131–140 of 146 posts
The impact of religion on a lot of humans like 'everyone who isn't following the norm of religion: woman not making kids...' etc. is something you should always clarify with topics like this especially in a context were its not clear what the general consensus is.
Rape is bad, done very little to be discussed for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the New Atheism movement Not a religion, not a faith. It's simply well-publicized challenging of religion. I think that you only see it as such because of how you see the world, but Dawkins, Harris, et al are not my leaders and I strongly disagree with several of their positions.
If you abstract away the specific claims made by new New Atheists (either the leaders or the footsoldiers) and analyze it from a purely sociological point of view - it behaves identically to any other religion or faith - especially when you consider that strong, top-down leadership is not a universal property of religion. Also relevant here is that the concept of "religion" itself was introduced very recently in the…
While it's nice to be vindicated, I'd much rather we live in the same universe and this is why I try to engage. I saw dang's warning about this is a flamebait topic, but I need to stress a couple points:
* I'm in no way trying to attack *anyones* spiritual beliefs
* I'm not trying to denigrate their religion of choice
* I *am* trying to point out the nature of their religion in regards to outsiders
That said, drug abuse can happen and it can spread in society in a very unhealthy way. My point analogy is: let people do what they want but let's not have a public health crisis with people overdosing in the streets.
It's a crude analogy, but it's the best I've got for the moment.
I think you see my comments as an attack and that I am "the enemy", but I'm not. I just want to be able to live my life the way I choose to, rather than by somebody claiming to speak for God.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you come from a American Christian background these are really worth exploring. Being ex-catholic/ex-Christian I found that they share enough to make them more accessible (I guess) than other religions, but also different in thought from what I grew up in, and those combined really help me expand on my personal thinking. I did a study group that a Greek orthodox priest put on for non-orthodox and it was awesome. W…
For indian you can check the st thomas christians or syrian christians or malankara nasranis from state of kerala that trace their origin to st thomas visit in the 1st century and were under the church of east. They follow the syriac based liturgies. I mentioned to specifically check with these because other christians in india are all latin rite catholic or protestant, which all started with european arrivals and so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read about Islamic conquests, you would see that in the vast overwhelming cases, no such events took place, if ever. Demographics changed because people entered Islam. Islam is against genocide.
[flagged]
Jizya does not mean second class status; and non-People of the Book are not forced to convert (neither are People of the Book).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's because your education is western-centric and Islamic invasions took over the east. Eastern Christians have been subjected to genocide at the hands of Muslims for 1300 years. Edit - really, someone is asking for a citation that the Islamic conquests happened? Next should ask for a citation that the sky is blue... This is basic world history, like the discovery of the new world, Alexander the Great's conquest…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This is not how it works, and that statistic is wrong. You cited an opinion piece, not a proper primary source. Jizya does not mean second class status; and non-People of the Book are not forced to convert (neither are People of the Book).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is a clear phase in our history which was long and no progress was made "Dark age". The Dark Ages are kind of a myth. The Eastern Roman Empire (aka. Byzantine Empire) existed through the whole time period up to the beginning of the Renaissance. And while some parts of Western Europe were "dark" (mainly due to Viking and Islamic invasions), Western Europe wasn't and isn't the whole world.
Your understanding of history, here and downthread, is fascinatingly selective, and, as far as the historical consensus goes, very mistaken. The Dark Ages refer specifically to Western/Central Europe, so without Byzantium. Byzantium and the Islamic kingdoms were very much thriving, intellectually and culturally, in that period. Equally, "parts of Europe" weren't dark because of "Vikings and Muslims": the reasons were…
> Equally, "parts of Europe" weren't dark because of "Vikings and Muslims": the reasons were multiple, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to infighting, to poverty, and to religion.
The fall of the western Roman Empire was literally because of invaders (the Goths and Vandals I forgot to initially mention), the infighting was to fill the void and the poverty also related to that as well as constant Viking raids. Literally half the west (Spain) conquered by Muslims for 700 years. Religion not a factor, the Eastern Roman empire was also Christian and stayed rich until it also fell to invaders.
> From your comments elsewhere however I understand you simply have a very caricatural view of Muslims and use them as a historical scapegoat.
Did they not invade the area that is today Spain and France during the "dark" ages? Did they not invade the Byzantine empire (now referring to the other thread)? This is literal history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's because your education is western-centric and Islamic invasions took over the east. Eastern Christians have been subjected to genocide at the hands of Muslims for 1300 years. Edit - really, someone is asking for a citation that the Islamic conquests happened? Next should ask for a citation that the sky is blue... This is basic world history, like the discovery of the new world, Alexander the Great's conquest…
Citation needed. Since year 1300 or for 1300 years? The former is closer to the truth than the latter, AFAIK.
Another statement also claims that genocide was performed because it also includes religious groups.
None of that is wrong.
What is wrong is claiming that they actually performed genocide. They overtook, yes. Did not perform genocide. Even the cited article says, that "christian communities were dissatisfied with the change". If there was genocide, who was left to be dissatisfied?