They want to see Buckingham Palace become a mosque

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Why? Out of curiosity.

In the Jewish tradition one is not supposed to name the all mighty in word or on paper, so in writing when using the word god they put G*d. In prayer they make reference to but do not directly name.

Since I was talking about Jewish ways I included that in my post.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Upon reading your posts it is not hormones that I find difficult to control. As for my use of colourful language, if you don't like it? Then you can shove it up your arse.

Moderator, please.

Clearness is one thing, bigmouth - using excrements as language and behaving like a drunk sailor or a masturbating teen, is a very different.

Done with you. And woootch - to the ignore list your name goes.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Upon reading your posts it is not hormones that I find difficult to control. As for my use of colourful language, if you don't like it? Then you can shove it up your arse.

Let's try to make our point without bringing up people's posteriors, ok?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

No offense meant but I can tell you don't.

No offense indeed, but for the most: true.

The two religions are very different, and bare very little resemblance to each other. Later Christians (Greeks mostly) borrowed from the Torah, and in several cases screwed up the meaning of what they borrowed. Christianity has almost nothing to do with Judaism other then having had borrowed from their writings.

Well, I did not say they are similiar, but the old stories in the bible are soemwhat influenced by the judaic tradition. You mention yourself the fore god in the mountain somwhere below. and that is the same god concept you find in the old testament. In both traditions, there is a reference to abraham being a fundament, cutting it short here.

Sure, there is a lot of conflict and war. It is an oral history of the Israelites, and there was a lot of warfare and violence during those times (as with everywhere else). There were also times of peace, prosperity, and innovation (such as during the reign of king Solomon).

Yes, but the 12 israeli tribes, at least I read that ands saw that in TV, have also behaved as conqueror and even rivals at times, and based on the divine promise and command to move to Kanaan. The landtaking in Kanaan took place under expulsion of foreign tribes there around the 14th or 13th century before Christ. This is being called for both in the Judaic Tarnach, at least I read, and is decribed in the Bible as well. The Israelites were not always fighting wars of defence only, nor were they always only the vicitms of foreign agression. Sometimes they also were the attackers and conquerors.

As for what is happening now in Israel, it is hard to have peace when certain groups keep sending suicide bombers and mortar/rocket attack the bordering cities and towns. Its not that the people of Israel don't want peace, but they are not going to leave Israel to get it (which is what the other side wants). So the fighting continues.

the Israeli present today is a chpater in nitself that we must not touch upon here. Also, it certainly is not as simplistic as you make it appear here. And this I say although for the most I defend Israel's policies.

That interpretation of the Judaic god is the one from their earliest history, when Yahweh was the fire god of the mountain. Also a lot of the earliest stories (genesis, the flood, etc) are also borrowed from other religions of the time, and altered to fit. The slightly more modern interpretation is that G*d is a balancing force, that every action taken by G*d in the stories was to balance out man's actions. For example god destroyed the pursuing army of the Pharaoh at the Red Sea, to balance out the killing of all the first born by the Pharaoh's order.

He also terrorised a father by commanding him to kill his son in order to see if he would obey, admitted, he stopped him short before the deed, but the terror for the father was real. What for? He caused a global genocide because his creation - made bis his own hands - was not like he wanted it to be: obedient. Why hasn't he created man accordingly in the first? This whole theory of God setting up challenges to man to test him, simply makes no sense and simply illustrate a truly psychotic, blood-thirsty behavior. A cynic who has intentionally designed man to be able to fail, calling that "free choice" and then punish man for being like he designed him to be - but wanting to be worshipped as a man-loving benefactor. That is not only cynical, that is sadistic. the bible holds quite many stories illustrating this kind of divine cyncism and sadism and thirst for penalty and blood. Man gets punished for God having created him the way he did. Great.

I don't believe most Jews view G*d in that way, but more of an enigma that we try to understand, but cannot ever understand. the Pharisees and then Rabbis, have continued to debate and ponder the meanings behind the texts, but it is not hair splitting as you put it. Philosophically they do believe that G*d does care about it's creations.

Yes, but to come to that image of a god while basing on the fire god just memntioned above - that really needs some form of creative thinking. That'S what I mean. that modern Judaism tends towards what you just described, was my novice view, too, although I did base on a limited fundament only, on some literature on Kabbala (ynd you know better than I do, I assume, how compex and difficutl a theme that is), when studying some interlinks between Kabbala and Tarot in certain esoteric systems.

Yes, Skybird knows and does Tarot. Now that will earn me some jokes, will it!

Your mixing up Christianity and Judaism. There is no specific salvation or heaven per say in the Jewish tradition, no hell either. That is an unaddressed enigma. The view is that Jews have a purpose in life, to bring the divine to earth, and bring earth to the divine, or achieve balance between the two.

Reminds of some more esoteric christian traditions, and the Christian mystics.

A lot of those teachings are not exactly new, and many were lifted from Jewish thinking (also from the Greek gnostics and others), many can't even be directly attributed to Jesus. To be a good Jew, you are to lead a good life, do your work in the world, do your mitzvah or blessings (good deeds basicly), find balance in your life, and show gratitude to G*d for what has been given you.

If that is all there is, one would wish that only more religious people would be like that.

Honestly Skybird, you don't realy know the first thing about the old Abrahamic cult as you put it. Unfortunately neither do most others, which I think contributes to so much anti-semitism in the world.

I never dealt explicitly with it in books on Abraham, but only indirectly in books about Islam, and Christian history (as matching the timeframe of Islam). But I am aware of these deficits of mine, at least. that'S why you will not read me writing about Judaism and Abraham as explicitly as I do about the relgion-atheism-confrontation, the church, Jesus or Islam.

Maybe I should add one or two books on Judaism and its theology and history, in the future. But currently too many other books are waiting.

In the Jewish tradition one is not supposed to name the all mighty in word or on paper, so in writing when using the word god they put G*d. In prayer they make reference to but do not directly name.

Really that is a modern affection that has spread from the more fundamentalist elements of judaism in the west.
Traditionally there are 7 names, and God or G*d ain't one of them.

Done with you. And woootch - to the ignore list your name goes.

[onelifecrisis]

It amazes me what does and does not get an infraction around here. Apparently personal insults are fine as long as they're worded without the use of "foul" language.

Originally Posted by Respenus

OLC, you're forgetting one thing. Radicalism, in any way or form, be it Christian, Muslim or pragmatic is dangerous. It is radicalism that we have to be afraid off, that we have to fight and particularly its influence in state affairs and also on the streets. I know deeply religious Christians, and just "Sunday" Christians and I know people in both groups that are acting radically as any Islamic zealot, unable to accept anything other than what they consider to be the truth and no amount of rational discourse or empirical evidence will change their minds. Make no assumption that you are exempt from this process, evidence of which I have seen in your posts which were close to an attack on Skybird's rational discussion and use of academic sources coupled together with empirical evidence.

I agree that radicalism is dangerous, however that's not what Skybird was saying and not what I was responding to. He's repeatedly stated that the whole Islam religion/ideology is the problem, not just the radicals.

Exactly what process are you talking about, when you say I think I'm exempt from it?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

It amazes me what does and does not get an infraction around here. Apparently personal insults are fine as long as they're worded without the use of "foul" language.

You have to understand, there is no way to create a precise definition or standard for personal attacks. A lot of opinions are exchanged here and often in quite strong terms. A lot of times it's simply a judgment call.

I agree that radicalism is dangerous, however that's not what Skybird was saying and not what I was responding to. He's repeatedly stated that the whole Islam religion/ideology is the problem, not just the radicals.

Exactly what process are you talking about, when you say I think I'm exempt from it?

Well spoken, thanks for steering back to the topic

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Well, I did not say they are similiar, but the old stories in the bible are soemwhat influenced by the judaic tradition. You mention yourself the fore god in the mountain somwhere below. and that is the same god concept you find in the old testament. In both traditions, there is a reference to abraham being a fundament, cutting it short here.

Ya they borrowed heavily from the Torah, then took it all as being absolute truth. Something the Jews never really did (unless you go way back perhaps).

Yes, but the 12 israeli tribes, at least I read that ands saw that in TV, have also behaved as conqueror and even rivals at times, and based on the divine promise and command to move to Kanaan. The landtaking in Kanaan took place under expulsion of foreign tribes there around the 14th or 13th century before Christ. This is being called for both in the Judaic Tarnach, at least I read, and is decribed in the Bible as well. The Israelites were not always fighting wars of defence only, nor were they always only the vicitms of foreign agression. Sometimes they also were the attackers and conquerors.

Oh most definitely, they were not a culture of peace and love and harmony. In the bad old days they would also try to forcibly convert people, and all kinds of other nasty stuff. But that was the way of the times, for all cultures. They had their good moments, and bad moments.

the Israeli present today is a chpater in nitself that we must not touch upon here. Also, it certainly is not as simplistic as you make it appear here. And this I say although for the most I defend Israel's policies.

No I agree it isn't quite as simple as I present it.

He also terrorised a father by commanding him to kill his son in order to see if he would obey, admitted, he stopped him short before the deed, but the terror for the father was real. What for? He caused a global genocide because his creation - made bis his own hands - was not like he wanted it to be: obedient. Why hasn't he created man accordingly in the first? This whole theory of God setting up challenges to man to test him, simply makes no sense and simply illustrate a truly psychotic, blood-thirsty behavior. A cynic who has intentionally designed man to be able to fail, calling that "free choice" and then punish man for being like he designed him to be - but wanting to be worshipped as a man-loving benefactor. That is not only cynical, that is sadistic. the bible holds quite many stories illustrating this kind of divine cyncism and sadism and thirst for penalty and blood. Man gets punished for God having created him the way he did. Great.

Ya, lots of awful stuff in there. We have to keep in mind though that we are dealing with an ancient religion (3000-4000 years old). Modern Judaism is rather different from that practiced during the time of the Romans, or during the time of Israel. It has evolved and changed. A lot of the nasty stuff comes from when Yahweh was the fiery mountain god, who was an angry and vengeful god (modern research suggests this was due to large amounts of volcanic activity in the region way back in time, that put a great deal of strain on the peoples of the region). The Jews also at one point performed animal sacrifice just like most of the polytheistic religions of the time. Jewish scholars have long debated the meanings (if there even is any) behind those old stories. The key thing though is that part of the Torah is based on their oral history, from before Hebrew writing existed. These stories were told around the camp fire for millennia, so naturally are full of blood, guts, and other embellishments to keep the story interesting and entertaining.

Yes, but to come to that image of a god while basing on the fire god just memntioned above - that really needs some form of creative thinking. That'S what I mean. that modern Judaism tends towards what you just described, was my novice view, too, although I did base on a limited fundament only, on some literature on Kabbala (ynd you know better than I do, I assume, how compex and difficutl a theme that is), when studying some interlinks between Kabbala and Tarot in certain esoteric systems.

Yes, Skybird knows and does Tarot. Now that will earn me some jokes, will it!

A key point is that Judaism is an ever changing and evolving entity. If it had stayed unchanging, it probably would have been destroyed given the history of the Jewish people. Kabbalah is interesting, thought it is just one of many schools of Jewish philosophy/thought. One thing is for sure though, Judaism is a very scholarly religion (there are so many different books, schools of thought, etc). I suspect that is a key reason why it was never very popular, too much work involved.

Reminds of some more esoteric christian traditions, and the Christian mystics.

Another nice thing is that Jews don't feel any need to convert others around them. It is even difficult to convert (particularly as you have to learn Hebrew), though its not that you are not welcome to try to if you wish. They also don't view other religions as being wrong per say, that unbelievers will suffer damnation. They are the chosen people, not because they are superior, but the opposite. G*d chose that they would have things harder in life, that they would have all the laws/mitzvot to obey, etc, while the gentiles do not.

If that is all there is, one would wish that only more religious people would be like that.

Ya me too, though of course there are plenty who only pay lip service to their faith, and are greedy, selfish, etc. But that is just the nature of humanity.

A lot of modern morality and law is based on Jewish law, such as the 10 commandments and some of the 613 Mitzvot. Duty to your parents, don't engage in incest/adultery, don't murder, don't steal, don't lie in court, don't judge others or insult, don't oppress the weak, and on and on. There are some weird ones of course too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Mitzvot

I never dealt explicitly with it in books on Abraham, but only indirectly in books about Islam, and Christian history (as matching the timeframe of Islam). But I am aware of these deficits of mine, at least. that'S why you will not read me writing about Judaism and Abraham as explicitly as I do about the relgion-atheism-confrontation, the church, Jesus or Islam.

Maybe I should add one or two books on Judaism and its theology and history, in the future. But currently too many other books are waiting.

