Australian Politics Forum - Islam vs other religions

Auggie Gold Member Offline The Bull Moose Posts: 8571	Re: Islam vs other religions Reply #120 - Jun 20^th, 2017 at 8:24pm Grendel wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 6:49pm: Why would you seek to piss me off, I don't seek to piss anyone off. It was a joke....
Back to top	The Progressive President IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95220
Gender: male

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #121 - Jun 20^th, 2017 at 8:30pm

Grendel wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 12:38pm:

LOL slaves now.... when was slavery abolished and by whom?
karnal is a dope. Don't let him keep this shyte going he's a liar.

How about posting the exact quote from the teachings of Jesus re slavery karnal? hmmm.

Quote:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Do you think Christ said this? Cheesy

As for trying to hold us today to standards and practices of biblical times puhlease.... we sell ourselves today and our time and skills to others, so we must all be slaves as they were in the past. Cheesy

What do you think, FD? Does Grendel's Bible quote follow your thesis on Freeedom?

I'm curious.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95220
Gender: male

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #122 - Jun 20^th, 2017 at 8:49pm

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 12:17pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 10:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:56pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:26pm:

Don't want to say, eh?

We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no?

I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have.

The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does.

Makes sense?

Not at all, Augie. I was taught as a kid that the Bible is the "living" word of God, the absolute truth, and the essence of Christianity is to believe this.

You will find numerous pronouncements to back this up, from the Nicean creeds to various Catholic encyclicals to the works of Calvin and Luther.

I have no idea who's telling you Christians don't believe the Bible is the word of God. In some places, this would have you shunned or hunted down.

Anything in the Bible?

Oh, indeed. But don't take my word for it. Take what Christians themselves say:

Quote:

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html

You might want to address slavery first, FD. All Christians believe in the authority of the Bible. To suggest otherwise is itself blasphemy.

And we all know what the penalty for that is, right?

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Islam vs other religions Reply #123 - Jun 20^th, 2017 at 8:51pm Auggie wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 8:24pm: Grendel wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 6:49pm: Why would you seek to piss me off, I don't seek to piss anyone off. It was a joke.... Then I suggest you find one and don't say to me you do things to "piss me off" like you did.
Back to top	IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 44419
Gender: male

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #124 - Jun 20^th, 2017 at 8:53pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 12:20pm:

I guess you firstly need to understand the difference between the two before you can answer that coherently.

Assimilationism was the 'bad ol days' of the White Australia Policy - and even a short period after its abolition. It basically dictated that other cultures weren't allowed. It was a failure - not least of all economically, as migrants (essentially our main source of labour for most of our history) tend not to be very productive when they are denied their cultural heritage. Not surprisingly it was actually the business-minded liberals (and their business lobyists) who pushed for change and gravitated their policies towards integration. Because it made good business sense to make your workers as productive as possible. So integration says that migrants can hold on to their culture, provided they "integrate" into our core values.

as an interesting side-note, its interesting to follow the liberal party's positions on immigration and multiculturalism. Especially now with the re-emergence of "race" and culture as a political issue - vis-a-vis One Nation. We often mistake the liberal party as anti-immigration and anti-multiculti, but in fact the opposite is true. And this is for two key reasons: firstly, the business/productivity motivation as mentioned above. In more recent years though another powerful motivation has emerged: the rise of powerful Asian business lobbyists who overwhelmingly support the liberal party. You might have noticed recently an internal brawl within the federal libs over whether or not to usurp ON policies to negate ON as a political force. Advocates for such a strategy were pretty much slapped down by the party, and in the aftermath we saw a number of signals from liberals in defense of multiculturalism and religious freedom. They understand only too well that any leeching of votes by ON pales in comparison to the backlash by their own migrant lobby if they were ever seen to be cozying up to ON or their platform.

Assimilation never dictated that 'other cultures were not allowed'. Don't be stupid.

You do not migrate to remain in every way as if you hadn't migrated. You migrate because you want assimilate to your chosen new country - unless you are a practicing Muslim. Muslims, uniquely among migrants, want their chosen countries to assimilate to Islam. That is why they should be kept out.

In Muslim areas of large Western cities, no other cultures are allowed by, er, Muslims. There is not a single country in the Western world that has benefited from the influx of Muslims who cleave to Islam. All Western countries are much, much worse off by admitting non-assimilating Muslims. No exception.

Non-assimilating Muslims bring no benefit to any country. So you WANT them to assimilate or to stay out.

