations, which comprise all world nations -including African nations-, which would doubtfully agree to this...
3. Legalizing homosexuality is not human rights, not because you did that yesterday the whole world must. Humans are about much more than just what's between their legs.
4. FDI can do that, without need for invasion.
5. Investing in infrastructure & health can achieve that.
6. I assure you, invasion & good reputation don't concur, especially in the case of the US.
7. Now that's something, but why though?
8. With every invasion, you will surely have even more of them.
9. The $20Tr that the US has spent on wars could've instead been used to rebuild Africa 5 times over.
10. Investment in education?
11. The US has the 2nd largest land area after russian, that's plenty enough land.
12. SERIOUSLY! HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF INVESTMENT???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Thanks for the honesty, at least it didn't take you too long to get there.
- Get where? In case you are too slow to get it, this is completely irrelevant to my answer, Creator God = Specific God in Islam, for the 'Specific God' is defined -in the Quran- as the Singular Transcendent Absolute 'Creator God' ; once belief in the latter is established, so is belief in the former, BY DEFINITION.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Example B restated: (IFF) a creator god is the only thing that exists necessarily (AND) nothing exists that this god hath not wrought (THEN) everything is necessarily comprised wholly of bits of this type of proposed creator god.
- Wut...?! You don't seem to understand what IFF means. If the necessary being is singular, then all other possible beings must be contingent on this singular being, thus must all be distinct -disjoint- from it.
Example A restated: (IFF) a god is fundamentally separate from the material realm (THEN) such a god cannot possibly interact with the material realm in any way whatsoever.
- What is interact..?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes but what reason do we have to believe that the Quran has any true spiritual knowledge to impart and what makes any being 'necessary'?
- That's irrelevant to OP's question. As for the reason to believe the Quran has true knowledge, it is through preponderant evidence & proof. As to what makes a being 'necessary' or 'necessarily existent' it is that they are not contingent on (caused or explained by) any other being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Yassine my man, ready to secure that BAG?
- BAG?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
- Yes, I recognized you. Have any of your views changed since DDO?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yes absolutely terrible and terrifying, Keith. I wonder what drove these once normal everyday people to suddenly turn so vile and violent?
- Yes, I wonder...? His home & people were not invaded, pillaged, bombed & humiliated, nor massacred or displaced by the millions... To turn to the ultimate violence & shoot innocent people, men & women & children, in cold blood in their place of worship just because of their ethnicity is indeed something to wonder about. I also wonder how will these kind of western people turn if their homes were actually invaded & pillaged...! History has already shown us the answer, the ultimate vengeance.
Does it say anything in the story that you are following as to the cause of such vile medieval savagery?
- It does indeed: skin color. Indeed, Medieval European savagery.
Was they doing it on the instructions of a god? Were they trying to overthrow democracy, and force anyone to submit to their own barbaric ideology?
- They didn't have to force anyone, since they went ahead & ended their lives. Not much choice left after that...
They are no better than the muslim fanatic trying to impose Islam on the whole world. Absolutely disgraceful.
- Or the Christian fanatics actively doing so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
- What conservative values? What toxic ideology?I'll debate you on conservative values if you want. I don't think Muslims are usually bad people, I think they're good people who ignore the teachings of a toxic ideology and that's a great thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
- My advice, I recommend you visit an asylum asap. You are seeing things, "them" this, "them" that. Paranoia is a serious disorder. Find help.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
- Unrealizable & foolish idea on so many levels. If the US wants to survive the future, it needs to make friends not enemies. The world is changing, drastically.
1: More land
- You mean territory. Not feasible in today's world, with the UN council.
2: A chance to make a better reputation.
- You mean at being notoriously aggressive & hegemonic. Is your solution for the US having a bad reputation worldwide to invade even more countries...?
3: More natural resources, which Africa has a lot of.
- The US already gets those by exploiting the continent. Much of American investment poured into Africa is for mineral extraction.
4: 1 billion people to assimilate to make Americans.
- Supposedly, 1 billion African would turn 300 million Americans, not the opposite. People generally don't make friends with enemies who invade their land...
5: Curbing Chinese influence in the region, which has been developing a lot recently.
- On the contrary. If the US invades Africa, the African countries would rely on China even more.
A few American soldiers would die obviously. However, I would rather see 10,000 soldiers die then to allow millions of African children to die from Africa's high infant morality rate, something that would get fixed under American rule.
- If the US cares about the high infant morality in Africa then it should invest in the continent to raise life conditions there, instead of exploiting it. In case you didn't know, it was a US government policy for decades to ration African aids to curb population growth in Africa, through natural high mortality & forced government incentives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
- If you are so airheaded to fear for your "life", grey matter should be your concern, not "bombs"... Talking too much, saying too little.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
This also seems somewhat presuppositional.
- No, by definition.
Can you get from creator to Allah without the Quran?
- Not if you mean by 'Allah' God as defined in the Quran. The Arab Christians & Jews call God Allah too.
Basically the outsider's test of faith.
- It is exactly that. If you prove God as defined in the book to exist, then you should believe in that "Specific God".
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Is all I have done on this thread is quote facts and probably 99% of those have been from ISLAMIC scholarly sources as does the author Harry Richardson in the PDF posted by the OP. . Sources you just don't accept. I cannot help you there, you either believe their words or you don't.
