Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Konovalov
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TteFAboB
You've said you came here to fix bull**** with facts. You're just a bull****ter yourself with some culture but little understanding. Abd_von_Mumit.
|
Direct personal attack. How sad.  |
Why don't you point his personal attack on Skybird? Or on anybody else? He has said that he found many pig****terss in here. Who are they?
Quote:
|
But I''ve read whole the thread and found many bull**ts (pig**ts?) here
|
Have you missed this Konovalov? Or is your blindness voluntary, ideological/religious?
Why only me Konovalov?
Quote:
Oh... and that would be offensive, if I took it personally. I have never called anyone a bull***ter on these nor other forums. I strongly believe any discussion should focus on the topic that matters, to be ad rem, not ad personam. And again we don't share the same beliefs. And again I don't find this insulting... 
|
As I've shown, you have said that this whole thread has many bull****s and pig****ters. Care to name and point them out? One who makes a bull**** is a bull****ter or is he not? You also called someone pig****ter. So you have thrown two offenses, that somebody made bull**** wich makes the author a bull****ter and pig****ter proper.
I will show that there is nothing personal in my response.
Quote:
|
"The treaty effectively countered the bulls of Alexander VI and was sanctioned by Pope Julius II in a new bull of 1506." Without the pope's sanction it would be just a treaty between two coutries. WITH that sanction it looks different, isn't it? Throughout the European history in these times it was said and believed that "God gave these lands by pope's mouth to Christian kings of Portugal and Spain". THAT was, what I meant.
|
The Catholic Church replaced the vacuum created by the fall of the Roman Empire. With the Roman authority gone, treaties and contracts had no value at all. One Feudal people may consider something valid that the other one does not. To solve this issue Europeans relied on the Church as that was a common denominator to all and the Church gradually assumed the role. It was not by principle but by necessity.
If you are sincere in your intentions you know that Islam is based on the attempt to create a sacred state, by principle, and that's why a Muslim when converting has to sign a paper at the Mosque. A Christian can convert by himself, alone, hidden, inside a hostile enviroment. A Muslim must take part in the public life and be registered in the Islamic notary's public. It is not only a spiritual convertion, but a material declaration.
Thus, you are counter-productive by giving importance to this point. If the importance lies in juridical authorization from the religious authority, then every Muslim registered at a Mosque has acted in the name of Allah and in the name of Islam.
Quote:
|
Yes, I'm saying any religion is an ideology. "Religion" is (for me) a word to name the kind of ideology that says the source of law, order, good and evil etc. is god. Other ideologies refer to different sources of these values. One believes in god, other in nature and the third in mankind or anything else. If that is offensive or insulting, stating that there is god should be insulting too to those who don't share this belief. But it's not. What was the point? Should I refrain from sayiong I don't believe in God not to insult anyone? Do we want to go so far?
|
Because you have devalued religion of revelation! You have de-divinized the content of religion. The source is the religion and not God. The source is natural and man-made and not divine. If you do not want to insult anybody then yes you would have to refrain from saying anything at all. Anything you say is a potential insult to somebody, somewhere. My point was to show that while you tell Skybird not to say "Muhammedans" because it is insulting, you, yourself, is also capable of insult. As I am and as anybody is because there is always someone willing to take an insult. You have denied Skybird the right to say "Muhammedans" but does not accept to be told the same. There is one standard for Skybird and another for you. Care to explain why you can say whatever you believe in, "(for me)", but others can't?
And here is the point. Your response to Skybird has brought confusion instead of ellucidating anything at all. And you have made every effort not to understand what Skybird meant.