It's not hard, Gandalf.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #125 - Jun 20^th, 2017 at 8:53pm

Karnal wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 8:30pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 12:38pm:

LOL slaves now.... when was slavery abolished and by whom?
karnal is a dope. Don't let him keep this shyte going he's a liar.

How about posting the exact quote from the teachings of Jesus re slavery karnal? hmmm.

Quote:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Do you think Christ said this? Cheesy

As for trying to hold us today to standards and practices of biblical times puhlease.... we sell ourselves today and our time and skills to others, so we must all be slaves as they were in the past. Cheesy

What do you think, FD? Does Grendel's Bible quote follow your thesis on Freeedom?

I'm curious.

I'm curious as to what the point is you are trying to make?
Do you know?
You seldom make serious or logical points, I'm thinking this is just par for the course re you. Cheesy

BTW that quote I posted is not from Jesus... I assumed you'd know that, just from the wording itself. Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #126 - Jun 20^th, 2017 at 9:18pm

The argument that Muhammad was stuck with existing institutions like slavery does not stack up. He changed many of them.

Freeing slaves may have actually helped Muhammad grow his empire and his economy. It would have gained him instant supporters in every city he fought against as well as highly motivated warriors. Spartacus for example nearly upended Rome when it was near the peak of its strength. The economic success of Europe in the industrial revolution is partly attributed by some economists to free men working harder because they stood to benefit directly from it. Not just more effectively, as there is also evidence they worked longer hours.

The downside of course is that free men tend to choose their own religion, whereas slaves can be forced to adopt Islam as a way out of slavery. Also, it would have meant no steady flow of female slaves to help the Muslims outbreed their enemies. Maybe even fewer concubines for Muhammad himself.

Karnal wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 8:49pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 12:17pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 10:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:56pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:26pm:

Don't want to say, eh?

We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no?

I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have.

The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does.

Makes sense?

Not at all, Augie. I was taught as a kid that the Bible is the "living" word of God, the absolute truth, and the essence of Christianity is to believe this.

You will find numerous pronouncements to back this up, from the Nicean creeds to various Catholic encyclicals to the works of Calvin and Luther.

I have no idea who's telling you Christians don't believe the Bible is the word of God. In some places, this would have you shunned or hunted down.

Anything in the Bible?

Oh, indeed. But don't take my word for it. Take what Christians themselves say:

Quote:

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html

You might want to address slavery first, FD. All Christians believe in the authority of the Bible. To suggest otherwise is itself blasphemy.

And we all know what the penalty for that is, right?

That appears to be a reference to the book of revelation, not the Bible. I don't think the Bible even existed then.

BTW, Ephesians 6 is a statement of the equality of slaves and slave owners in the eyes of God. Again, not really sure what point you are trying to make.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 20^th, 2017 at 9:40pm by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 44419
Gender: male

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #127 - Jun 20^th, 2017 at 9:45pm

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 9:18pm:

The argument that Muhammad was stuck with existing institutions like slavery does not stack up. He changed many of them.

Freeing slaves may have actually helped Muhammad grow his empire and his economy. It would have gained him instant supporters in every city he fought against as well as highly motivated warriors. Spartacus for example nearly upended Rome when it was near the peak of its strength. The economic success of Europe in the industrial revolution is partly attributed by some economists to free men working harder because they stood to benefit directly from it. Not just more effectively, as there is also evidence they worked longer hours.

Interesting point that makes me ask:

What IS the political economy of sharia Islam? Where is the economic analysis of the cost and benefits of a sharia-aspiring society? Islam will never be reformed on theological grounds. Nobody with any authority can mount a theological argument today. Social critiques have been completely dominated by virtue-signalling identity-politics mongers, so no criticism of Islam will ever come from feminists, gays, atheists, trannies, the curious (Karnal).

But in the spirit of the age, economic analysis of Islam would yield irresistible and irrefutable knock-out blows to the curse of Islamic sharia doctrines. Islam - it's bad for you. Lose it.

Readers are invited to come up with better advertising slogans. The winner will be proven right.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #128 - Jun 20^th, 2017 at 9:54pm

Gandalf claims to be a socialist. I think Abu made vague references to Islamic economics having similarities with socialism, but I couldn't get anyone to elaborate. Slavery and socialism are mutually exclusive, and Muhammad made a lot of money as a trader and by seizing control of the Kaaba, which had been a lucrative source of income for his family, and then by taxing people and collecting spoils of war. I suspect they just trot the socialism line out to appeal to deluded hippies.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95220
Gender: male

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #129 - Jun 20^th, 2017 at 9:57pm

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 9:18pm:

The argument that Muhammad was stuck with existing institutions like slavery does not stack up. He changed many of them.

