oh, nothing important.

It took me 16 years of hard work and sacrifice to get here.

:lol::lol::lol: Never thought I'd hear you say that!

PD

We all need Waste Gate. He is our Bill O’Reilly to stir up all the Al Gores here! Without him, you would all just go happily about thinking you were right, instead of trying to prove it. In fact, here it is like watching a news channel where you have people from both sides argue their points until they're blue in the face. Then, in the end, it doesn't really matter because neither side would ever accept the other sides views. :roll: :lol:

I for one hate Al Gore, and mostly like Bill, but who cares. Back to a sub sim for me.

Time for me to pipe in - at least on this point.

Rose, you refered to the laws of a Ben Sorer U'moreh - generally refered to as a rebelious son. See Deuteronomy 21:18.

We observant Jews are crazy about details when it comes to Jewish law. The law does not practically apply in this day and age. Even 3000 years ago, this kid would have needed quite a lot of prerequisites in order to get a Jewish court of law just to try the case, let alone convict him.

But the biggest hurdle would have been getting even the most observant Jewish parents themselves going through with this.

Hence, the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin 71) says:

• Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel said "Ben sorer umoreh never was and never will be. So why was it written? Drosh vekabel sachar" (learn and receive reward).

These last 3 words (4 in English) provides a whole new outlook on ourselves, on what we should become, and what it is we should avoid becoming.





But back on topic.....................................

I think "Moe" is a great name!

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/4830/moesmxm8.jpghttp://img483.imageshack.us/img483/8898/moejg7.gif

"Learn and receive reward"

Damn, that's enough to convert even me :)

"On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte, on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Thereupon he chased him away with the builder's cubit that was in his hand. When he came before Hillel, <he also asked Hillel to teach him the entire Torah while standing on one foot> Hillel replied, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah while the rest is commentary; go and learn it."
- Babylonian talmud, Tractate Shabbat, 31a

I brought this up once but I was told that the Old Testament doesn't matter in Christianity. I find this odd because on Sunday mornings our scripture readings seem to cite the OT as frequently as the NT :-?[/quote]
The same stories again and again. Okay, one more time:

The term "Christinaity" necessarily refers to the term "Christ", a title being given to a man who was born not before roughly 2000 years ago. the old testament is much older, and thus must not necessarily seen as part of the christ (who at one occasion said: "I have not come to carry on with the old prophecies, but to fulfill them": fulfillment means that something old comes to an end, and something new is beginning).

There was no Christianity before Jesus, who had been given the title "Christ". But there has been the comntent of the old testament, the prophecies and stories and what it all includes. then there has been the pharisees, and the Jewish tradition. This is the part where I let AL take the lead, she knows more on that tradition than I do.

So you have a turning point in Bible'S history, which is marked by the life of Jesus. With him, a new testament found it's fundemant, or the inspiration of the authors who put it together. The idea of God has chnaged. It is no longer the old revenging, imperially ruling and obedience-demanding vulcan god the old Testemant was about, it is about an idea that Jesus describes in the words of his time and place, thus claling it "Father", but if you read carefully you see that Jesuss was not about pleasing this God by rituals anymore, by living in this or that way: he left the idea of God being an idol only behind and told people that it is a state of mind and peace that will create your heaven (I would say: a state of mental evoultion), and that people themselves need to take respopnesbility for their lifes, their doing and wrong-doings alike. that way, everybody is the reator of his own future. the old testament was about belieivng in an idol. Jersus was about becoming aware the the devine essence and quality of existence is omnipresent and realized in everyone of us, like buddha said that Buddha-nature is to be found in every stone, in every tree, in every man, in every dog.