- It's more like the opposite of that. Statistically, around 90% of child abusers are white male. If "Muslim" gangs have half a dozen suspects, white pedophile rings are in the hundreds [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/20/britain-child-sex-abuse_n_7342712.html]... "over 1400 suspects of public prominence", "666 of the offenders being investigated were alleged to have carried out abuse at institutions including schools, children"s homes, and religious institutions". The infamous Jimmy Savile's victim count has reached over 400 alone...
After reading the pdf post in the OP's link. It has inspired me to order some of the works of a medical doctor Dr Wafa Sultan who also trained as a psychiatrist in Syria, who is quoted by Harry Richardson in the PDF .
- Wafa Sultan is an ignorant moron who has no clue what she is saying, she only knows how to scream. Why don't you tell us exactly what your objection is?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Quran 8:39
And fight them until there is no fitnah and[until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed,Allah is Seeing of what they do.See that? this is Jihad and it is perpetual war against the non believer until " religion, all of it, is for Allah". It is about the Islamisation of the world and by the sword if necessary. You can deny this fact if you choose but it won't change the goal of Islam
- "Fight them" who? Aliens maybe? Why don't you quote the entire verse.
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you* but do not transgress*. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors*. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you*, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there*. But if they fight you*, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. And if they cease*, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] religion is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression* except against the oppressors*. [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution*. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you*. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him." (2:190-194)
- What do you know! "Them" in the verse is referring to "those who fight you", "the transgressors", "those who expelled you", "those who do not cease fighting", "the oppressors", "the aggressors", "those who assaulted you"... as the verse consistently states & overstates 11 consecutive times, to fight back only in self-defense against the aggressors & the oppressors & to cease fighting once they cease.
- If you are quoting a verse from the Quran, at least try to not grossly misquote it. Anything else you got?
Created:
-->
@Grugore
- Hardly anything this abysmal author says is true or meaningful. Try harder...
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I studied Islam with the intent of maybe becoming a Muslim. I read the Koran in its entirety half a dozen times, and was actually being guided by commentaries and such which tried to convince me that all this really horrific sounding stuff was very contextual. I was able to give it the benefit of the doubt. I thought, ok, maybe this could be a religion of peace.Then, like I said, I read the hadith, and it all of a sudden became a lot harder to give that benefit of the doubt.
- Alright, what hadiths do you have issues with then?
Now, even if you were to give it that credit, Islam is utterly incompatable with western society, which is decadent, pagan, and abominably offensive to the Islamic mindset.
- As it is to any non-postmodernist-western mindset, including that of the western society itself of decades ago. The western culture today is so much more different from what it was few decades ago than any society's culture has ever differed from any other before that.
It is very hard to detach Islam from government.
- Government rests on Law & Politics, both of which rests on Morality & Ethics. It is inevitable that Government be driven by morality, wether religious or secular or both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
- Interesting question. I don't know how Christians would answer this, but in Islam it be would redundant, for the proof of God's existence proceeds from the definition of God itself as stated in the Quran. From chapter 112 (Tawheed), Allah is: 1. One (unique & simple), 2. Self-sufficient (necessarily existent), 3. Absolutely Willing (omniscient & omnipotent), 4. Transcendent (disjoint from HIs creation). Once you prove that an omnipotent & omniscient, transcendent & singular God exists, that is Allah.
Created:
Posted in:
Hi, y'all! Step on here if you are coming from DDO & state your DDO username.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
- How do you suppose you are going to win against a nation with 1/5th the Earth's population & 1/5th its economy? Suppose you won, then what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
- The CPC isn't going anywhere. Many things are uncertain in the world of future politics, CPC ain't one of them. Why do you think a liberal & democratic China would be better at global peacekeeping? The US is a liberal democracy & it's doing a sh*tty job keeping the global peace, in attacking, invading, bombing, pillaging, oppressing nations all over the world. China, so far, has not. In fact, their global vision 2049 is to connect the entire world in wed of globalized trade, initiating colossal projects such as One Belt One Road.
- Why do you think China is ending up in the 'middle income trap'? China's consistent growth in the past 3 decades is *unmatched* (10% average) is unmatched by any nation in History. The leading party has virtually always reached the goals it set for the nation. Why is this going to change now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
- Being a superpower involves more than just sheer production, China has already surpassed all countries in production 5 years ago. How do you think the US & Americans would cope with China taking the global lead?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You asked: 'What do you believe and why?', I answered 'Truth can not be denied', to which you said 'People deny truth routinely'. I'm saying, maybe you should ask those people then...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
- Any specific predictions on how this should occur? What's America's place then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
- Well, one way to do it is for everyone here to invite their friends, & they invite their friends...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheHammer
- Indeed. I think it was my connection. Shortly after I sent that text, I got a notification. Unfortunately, clicking it doesn't take me directly to the post, I have to look for it.
Created:
Posted in:
- Maybe we should campaign in DDO for the members there to rejoin us here in DDC. Thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
- You should ask those people then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
- I have the sneaking suspicion that finding a similar debate site to DDO created few days ago just as the spams flood DDO is not a coincidence.
Created:
Posted in:
- I suggest to use the nickname DDC for Debateart Dot Com, the same way we used DDO for Debate Dot Org.
Created: