Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, as Central and South Americans are still from the Americas and have a strong Christian following as well as a long Hispanic immigration history.   Mexico is also part of North America and has been a gateway to the north.   Africans were forcefully brought to the Americas as slaves and labourers hundreds of years ago.     

 

 

Many slaves and indentured servants arrived in the Caribbean (et al) via the sugar cane industry that came along soon after Columbus. 

"Sugar my tea, would you dear?"

Tea Time resulted...lol. Tongue in cheek...but quite a bit of truth there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 556
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Canada is one of the LEAST racist countries in the world and actively works at stamping it out.  Why would you be overly concerned about racism in Canada when the MOST racist countries are Middle

This is like asking why some Canadians steal, or rape, or murder.

Probably similar to the reasons some Muslims are so loud about their hatred of non-Muslims, gays, Jews, etc.

Posted Images

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Because Bangladesh is such a wonderful, tolerant place.

Clearly some from there are, and some ain't. I use my judgement to make specific distinctions. That way it isn't racism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Clearly some from there are, and some ain't. I use my judgement to make specific distinctions. That way it isn't racism.

Why do so many people on the Left reflexively think that word ought to be applied to virtually every single case where an individual uses THEIR judgement based on evidence and observed behaviour? First, it makes it clear you don't know what racism is. Second it just makes you look silly.

Then again, answering a question regarding what the importation of hundreds of thousands of Muslims into Canada will mean by saying "I know a guy who's Muslim and he's fine!" is probably the height of silliness.

 

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Argus said:

Why do so many people on the Left reflexively think that word ought to be applied to virtually every single case where an individual uses THEIR judgement based on evidence and observed behaviour? First, it makes it clear you don't know what racism is. Second it just makes you look silly.

Then again, answering a question regarding what the importation of hundreds of thousands of Muslims into Canada will mean by saying "I know a guy who's Muslim and he's fine!" is probably the height of silliness.

Some are quite different than that, like the black Muslims in the United States. They go way back, before the Al-Quaeda BS. We all know that Mohammad Ali aka Cascius Clay was a Muslim. He was probably one of the greatest inspirations of my life as a human being. Black Islamic leaders in America were/are Elijah Mohammad and Loius Farrakhan. They may not be your favourite persons, but they don't threaten to impose Sharia on anyone nor run people over on sidewalks. These are American Muslims.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Being Muslim or a member of any other major religion doesn’t make a person bad.  Religious ridiculousness makes members of any religion look foolish.  Religion is fine as long as it works for humanity.  The minute it doesn’t is when you have false religion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Being Muslim or a member of any other major religion doesn’t make a person bad.  Religious ridiculousness makes members of any religion look foolish.  Religion is fine as long as it works for humanity.  The minute it doesn’t is when you have false religion. 

The way I see religion (all) is like the manual stick car, it was necessary to start and teach us how to drive, however now we have automatic cars, we know what is right and wrong. I don't want to hear the argument that "we would have figure it out". You sure you want to gamble on that ?

Sure we can argue that some cars are better than others in terms of getting you somewhere in life however a lot of atheists just drive automatic arrogantly and tend to forget how it all started.

Me, I love to drive automatic but I do have respect for the manual car. 

Edited by Independent1986
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Independent1986 said:

the manual stick car, it was necessary to start and teach us how to drive,

It's also true that the manual stick car also regularly drove us to cruel and inhuman behavior, and much of it not that long ago.  "Love thy neighbor" was literally your neighbor, not the guy in the next town, city or county.  "Judge not, lest you be judged" did and still often does not apply to those whose beliefs or lifestyles are different.  I understand the role religion played in explaining our natural world, but I don't think it "progressed" our humanity in any significant way.  Even after Jesus' more moderate message of love and acceptance, Christians have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into every progressive initiative that sought equality for women and other groups.  They may claim, now, that Christianity led the Western world here, but history would tell a different story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, dialamah said:

It's also true that the manual stick car also regularly drove us to cruel and inhuman behavior, and much of it not that long ago.

Some people driving the car lead us to cruel and inhuman behavior, not the car, there are more deaths in the name of no religion (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin). Human beings will always find a reason for atrocities. 

 

Edited by Independent1986
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Independent1986 said:

Some people driving the car lead us to cruel and inhuman behavior, not the car, there are more deaths in the name of no religion (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin). Human beings will always find a reason for atrocities. 

True enough that I can't argue it, other than to say that religion is irrelevant than, and there's no reason to "respect" it, or, I suppose, dislike it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Marocc said:

What's your definition of a 'false religion'?

All religions are "false", but people who aspire to a higher power are easier to lead around by the nose.