Tihs understanding of teaching has been kept alive and has been lived by the mionks who we today refer to as the so-called christian mystics. You just need to se ebehgind the surface of the words. If a God or an idol or an idea could be described and caught in words alone - how small in worth, size and value it would be! In fact you can read in the statements of mystics of all traditions and cultures and times, that yoiu cannot put it in words. you can only sa yin words what "it" is NOT. The Jews until today say that the name of God cannot be pronounced. LaoTse said: the One essence that can be known is not the essence of the unknowable, the idea that could be imagined is not the image of the eternal. Moses shattered the golden cow. Jesus said nobody could reach the Father's heaven except through him. do not be mistaken: Jesus did not die in place of your sins: he did what he did to show you the burden you have to poickup yourself, and show you the direction at which you have to search your own way. He told people that they should pickup their own cross and follow him (his example), and leave behind the dead burying their dead (those who insist on sticking to the old misconceptions of what a religious life should be). "Christians" are wrong when assuming that he has taken their personal responsebilities off their shoulders. That is ridiculous, and ifantile fairy-tale-thinking. By thinking that, they are no christians, but the deads who are burying deads, as Jesus put it. Being christian means to live the teachings of Christ. not more, not less. It's an all-or-nothing-at-all affair. No cutting corners, no tricks, no cheats.

The church spreads these queer beliefs nevertheless, and claim it represents "Christianity". but I always make a strict difference between the teachings of Jesus, whcih is my more precise unerstanding of "Chrsistianity", and the church. In order to follow the teachings of Jesus by it's essence, you have to abandon the church's heretical doctrine. It is defending it's own very earthly power interests only, and abuses the example given by Jesus, and distorts him. The church is amongst those traders and money-exchangers that Jesus in one story is said to have thrown out of the temple.

Let's call it "churchism", then and it refers to both the old and new testament, and makes mockery of true Christianity, which I define as being in the followership of the direct, immediate teachings of Jesus the Christ.

the reformation of ancient belief concepts that was introduced by Jesus (as some claim: influenced by the ideas of Siddharta Gautama, whom according to these voices he may have met on travels as far away as into India - mind you that the bible has nothign to say on his first 30 years of life) has no parallel in Islam. but Crhistinaity compares to Buddhism in this detail: Both Jesus and Buddha were up against the orthodoxy of the religious orthodoxies that already were in place: Hinduism with it'S inhumane caste-system , and the wealthy and politically influential pharisees with their many privileges. Both traditions felt - with all right! - threatened by buddha, and Jesus. but when you compare Islam to the church, you necessarily mean an institution that still is very much depending on concepts of the old testament, and the medieval. when you say the church has been once like islam is today, you are right. Point is: even the church has moved beyond the most primitive and brutal fundaments of it's former superstition. But when you compare Islam to christinaity as I understand the term and have defined it here, you will see that you cannot compare it at all, becasue a reformation like Jesus meant for the western tradition never took place in Islam. It is as if Islam has been given an old testament only, but never a new one. more than the church ever has done, Islam persecuted traditions and ideas that were not following the orthodox mainstream. It's most prmising alternative thinkers got wiped off the face of earth, far more consequently and successfully than the church has been. That's why there never was room for such cultural processes of maturing, that is why Islam always referes back to just itself - and this self hasn't chnaged since 1400 years. Muhammad did not wish to raise tolerance for others (whoich could threaten his own power), he wanted to bind all people to him, to accept his command and authority: keeping people in religiously motivated dependance of him.

So now you maybe see why it is no surprise that the law of the old testament is no longer valid for us in the west, but why Sharia is still valid in islam. If you think you can separate Sharia from Islamic identity, then you are wrong again: it is deeply embedded in the heart and core of Islam, being part of the Hadith. Taking the Sharia away from Islam is as if you try to extract the Lord'S Prayer out of christian tradition.

I really cannot see what is so difficult in understanding these things, they are so very obvious. I think you are victims of too well-worn thinking habits that offer you the imagination of security and the advantage of feeling cozy and comfortable. Step beyond that, or you will never become free, no matter what you call your belief.




Is not the essence of the Unknowable.
Is the gate to true understanding.

Tao Te King, I
(my own translation)

No.

I would prefer if they stop helping to push the agenda of an extremist, totalitarian and inhumane ideology by maybe not following it, but neverthelss sticking to it, defending it, allowing it to keep on being the basis for "extremists", and the way of thinking to which fanatical violance is no violation, but the direct logical consequence of it. I would prefer if they stop their silent toleranting of all this. I would prefer if they raise their voice against islam's wrongs, and actively defend the vlaues and principals of wetsern culture and nation. If the latter is too much demanded - our nations are supposed to be their homes, if they immigrated here -, then i wonder why the heck they have even come here.

