Christian terrorist attack in Pakistan kills 57.....

[Billie]

Not at all, Murat, we all agree that religious people do terrible things. The Orthodox Church in Russia leapt into bed with the Commies, and in Serbia, as Billie knows well, her side aren't without their sins, these things aren't in dispute.

Examples, please. What are Russian or Serbian Orthodox Churches sins during communist or other times? Did any of them preach destruction of other nationalities/religions? Did they bless mass concentration camps where thousands innocent, mostly people of another religion, were tortured and killed? Oh wait, they didn't even have them, those existed in Nazi Germany and Nazi Croatia only. But maybe I missed them, so you are welcome to provide examples.

It seems to me that you think that Serbs shouldn't have done anything anywhere, they just needed to wait for the executioners to come and herd them again into trucks and trains and bye bye Serbs. At least this time only hundreds of thousands (me included) were just expelled from their homes, but that is much better outcome than many of my relatives at the beginning of WWWII! Yeah, sure, my aunt went to work one day in 1991 and found the sign at the entrance: Dogs and Serbs are not allowed in, but that was more like a joke, perhaps.:nono

You should just consider yourself lucky that you never had to experience war, that is all I can say.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Sorry Cali, I will not have this debate with you. I have never met anyone in my life, online or real, where I had to explain why treating people as property is immoral.

 

[Billie]

It is immoral from our point of view and the practice is long gone, but at the time it was common. Happened throughout the history, even gladiators in ancient Rome were slaves.

But to have that today, like Isis or other radical organizations, that is appalling. All those kidnapped or captured little girls and women, they are made into sex slaves and tortured. Makes me sick just thinking about it.:nono

 

[calitennis127]

Sorry Cali, I will not have this debate with you. I have never met anyone in my life, online or real, where I had to explain why treating people as property is immoral.

That's because you live in a time when Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, and other great minds are hardly studied, and in which no one knows what they are talking about when it comes to much of anything.

So why don't you answer the question: do you consider Aristotle and Cicero to be the equivalent of Charles Manson? Were the ancient Greeks and Romans a society of evil, irrational freaks since slavery was so widespread in their societies?

If slavery was so transparently evil, why didn't the founders of America (the most notable of whom were anti-Christian freemasons, which you are proud of) find anything wrong with it?

You also conveniently ignored the quote from Pope Gregory XVI condemning the slave trade.....it is very clear that you approach this issue in a shallow, puerile, and trivial fashion. And that is why you are not willing to be philosophical about it.

But what can I expect from someone who knows nothing about the Classics?

I guess that stupid Aristotle couldn't see that slavery was the equivalent of the atheist invention of child pornography. Stupid him.

 

[calitennis127]

All those kidnapped or captured little girls and women, they are made into sex slaves and tortured. Makes me sick just thinking about it.:nono

"Sex slavery" is an entirely different concept than economic slavery.

 

[calitennis127]

Sorry Cali, I will not have this debate with you. I have never met anyone in my life, online or real, where I had to explain why treating people as property is immoral.

That's because you live in a time when Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, and other great minds are hardly studied, and in which no one knows what they are talking about when it comes to much of anything.

So why don't you answer the question: do you consider Aristotle and Cicero to be the equivalent of Charles Manson? Were the ancient Greeks and Romans a society of evil, irrational freaks since slavery was so widespread in their societies?

If slavery was so transparently evil, why didn't the founders of America (the most notable of whom were anti-Christian freemasons, which you are proud of) find anything wrong with it?

You also conveniently ignored the quote from Pope Gregory XVI condemning the slave trade.....it is very clear that you approach this issue in a shallow, puerile, and trivial fashion. And that is why you are not willing to be philosophical about it.

But what can I expect from someone who knows nothing about the Classics?

I guess that stupid Aristotle couldn't see that slavery was the equivalent of the atheist invention of child pornography. Stupid him.

I guess I'll be waiting all year for answers to these questions. Murat has no idea what to say to them.....

 

[Kieran]

Not at all, Murat, we all agree that religious people do terrible things. The Orthodox Church in Russia leapt into bed with the Commies, and in Serbia, as Billie knows well, her side aren't without their sins, these things aren't in dispute.

Examples, please. What are Russian or Serbian Orthodox Churches sins during communist or other times? Did any of them preach destruction of other nationalities/religions? Did they bless mass concentration camps where thousands innocent, mostly people of another religion, were tortured and killed? Oh wait, they didn't even have them, those existed in Nazi Germany and Nazi Croatia only. But maybe I missed them, so you are welcome to provide examples.

It seems to me that you think that Serbs shouldn't have done anything anywhere, they just needed to wait for the executioners to come and herd them again into trucks and trains and bye bye Serbs. At least this time only hundreds of thousands (me included) were just expelled from their homes, but that is much better outcome than many of my relatives at the beginning of WWWII! Yeah, sure, my aunt went to work one day in 1991 and found the sign at the entrance: Dogs and Serbs are not allowed in, but that was more like a joke, perhaps.:nono

You should just consider yourself lucky that you never had to experience war, that is all I can say.

Wrong, Billie, I grew up in Ireland where we had madmen and lunatics shoot and kill each other - and the British - in the name of "freedom" and religion. They were - and are - nothing more than thugs, murderers and gangsters.

As for "Dogs and Serbs", we had it similar:

I recommend to you a book by Rabbi David Dalin, who helped clear up some of the horrible mess and slurs against the Papacy during WW2. I recommend this because I clicked on one of your links and was embarrassed to find the author quoting extensively from John Cornwell's book, Hitler's Pope. As for Serbian and her history, I'm sure you can defend it quite well, and the allegations are false, even from the UN. This is your prerogative, my friend, although I disagree. It would be like me defending the atrocities of the IRA on the basis that they were defending Catholics. I wouldn't have the stomach for it.

And by the way, when I said that people in Serbia "aren't without their sins", I wasn't saying this to provoke you or to single out Serbians as being better or worse than anybody else - they're no better or worse - but to point out that war and violence are human weaknesses common to people of relion - and no religion. Let he who is without sin, cast the first etcetera.

As for the Boko Harum children kidnapping, I've seen ISIS are bartering over the girls kidnapped from the Yazidi, and Christian girls too. They're selling them for as little as €30. The Boko Harum girls are apparently already sold, which is unbearable... :nono

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Sorry Cali, I will not have this debate with you. I have never met anyone in my life, online or real, where I had to explain why treating people as property is immoral.

That's because you live in a time when Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, and other great minds are hardly studied, and in which no one knows what they are talking about when it comes to much of anything.

So why don't you answer the question: do you consider Aristotle and Cicero to be the equivalent of Charles Manson? Were the ancient Greeks and Romans a society of evil, irrational freaks since slavery was so widespread in their societies?

If slavery was so transparently evil, why didn't the founders of America (the most notable of whom were anti-Christian freemasons, which you are proud of) find anything wrong with it?

You also conveniently ignored the quote from Pope Gregory XVI condemning the slave trade.....it is very clear that you approach this issue in a shallow, puerile, and trivial fashion. And that is why you are not willing to be philosophical about it.

But what can I expect from someone who knows nothing about the Classics?

I guess that stupid Aristotle couldn't see that slavery was the equivalent of the atheist invention of child pornography. Stupid him.

I guess I'll be waiting all year for answers to these questions. Murat has no idea what to say to them.....

Like, I said, I am not getting into this debate with you Cali. You can wait all year. I said what I needed to say. No point discussing the upsides of slavery with you.

 

[calitennis127]

Sorry Cali, I will not have this debate with you. I have never met anyone in my life, online or real, where I had to explain why treating people as property is immoral.

That's because you live in a time when Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, and other great minds are hardly studied, and in which no one knows what they are talking about when it comes to much of anything.

So why don't you answer the question: do you consider Aristotle and Cicero to be the equivalent of Charles Manson? Were the ancient Greeks and Romans a society of evil, irrational freaks since slavery was so widespread in their societies?

If slavery was so transparently evil, why didn't the founders of America (the most notable of whom were anti-Christian freemasons, which you are proud of) find anything wrong with it?

You also conveniently ignored the quote from Pope Gregory XVI condemning the slave trade.....it is very clear that you approach this issue in a shallow, puerile, and trivial fashion. And that is why you are not willing to be philosophical about it.

But what can I expect from someone who knows nothing about the Classics?

I guess that stupid Aristotle couldn't see that slavery was the equivalent of the atheist invention of child pornography. Stupid him.

I guess I'll be waiting all year for answers to these questions. Murat has no idea what to say to them.....

Like, I said, I am not getting into this debate with you Cali. You can wait all year. I said what I needed to say. No point discussing the upsides of slavery with you.

Okay, so you believe that Aristotle, Cicero, Confucius, and Thomas Jefferson were all evil, ignorant people because they didn't universally condemn slavery?

You also consider the ancient Romans to be worse than the Nazis, since 40% of their society consisted of slaves?

Those are highly rational positions, Murat. No wonder your understanding of the world is so sound.

Folks - Murat considers Plato and Aristotle to be immoral/submoral Nazis. Isn't that a rational position?

 

[Kieran]

I'm gonna go looking for where Murat said this. I maybe a while searching folks, so don't be alarmed if I'm gone from here forever...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Cali, what is wrong with you? You don't have any other debate style than building strawmen and fighting against them? What is going on here?

Ok, I will bite...(sigh)

Where have you , in this debate, seen me blaming explicitly the PEOPLE, or the society, or the Greeks, or the Romans, or Plato or Aristotle for slavery? Show me please. If you cannot, then everyone here will know you have no idea how to debate except building strawmen.

On the other hand, have you seen me in this thread say " People did not know any better" or " Those were the times" ? Just go back a bit, and you will see.

What I explicitly blame is your GOD and your Religion. Why? Because you claim, and have also claimed in an other thread, that you believe in a omniscient and omnipresent GOD and that the Bible is the word of GOD? Do you Cali? You can deny if you want.

So, definition of Omniscient: having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

Definition of Omnipresent: (of God) present everywhere at the same time.

Slavery:Slavery is a legal or economic system under which people are treated as property. Though laws and systems vary, as property, enslaved persons, referred to as "slaves", may be bought and sold.


Now, STOP putting your own garbage words in my mind and answer the effin question: Why is your timeless, all knowing all powerful GOD is not putting ONE word against slavery in his books, when he has the time to put words against murder, stealing, disrespecting your elders, suicide, homosexuality etc...? WHY? Could it be that the control freak men who wrote the Bible were slave owners themselves????? I mean, if it is the word of GOD and GOD is omniscient, even at ancient times he must have known slavery was not kosher, no?

Again , stop putting words in my mouth, go back and read what I have posted. I cited versus form your favorite book about slavery, the ways to punish them, own them, buy them, sell them. I NEVER put the blame on Greeks or whatever (by the way, it is well documented that the ancient Greek men had a particular appetite for the "company " of young boys. Do you approve that too Cali?" Oh wait, probably not, because Bible does not like that kind of behaviour...YET, not one word against slavery form an OMNISCIENT being?

WHY NOT?

 

[Kieran]

Them's fighting words, brother! :snigger

I think it's a great question to ask, Murat, but you have to accept that in condemning rich people and saying it's easier to pass through the eye of a needle, etc, and telling the rich man who wanted to follow him to give everything to the poor, the NT is filled with words about private wealth, of which slavery was another part. Slaves were property, as well as often the spoils of war. And yet St Paul gives dignity to slaves in Galatians 3 ("we are no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, etc") and Jesus always exhorts the poor - who we will always have - to find their dignity in God, and not in wealth. The Beatitudes are ripe with fruits in this regard.

The Gospel is a spiritual manual, and it always guides the soul towards greater union with God. It isn't a political manifesto, although it was certainly ground-shaking (especially for the wealthy people of the time, who heard it) and its ramifications have led to Christians lead the charge against slavery. But slavery comes in many forms, and the NT warns against the slavery of sin, and so forth. It addresses life differently to the way people would want it to, but it's always nourishing for those who have faith. The Good News is basically that God has come among us, but did He come as a landowner :nono ? A warlord :nono ? A wealthy prince :nono ? No, he came as a refugee and he died on a cross like a criminal. That shows you Who God was reaching towards. The NT is essentially telling us the implications of this... :hug

 

[calitennis127]

Murat, you have asked a number of questions and I will respond in detail later when I have more time, but as a preliminary response, I would like to pose these two questions to you:

1) In your view of the history of slavery, is your objection to a) slavery per se or b) the way in which whites enslaved non-whites post-1500?