How else could you convince people that they're doing a good deed by chopping the heads off of all of the men in a tribe and then forcing the women and children into rape slavery? People to this day believe that was just awesome. It's sickening. Humans suck, tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion used to be the science of the society.  Science is the most accurate story-telling we have.  Religion that doesn’t support facts is false religion.  Science that doesn’t support facts is pseudoscience.  Science is what we can know about the world.  Religion should be based on the wisdom gained from what we know about the world and our experience in it.  Sorry, wrong thread for such a topic.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Independent1986 said:

The way I see religion (all) is like the manual stick car, it was necessary to start and teach us how to drive, however now we have automatic cars, we know what is right and wrong. I don't want to hear the argument that "we would have figure it out". You sure you want to gamble on that ?

Sure we can argue that some cars are better than others in terms of getting you somewhere in life however a lot of atheists just drive automatic arrogantly and tend to forget how it all started.

Me, I love to drive automatic but I do have respect for the manual car. 

Hey lets' give credit where it is due, go back one more step to  horses. No one seems have horse sense but they do seem to be capable of of producing a lot horse shit and the ones producing the most claim others made that shit and expect other to pick it up for them. .there is a limit to how much shit I take responsibility for.  

Edited by Rue
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Religion used to be the science of the society.  Science is the most accurate story-telling we have.  Religion that doesn’t support facts is false religion.  Science that doesn’t support facts is pseudoscience.  Science is what we can know about the world.  Religion should be based on the wisdom gained from what we know about the world and our experience in it.  Sorry, wrong thread for such a topic.  

Yes — you want a man made religion and an idol. Those were invented long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Marocc said:

Yes — you want a man made religion and an idol. Those were invented long time ago.

Science is not religion. It also doesn't claim to be fallible like your religion and idol Muhammed.

Objective methodology processes are not based on faith.

You have made it clear in your world anything you disagree with and/or is against your teachings is evil and to be destroyed and/or hated.

It aint rocket science to figure your calculation [ what I think I was taught from Islam ] = [ the only acceptable thoughts ].

Here let me finish that equation... = [ farting noises using references to the Koran ].

I trust that is clear.

People who use religious dogma to fart shouldn't expect others to want to sniff it. Stand down wind at least when you preach.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Yes — you want a man made religion and an idol. Those were invented long time ago.

Religious leaders in theocracies derive their power from people’s belief that the leaders know the thoughts and will of God.  It works well for manipulating and controlling people.  Dangerous, though probably no worse than any atheist communist dictatorship.  I say all of this as a Catholic who is aware of the Medicis and historic schisms in the papacy.  It’s important to know human-made edifices when we see them. The city can be St. Augustine’s City of Man or City of God, because the Kingdom of Heaven is not a physical place.  Anyway, getting way off topic.  Suffice it to say that we shouldn’t confuse the things of Caesar with the things of God.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Religious leaders in theocracies derive their power from people’s belief that the leaders know the thoughts and will of God.

That's a highly misleading way to describe a people of a faith.

29 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It works well for manipulating and controlling people.

It's not what works, but can one make it work. A good manipulator needs nothing. He can always manage like you wouldn't believe.

Wasn't Catholism basically made by a disbeliever?

But there's more than Catholism out there. This

32 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Religious leaders in theocracies derive their power from people’s belief that the leaders know the thoughts and will of God

I don't know a single one where that would be applicable. Not even Catholism, imo — nevertheless, if you're going to talk only about Catholism, you should say 'Catholism' instead of 'religion'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Marocc said:

That's a highly misleading way to describe a people of a faith.

It's not what works, but can one make it work. A good manipulator needs nothing. He can always manage like you wouldn't believe.

Wasn't Catholism basically made by a disbeliever?

But there's more than Catholism out there. This

I don't know a single one where that would be applicable. Not even Catholism, imo — nevertheless, if you're going to talk only about Catholism, you should say 'Catholism' instead of 'religion'.

What’s misleading about it?

Christianity was established by the apostle Paul and the disciple of Jesus, Peter, who was the first Pope.  Peter betrayed Jesus and Jesus told him it would happen, yet still wanted Peter in charge. Paul was a Roman soldier who persecuted Christians. The Church was run by people, which is what makes people worry about the notion of a religious leader as infallible.  It’s fine when a religious institution has spiritual authority to set doctrine, but as a temporal authority it can be dangerous, as we have seen religious leaders seek material wealth and colonization. That’s there in Islamic and Christian sect histories, as well as in the Jewish state of Israel, Shia Iran, Sunni religious states, and various theocracies.  Be careful how much authority you grant temporal leaders.  Democracy, legislated rights, and independent courts are important checks on political leaders.  Otherwise you turn too much authority over to one person or group. Dangerous.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not be surprised if Marocc is a plant for whatever group put here to stew division between people and against Muslims or he is just a troll getting off on people's reaction.

Orthodox Christians priests back home talk the same as him and drive a BMW to church (so Christian) and now they started fighting with the police because they are closing the churches there due to Coronavirus.