See what I said somewhere above about democartic Nazis, moderate chinese revolutioners, and liberal Stalinists.

Or to put it more simply. I would prefer them to make a clear stand: would they continue to be associated with a brutal, totalitarian ideology, or not? simple question. Can be answered with Yes or No, so simple it is.

"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?!"
- Winston Churchill

Yes, but you have substantially different degrees of freedom of ointerpretation in the two cultures. I can say what I say aboiut the church and christinaity without needing to fear that somebody will come and try to slaughter me. If I were muslim and do like that aboiut Islam, I wpould,live dangerous. I would run the risk of being stoned to death in some countries. And as a german infidel critical of Islam and not hiding that, I was sent mail letters with death threats last year repeatedly. I am part of an initiative that has filed a lawcase against the increasing of a mosque for which the additonal property was bought by illegal means. i wonder what kind of fanpost this will bring me - next monday the first court date (of three) should have been. But this Tuesday, our opponents have completely withdrawn and simply gave up, agreeing on accepting to give up all claims - we have won. The wife of the chairman already got threatened on open street. I currently leave home only armed.

Where are all the moderate Muslim voices speaking out against this, and pulling back those other Muslims that act in their name? I can't hear them, can'T see them, I am not aware of any demonstrations against such acts.

Instead in colgone the raise of a new mosque in a completely misplaced area caused Muslims to become almost hysteric in vowing to defend the building of it with their lifes, if needed.

Instead we have a massive funding fromMuslims countries for "radical" institutions here in the West, many of which need to be under surveillance by polcie or intelligence agencies.

Instead they demand more and more and more.

I never said that, and I explicitly have defended muslims from that in the past. Several times I have said now that when attacking Islam, I usually do not target indioviduals, but the ideology itself.

All in all it seems to me that Islam only appears peaceful as long as you do not stand in it's ways and do not object it's neverending claims for more, more, more, and whatever it is: never it is Islam's fault, it always is our fault. It stinks to heaven.

I think the point I'm trying (or was trying last night) to make is that the majority of Muslims in this country have become "westernised". They are sensible enough to realise that the Koran is just a book (in much the same way we are with the Bible) and that it was written a long time ago, and that parts of it are no longer followed.

Honestly if you could see the shopkeeper and his wife at the bottom of my road - you'd understand why I think world domination is the furthest thing from most Muslims minds, in this country anyway.

Also with threads like this one on a lot of forums - are you really suprised that we don't hear from more moderate Muslims?

And don't worry Skybird - the last part of my post wasn't aimed at you ;)

Really? Let me lead you around a bit in germany, cities like berlin, Frankfort, Köln, and I'll make you change your mind. Social statistics as well as feedback from former colleagues in the cosial sector that I get also raise doubts. Last year, a representative poll in Britain showed that one third of Muslims (maongst the young even more than one half) excuse violance if it helpts to establish Sharia in Egnland make it an Islamic country. The biggest Islamic communitiy in Germany are the Turkish people. turkush nationalism has become a very serious problem in several schools in the metropoles, especially i berlin. Ultra-conservative ideals and decisioons to intentionally not wanting to be like germanys, and seeing oneself as something better than jmust nGermans, are very widespread amongst the youngs. the acceptance of family hopnour murderings are higher than 50% amongst the male teens, and around one third amongst the female teens (a finding from mabye 1.5 years ago, Berlin).

I said in an earlie rposting, that it may be counter-intuiotive: but what we experience is that the offsprings of immigrants often are more radicalised and orthodx in their islamic-being than their parents. This is a serious problem, and makes mockery of our imagnation how integration works. Mind you that the Llondon bombers came from "integrated", "unsuspicious" Muslim family backgrounds. Same in Madrid, if I remember correctly.

westernizing Islam and by that create an "Euro-Islam" is the big hope of the EU-fools in Brussel. It will not become more than just this hope - promised. They are underestimating the immense power of islam, and it's determination not to change itself and resist any opposition. the EU, or the degenerated Western culture with it's soft concepts and weak values is no match for Islam. Our total unability to accept conflict also does not help us a bit in the face of this old warrior's ideology. because that's what it also is: a warrior's and conquestor's ideology.