2) Hypothetical: if Christopher Hitchens was still alive and somehow he became president of the United States, would you object to his regime enslaving white Christians in, say, Mississippi and Arkansas?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Murat, you have asked a number of questions and I will respond in detail later when I have more time, but as a preliminary response, I would like to pose these two questions to you:

1) In your view of the history of slavery, is your objection to a) slavery per se or b) the way in which whites enslaved non-whites post-1500?

2) Hypothetical: if Christopher Hitchens was still alive and somehow he became president of the United States, would you object to his regime enslaving white Christians in, say, Mississippi and Arkansas?

Cali, short answers:

1) I hate slavery period. Nothing to do with color. Men is not a commodity you should be able to buy and sell at your will. No person should live for the sake of another.

2) First answer explains it. If Hitchens was president...? Then GOD save us all (pun intended)

My question still remains Cali. Take your time.

 

[britbox]

The abolition of slavery is a product of the evolution of civilization. I don't blame people at the time because it was considered the "norm" and they were conditioned to think so.

I don't think human base instincts have changed, but what they are conditioned to believe is acceptable definitely has.

 

[calitennis127]

What I explicitly blame is your GOD and your Religion. Why? Because you claim, and have also claimed in an other thread, that you believe in a omniscient and omnipresent GOD and that the Bible is the word of GOD? Do you Cali? You can deny if you want.

Let me isolate this, just for starters.

As both shawnbm and I explained, there is a huge difference between the way Christians (particularly Catholics) approach the Bible and the way that Muslims approach the Qu'ran. Catholics do not believe that everything in the Bible is the perfect word of God. They believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, written by human beings to transmit God's message. The final binding authority of what Scripture means rests with the Church Magisterium. Muslims, on the other hand, believe that everything in the Qu'ran was dictated by Allah to Muhammad and is immutable and perfect.

This is a huge distinction, and it is a major factor in explaining why Christian civilization has been so much more intellectually advanced than Islamic civilization. People criticize the Catholic Church for making sound scientific arguments that Galileo couldn't respond to in 1530 concerning heliocentrism, but few people say anything about how Saudi schools still TODAY teach geocentrism as a matter of religious doctrine and scientific truth.

So, in conclusion, NO - I do not believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God. Believing that God is omniscient and believing that the Bible is the perfect word of God are two entirely different positions to uphold. I do not subscribe to the latter.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

What I explicitly blame is your GOD and your Religion. Why? Because you claim, and have also claimed in an other thread, that you believe in a omniscient and omnipresent GOD and that the Bible is the word of GOD? Do you Cali? You can deny if you want.

Let me isolate this, just for starters.

As both shawnbm and I explained, there is a huge difference between the way Christians (particularly Catholics) approach the Bible and the way that Muslims approach the Qu'ran. Catholics do not believe that everything in the Bible is the perfect word of God. They believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, written by human beings to transmit God's message. The final binding authority of what Scripture means rests with the Church Magisterium. Muslims, on the other hand, believe that everything in the Qu'ran was dictated by Allah to Muhammad and is immutable and perfect.

This is a huge distinction, and it is a major factor in explaining why Christian civilization has been so much more intellectually advanced than Islamic civilization. People criticize the Catholic Church for making sound scientific arguments that Galileo couldn't respond to in 1530 concerning heliocentrism, but few people say anything about how Saudi schools still TODAY teach geocentrism as a matter of religious doctrine and scientific truth.

So, in conclusion, NO - I do not believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God. Believing that God is omniscient and believing that the Bible is the perfect word of God are two entirely different positions to uphold. I do not subscribe to the latter.

Dude, your ignorance is breathtaking....Qur'an was dictated to Muhammed by Cebrail (Gabriel), not Allah. Also believing what is written versus real life are very different things. Everyone has their version. Alcohol is banned, but you go to Turkey and enjoy your Raki 24/7, nobody says a word. Turkey is %95 Muslim. I am sure ISIS sees it differently.