I know of another story told to me by a very good Jewish friend of mine in Quebec that went to get paid for his services to a member of the orthodox community and the man refused to pay him because: "The rabbi told him to not pay because you are not Jewish enough". So the point is, every group has their percentage of craziness, it is marginal in the big picture.

Typical troll or propaganda tactic to provoke a group mentality against another group. You just give them a target and people with their emotions jump to it because is trendy.

Me, personally I am not buying it, the Muslims that I work with are proud Canadians, better educated and they contribute to this society and it will get better and better with the new generations.

I will make sure when me and my Algerian or Qatari friend sit down to have some bacon for breakfast to show him some of Marocc's posting so we can both have a good laugh. I am sure you will let me know they are not muslims. Be humble my friend and focus on bettering yourself, God does not have time for arrogance.

"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

Edited by Independent1986
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

What’s misleading about it?

That it's false regarding all major religions.

12 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Christianity was established by

But Catholism was not.

"Norbert Brox, a professor of church history, confirms that Constantine was never actually a converted Christian: “Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no signs of a change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned to another god . . . At the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god)” (A Concise History of the Early Church, 1996, p. 48)." 

https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/the-surprising-origins-of-the-trinity-doctrine

12 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The Church was run by people, which is what makes people worry about the notion of a religious leader as infallible.

Has someone said that religious leaders are infallible in Christianity? Actually does happen on twelver Shia sect at least. Many of them think their 12 imams are infallible.

12 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s fine when a religious institution has spiritual authority to set doctrine,

To set the laws of the Bible, they needed to do more than be 'spiritual leaders' such as they are considered today.

12 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

but as a temporal authority

All authority on earth is temporal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Independent1986 said:

Be humble my friend and focus on bettering yourself, God does not have time for arrogance.

"Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islam), enjoining Al-Ma‘roof (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do) and forbidding Al-Munkar (polytheism and disbelief and all that Islam has forbidden). And it is they who are the successful. [Surah Âl ‘Imrân, 3:104]" 

https://aljumuah.com/only-allah-can-judge-me/

"Those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of Dawood (David) and Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). That was because they disobeyed (Allah and the Messengers) and were ever transgressing beyond bounds. They used not to forbid one another from Al–Munkar (wrong, evildoing, sins, polytheism, disbelief) which they committed. Vile indeed was what they used to do. [Surah Al-Ma’idah, 5:78]" 

"Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq narrates,  I heard Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) say, “When people see something objectionable and do not change it, Allah will soon include them all in His punishment. (Al-Tirmidhi)" 

"Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) said  If you see a munkar (un-islamic act), you change it with your hand; and if you cannot do that, then change it with your mouth (speak out against it); and if you cannot do [even] that, then forbid it in your heart — and that is the least of belief. (Muslim)"

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marocc said:

That it's false regarding all major religions.

But Catholism was not.

"Norbert Brox, a professor of church history, confirms that Constantine was never actually a converted Christian: “Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no signs of a change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned to another god . . . At the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god)” (A Concise History of the Early Church, 1996, p. 48)." 

https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/the-surprising-origins-of-the-trinity-doctrine

Has someone said that religious leaders are infallible in Christianity? Actually does happen on twelver Shia sect at least. Many of them think their 12 imams are infallible.

To set the laws of the Bible, they needed to do more than be 'spiritual leaders' such as they are considered today.

All authority on earth is temporal.

Okay I don’t know why you’re bringing Constantine into this, as the Church predates him.  Catholic just means universal.  Schisms or sects broke away from it.  We could talk about other early groups in places like Antioch.  Not really the point.

Yes there is Papal infallibility for believers, as there is belief in such infallibility for Shia Imams.  I’m not sure what your point is.  I would say that there have been people in these positions that have not consistently acted in ways that could sensibly be called infallible, but you have religious freedom in Canada to believe what you want.

 I said that religious leaders in theocracies such as Iran derive power from people’s belief that such leaders know the will of God   You said that was misleading, even though your statement about the infallibility of Imams makes my point.  The difference in Catholicism is that the Pope isn’t running my country. 

Yes political authority is temporal authority.

We have different beliefs, which is fine   The main difference between our belief systems is that you believe that the people who are not adherents to your faith are essentially unworthy. That’s where I get off the boat.  If God exists as a perfect eternal being, He/She is much bigger than our petty and imperfect concepts of God.  I don’t believe people are abandoned simply because they happen not to have been born in a particular country where a certain faith isn’t prevalent or because someone wasn’t raised a certain way   In the end, all we can respond to as humans is people’s actions   We don’t know what’s in people’s hearts.

I don’t believe in a god that casts atheists or nonbelievers in my faith into hell or that some person has the right to launch wars in God’s name, except in the name of preventing greater slaughter. Religion has to work for humanity or it is false religion.  Beware of false prophets.  It’s in serving people that we serve God.  We can draw strength from our faith as we try to serve through the pandemic.

These are my opinions and you’re entitled to your own. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...