See what I said in my reply to Tchocky. I also think you are not aware of how much alive and popular Islmic orthodoxy is. again, I refer to the exmaple of what is happening in turkey. I tell you that in a couple of years Turkey will be a non-secular nation again as long as the military does not step in. I honestly hope it does. Looking at their administrative sector and the national bureaucracy you can already see how "Islamists" already have taken over the offices, women are being pushed back, and traditionally islamic behavior and values have found triumphant entrance into the state's institutions. Attatürk would turn in his grave. But rest assured, europe, the AKP is not running an Islamic agenda, noooo...

I said it several times, I talk about the ideology. and the ideology's position in your or my nation is strengthend by the factor of two just becasue there is that shokeeper and his wife in England, not arabia, and just becaue they do not help to actively hinder the ideology you claim they ignore, but that nevertheless can count on them not to speak out against it.

and i tell you this: most Muslim immigrants/colonists are very happy NOT to integrate and instead live in a subculture of Muslim immigants. these parallel socieites are well established in the major cities, not only in Germany, but France and I tell you: England as well. In Islam, Islam comes first, and nationality is not really important. It has no concept that really compoares to the conception of national states like in the West.

At least you two shopkeepers in your example are passive "Mitläufer" (fellow travelers) if they do not actively stand up against Islam'S wrongs, and still claim they want to be seen as Muslims. Passivity in the face of harm being done is no innocence. I avoid Nazis claiming they are democartzic. I also avoid muslims who claim to be western-style - and do not separate themselves from Islam. On the other hand, repeatedly I was successful in talking former Muslims into apostacy, despite the obstabcles and serious pöeronal sufferings that caused for them with their families. They all had in common a healthy level of intelligence, and curiosity. I would say that islam is stupid, and educates people to be stupid (all religious extremes do that). that does not mean that all Arabs or Turks are stupid by birth. Again the difference: individual people, and ideology. Why should I accept thr spüreading or indirect suport and toleratin for such an ideology: that educates for stupidity, intolerance, totalitarian control? should we rewrite the hsitoy of the Nazis and make them appear acceptable because many of them had very stylish manners?

so we should remain silent, and then they would all of a sudden step forward and do what I demand them to do? you and me live on different planets. why should Islam chnage and rethink itself - if people like you always are willing not to confront it, not to challenge it, not to remind it of what is going wrong with it? You teach them only one lesson that way: that they can get away with not changing and rethinking themselves at all. Why should they?

This policy has been followed FOR DECADES - see where it has led us - it led us to today's status.

On the whole from what I read in your post, I think that our countries are very different and perhaps our Muslims are. I have many Muslim friends who are as English as I am but follow Islam. They have no intention of taking over the world, and have never tried to force their religion on me(unlike some Christians -I'm Pagan by the way)I think that we could argue till we're blue in the face and it wont change a thing. Maybe German Muslims are hell bent on global domination, after all it wasn't that long ago that German Christians were was it?;)

As for the last part of your post, I refer you to the original title and first post of this thread



http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon1.gif Muhammad is No 2 in boy's names
I guess we're looking at a future London-Abad.

Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1890354.ece



If I was a Muslim and I read that I'd be angry,hurt and marginalized.I wouldn't want to be a part of any forum that condoned such obvious Islamaphobia,and I'd be off.

Gotta go to work now - someone else take over:D

Islamophobia? Not so fast.

Qur’an 9:3 “Allah is not bound by any contract or treaty with non-Muslims, nor is His Apostle.”

Qur’an 87:10 “He who fears will mind.”

Qur’an 9:53 “Say: ‘Pay your contribution for the Cause willingly or unwillingly.’”

Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.”

Qur’an 33:60 “Truly, if the Hypocrites stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy—a fierce slaughter—murdered, a horrible murdering.”

Qur’an 5:51 “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends.”

The word "Islamophobia" is a scare-word like "racism." By now, it shouldn't scare, or distract, or fool anyone but those who want to be scared or fooled into silence.