So you do not believe Bible is the perfect word of God... in other words, not THAT holy? We will get to that later.

My question remains unanswered though...I am not going to repeat it, check the previous post.

 

[calitennis127]

What I explicitly blame is your GOD and your Religion. Why? Because you claim, and have also claimed in an other thread, that you believe in a omniscient and omnipresent GOD and that the Bible is the word of GOD? Do you Cali? You can deny if you want.

Let me isolate this, just for starters.

As both shawnbm and I explained, there is a huge difference between the way Christians (particularly Catholics) approach the Bible and the way that Muslims approach the Qu'ran. Catholics do not believe that everything in the Bible is the perfect word of God. They believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, written by human beings to transmit God's message. The final binding authority of what Scripture means rests with the Church Magisterium. Muslims, on the other hand, believe that everything in the Qu'ran was dictated by Allah to Muhammad and is immutable and perfect.

This is a huge distinction, and it is a major factor in explaining why Christian civilization has been so much more intellectually advanced than Islamic civilization. People criticize the Catholic Church for making sound scientific arguments that Galileo couldn't respond to in 1530 concerning heliocentrism, but few people say anything about how Saudi schools still TODAY teach geocentrism as a matter of religious doctrine and scientific truth.

So, in conclusion, NO - I do not believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God. Believing that God is omniscient and believing that the Bible is the perfect word of God are two entirely different positions to uphold. I do not subscribe to the latter.

Dude, your ignorance is breathtaking....Qur'an was dictated to Muhammed by Cebrail (Gabriel), not Allah. Also believing what is written versus real life are very different things. Everyone has their version. Alcohol is banned, but you go to Turkey and enjoy your Raki 24/7, nobody says a word. Turkey is %95 Muslim. I am sure ISIS sees it differently.

So you do not believe Bible is the perfect word of God... in other words, not THAT holy? We will get to that later.

Murat, this is not a hard distinction to grasp. There is a difference between thinking that God's message is transmitted through Scripture in various ways versus thinking that every single line of the Bible is the perfect word of God, direct and unadulerated.

My error about the dictation of Gabriel aside (it has been a few years since I studied Islam closely), I do know for a fact that Muslims are to believe that the Qu'ran is the perfect word of Allah - in other words, that there are no errors in it.

The historic intellectual retardation of the Muslim world is evidence of this. There is a reason that Muslim nations lag behind in scholarship, science, legal systems, economic prosperity, sophisticated artistic output, and major philosophical contributions.

Which are more advanced and better places to live: Germany, France, and Britain, or Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia?

There is no conversation here. The Christian West has far surpassed in the Muslim world in all major areas of cultural achievement.

The rest of your questions, I'll address later.....

 

[calitennis127]

Everyone has their version. Alcohol is banned, but you go to Turkey and enjoy your Raki 24/7, nobody says a word. Turkey is %95 Muslim. I am sure ISIS sees it differently.

Sure, but what does that prove about Islam? That is more of a comment on how human beings respond to moral standards in general.

And ISIS is far from the whole Islamic government that is strict. The Saudi regime is based on Wahhabism, which is actually a more stringent form of Islam than you will find anywhere in the world.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Everyone has their version. Alcohol is banned, but you go to Turkey and enjoy your Raki 24/7, nobody says a word. Turkey is %95 Muslim. I am sure ISIS sees it differently.

Sure, but what does that prove about Islam? That is more of a comment on how human beings respond to moral standards in general.

And ISIS is far from the whole Islamic government that is strict. The Saudi regime is based on Wahhabism, which is actually a more stringent form of Islam than you will find anywhere in the world.

Uhm, it proves what I always say: It is all negotiable, and open to interpretation, for all religions.
As far as your previous comments about Christianity being more civilized, well, it had 650 years head start, you know. Even then if you look at the older Islamic life, the libraries, the scientists and mathematicians like Al Khwarizmi (algebra) or Ibn al-Haytham, they had rich culture and civilization. Of course, bastardized as time went by...not surprisingly.

Still no answer from you Cali. I am waiting.