Ya that is certainly wise. I did not mean to come off as harshly as I think I did on your lack of knowledge in this area. It was just some of what you had written bugged me a bit as I felt it to be highly inaccurate

I would certainly recommend reading more about it; their history is fascinating. In many ways it is amazing that they managed to survive as a people and a religion after the start of the diaspora, facing the hate and oppression they did from Christianity, Islam, and even atheism, surviving all the massacres and pogroms, and with such a hard religion to follow. Perhaps though it was all the trials they faced which kept their religion going, forcing them to bind together tightly.

Anyhow I do understand what you mean about too many books waiting

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Really that is a modern affection that has spread from the more fundamentalist elements of judaism in the west.
Traditionally there are 7 names, and God or G*d ain't one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism

You have to remember that we are translating from Hebrew to English. In English, God is the name ascribed to the all powerful deity. So it is common to put the asterisk in as that is directly naming it. Yes this is a new practice as most Jews pray, debate about, and read scriptures in Hebrew. Only Reform Judaism offers English/Hebrew services, and will censor G*d when written (which isn't commonly written), and generally not speak that word but use words such as lord, master, etc. But in the Hebrew texts, god is very rarely named by its proper name, only alluded to.

[CaptainHaplo]

OLC - most major religions has a foundation.

For protestant Xtians, its the Bible. For Muslims, its the Quran (though many other "books/documents" exist.

To understand a religion, you cannot ask a person who follows the religion, because their view is based merely on their own understandings and teachings of what the foundation states. Often, these teachings are from a pastor, or imam, who interpretes the foundation themselves, then teaches as they see fit, or "are led" to.

Thus, a person who tries to explain religion is not able to give you an objective view of that religion.

So, to understand what a religion is, you must look at its foundation. That means you need to read the documentation that the religion is based upon. Doing so will give you the clearest possible view of the religion. Once you have the foundation, THEN you can discuss the various interpretations with others.

By reading the Quran, you will find a document that espouses consistent violence and subjegation of others, using religion and matters of faith as the rationale. The early history of the Bible is very similiar. The Islamic idea of law - aka - sharia - has its parallells in the Old Testament. However, the OT became balanced roughly 2 Millenia ago with the birth, teachings and death of Jesus. It went from being a violence and control based religion (aka a political power roadmap) to being a proponent of a life of peace and forgiveness. Islam has no corellary. Its foundation still does nothing more than promote power over others by violence and force.

It is that fact, and I challenge you to read both foundations with an open mind to verify it - that makes Islam by definition an "extremist religion" by today's standards.

[Onkel Neal]

Swiss Vote to Ban New Minarets

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Swiss Vote to Ban New Minarets

At least the Swiss get asked...
I wish we would get asked...
BTW congratulations for that brave decision Switzerland.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

OLC - most major religions has a foundation.

For protestant Xtians, its the Bible. For Muslims, its the Quran (though many other "books/documents" exist.

To understand a religion, you cannot ask a person who follows the religion, because their view is based merely on their own understandings and teachings of what the foundation states. Often, these teachings are from a pastor, or imam, who interpretes the foundation themselves, then teaches as they see fit, or "are led" to.

Thus, a person who tries to explain religion is not able to give you an objective view of that religion.

So, to understand what a religion is, you must look at its foundation. That means you need to read the documentation that the religion is based upon. Doing so will give you the clearest possible view of the religion. Once you have the foundation, THEN you can discuss the various interpretations with others.

By reading the Quran, you will find a document that espouses consistent violence and subjegation of others, using religion and matters of faith as the rationale. The early history of the Bible is very similiar. The Islamic idea of law - aka - sharia - has its parallells in the Old Testament. However, the OT became balanced roughly 2 Millenia ago with the birth, teachings and death of Jesus. It went from being a violence and control based religion (aka a political power roadmap) to being a proponent of a life of peace and forgiveness. Islam has no corellary. Its foundation still does nothing more than promote power over others by violence and force.

It is that fact, and I challenge you to read both foundations with an open mind to verify it - that makes Islam by definition an "extremist religion" by today's standards.

You could have saved yourself the effort of typing by going to one of Skybird's posts and hitting copy/paste. Shall I copy/paste my answers?

[Torplexed]

Heheh. Clever psychological graphic work in how the minarets in that poster resemble missiles or stakes.

[Onkel Neal]

Very true! And the hooded person, I bet 90% of westerners find that creepy as hell.

Wow they banned new minarets that they could have blocked in the normal planning process anyway.
What a waste of time.