Freeing slaves may have actually helped Muhammad grow his empire and his economy. It would have gained him instant supporters in every city he fought against as well as highly motivated warriors. Spartacus for example nearly upended Rome when it was near the peak of its strength. The economic success of Europe in the industrial revolution is partly attributed by some economists to free men working harder because they stood to benefit directly from it. Not just more effectively, as there is also evidence they worked longer hours.

The downside of course is that free men tend to choose their own religion, whereas slaves can be forced to adopt Islam as a way out of slavery. Also, it would have meant no steady flow of female slaves to help the Muslims outbreed their enemies. Maybe even fewer concubines for Muhammad himself.

Karnal wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 8:49pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 12:17pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 10:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:56pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:26pm:

Don't want to say, eh?

We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no?

I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have.

The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does.

Makes sense?

Not at all, Augie. I was taught as a kid that the Bible is the "living" word of God, the absolute truth, and the essence of Christianity is to believe this.

You will find numerous pronouncements to back this up, from the Nicean creeds to various Catholic encyclicals to the works of Calvin and Luther.

I have no idea who's telling you Christians don't believe the Bible is the word of God. In some places, this would have you shunned or hunted down.

Anything in the Bible?

Oh, indeed. But don't take my word for it. Take what Christians themselves say:

Quote:

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html

You might want to address slavery first, FD. All Christians believe in the authority of the Bible. To suggest otherwise is itself blasphemy.

And we all know what the penalty for that is, right?

That appears to be a reference to the book of revelation, not the Bible. I don't think the Bible even existed then.

BTW, Ephesians 6 is a statement of the equality of slaves and slave owners in the eyes of God. Again, not really sure what point you are trying to make.

FD, if you're going to make the claim that certain Biblical books are not in the Bible, you're just practicing taqiyya.

But your interpretation of Ephesians 6 means that we can literally interpret the Koran any way we like, just as you have Ephesians 6.

You're not seriously expecting any of this to stand, are you?

Start again, and we'll pretend you didn't post any of this.

We're curious.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48833 At my desk.	Re: Islam vs other religions Reply #130 - Jun 20^th, 2017 at 10:09pm I am just reading what it says Karnal. Try it yourself. Or do you suggest that if I stuck Revelations in a Harry Potter book, it would make it the word of God?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 44419
Gender: male

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #131 - Jun 20^th, 2017 at 10:17pm

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 9:54pm:

Gandalf claims to be a socialist. I think Abu made vague references to Islamic economics having similarities with socialism, but I couldn't get anyone to elaborate. Slavery and socialism are mutually exclusive, and Muhammad made a lot of money as a trader and by seizing control of the Kaaba, which had been a lucrative source of income for his family, and then by taxing people and collecting spoils of war. I suspect they just trot the socialism line out to appeal to deluded hippies.

Socialism is a continuation of slavery, they are not mutually exclusive.
In slavery, the lord owns you, In socialism, the State does.
Under Islam, the Ummah owes you,under sharia. It will kill you if you leave, like an escaping slave. Islam does mean Submission. It's just another word for Slavery. Muslims are Allah's slaves.

Economically, Islam is the worst possible system, it is a recipe fr poverty, degradation, slavery, backwardness. It suppresses economic, social activity.

A curse. It is suitable only for an ever-aggressive, ever-expanding and plundering economic model. There is no room for that today. Islamic political economy is a curse, a toxic threat.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95220
Gender: male

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #132 - Jun 20^th, 2017 at 10:34pm

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 10:09pm:

I am just reading what it says Karnal. Try it yourself.

Or do you suggest that if I stuck Revelations in a Harry Potter book, it would make it the word of God?

Revelations is in the Bible. Would you like to spend 20 pages arguing it isn't?

Let's focus on St Paul instead. How does Grendel's Ephesians quote show that Christianity is anti-slavery?

We're all curious, FD. You asked for a thread that compared the Koran to other religious texts.

Here it is. Here's your chance for the post-2007 FD to shine.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48833 At my desk.	Re: Islam vs other religions Reply #133 - Jun 20^th, 2017 at 10:56pm Quote: Revelations is in the Bible. Would you like to spend 20 pages arguing it isn't? Read what I actually posted Karnal.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 95220 Gender:	Re: Islam vs other religions Reply #134 - Jun 20^th, 2017 at 10:58pm freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2017 at 10:56pm: Quote: Revelations is in the Bible. Would you like to spend 20 pages arguing it isn't? Read what I actually posted Karnal. Don't want to answer the question, eh? Shall we revisit your OP?
Back to top	IP Logged