Quote:
|
Arabia had none superiority over anyone before Muhammad appeared. They were a big bunch of tribes fighting each other, hearding their camels, enjoying sunny weather, worshipping stones and mountains and writing unbelievably good poetry. In the Medieval 'Arabia', as you call it, id est the Arab-Muslim Empire (as historians call it nowadays), however they reached an extremely high level of civilisation (under Islamic rule, take a note): literature, social and healthcare, medicine, philosophy, mathematics and so on. Much higher than in Europe. There are uncountable reasons of fall down of the Empire, as usually. One of them is time (no empire lasts forever), devastating Mongol invasions, alienation of the rulers etc. etc. But all the best achievements of Arab-Muslim civilisation (BUT poetry) were gained only after Muhammad founded Islam.
|
Later you are going to say that all Empires fall. Could it be that Skybird is refering to a period of decline while you speak of rising and all there really is to it is a confusion to what is being refered as Islam? Islam considered as a religion, Islam considered as an ideology or Islam considered as anything a Muslim authority signs below.
Quote:
Probably for the same reasons, as Moses, Jozue and Israelites (you can found the story in the Bible), who murdered whole cities and wiped quite a few civilisations.  Religion is a strange thing, man, and takes one's reason away...
Take a note: Muhammad is NOT treated as a 'holy man' in Islam, it would be a heresy to call him that. Learn more about Islam, it's always good to know more than know less, even if Islam is your enemy.
Also refrain from using the term "Muhammedans", which is highly offensive to Muslims, as they don't worship Muhammad, but the God, Allah.
|
What have you done here? Relativized and generalized. This has made nothing clear. The particular problem of the thread that is being discussed: "Islam", is put aside next to "religion". Now we can't talk about Islam anymore, we have to talk about "religion". The problem being addressed and investigated dissapears and a whole new realm enters the room. No longer is Islam the issue, but the relations of "religion".
Quote:
|
Islam is like any other religion or ideology. It evolves. Christianism had to go through its 2k years history full of blood, hatred and suffering before it became a (quite) peacefull religion. Even Bhuddism has blood on its hands. As almost every ideology does. But that doesn't mean that "Islam is evil". If it's so, that means any human ideology or thought is evil. Democracy is evil too, as thousands of people die now in Iraq, because Americans want to plant it on Iraqi ground with their military power.
|
Relativized, same as above. Islam is no longer being analyzed, but its relations to "religion" and other "religions".
This paragraph has not brought up any facts at all, by the contrary, it has eliminated all the facts I am going to list:
1. Who - who has blood in his hands, exactly who killed?
2. When - when did this take place? How many times? What's the timeline?
3. How - how did it happened?
4. Why - what are the motivation and justification or even excuses for it?
5. Then what - what are the consequences to the event, what did others said, what did successors say, what happened next.
None of these facts are present and the relativization with other religions only makes their importance nill and thus their dissapearance, solving absolutely nothing and creating more problems and more confusion.
Quote:
|
Never forget, that there are hundreds of millions muslims in the world. And the so called Al-Qaida is run probably by no more than like 1k men, if that many. Whole the rest of the Muslims wish rather to stay home, live their own lives, earn money, grow children, watch TV and play computer games. The fundamentalists are dangerous regardless of their religion or ideology. Are they communists, Islamic, Jewish or Christian fanatics, nazis or greens...
|
Relativization. At best we can talk about potential danger, not factual. But again, there is no talk, if it's all equal and the same the facts don't really matter.
Quote:
|
When you discuss the reasons of the actual terrorist issue, never forget King David Hotel in Jerusalem. NEVER forget that. Islam is not the very origin of the terror. The Palestine is. If not the Palestine problem, there would not be any Hamas, Hizbullah, PLO, IJ. And in the Palestinian conflict neither side is clean, nor the international community is. There is no black and white, there are only flavours of grey, my friends.
|
Relativization. When you say that there is no black or white but only flavours of grey don't you realize this is impossible? If there is only grey how can you tell it's grey, that it's a mixture of black and white? How can you tell it is darker or lighter? Only because there is black and white and only because you are capable of thinking on these terms.
When you relativize everything you take away all the importance of the facts themselves.
02-12-07, 02:09 PM
Hybrid Mode
