All this over a stupid Teddy Bear...

[wanna be drummer]

Yes,.. and to their credit they don't go calling for the heads of those who ridicule them.. be that ridicule well-deserved (as it is surely is in some cases.. Christian rock, case in point).. or not deserved (as it surely isn't in some cases,.. umm,.. gimme a chance to come up with an example. ..it may take a while. hehe! j/k, Christies. *wink*).

To Christians,.. for being such good sports!

I"d rather not be sport at all but hey, I'll take what I can get

[Old Scratch]

Intelligent, informed take on issues under discussion in this thread....

Women in Christianity and Islam

There is no modern equivalent to Sharia Law in Christianity, no matter how you choose to view it.

From the bible belt in the U.S. ... all the way to Vatican City itself, women have rights and exercise them without fear...and with the support of their government.

BTW - nuns wearing habits are completely different from laywomen who are compelled, coerced or forced to wear what men and their "God" tell them.

Nuns are nuns by vocation ... and women are women by birth.

~666

[Hermit]

Mohammed Bear - Mohammed Bear fools all the other Bears (except Dhimmi Bear who is forced) into believing he is Holy. His followers go on to continually divide and harass the world while claiming to be victims. What a tricksey Bear he is!

~666

Are you suggesting Pbuh Bear has converted from Taoism to Islam?!..

"When you wake up in the morning, Pbuh," said Piglet at last,

"what's the first thing you say to yourself?"

"What's for breakfast? said Pbuh. "What do you say, Piglet?"

"I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting today?" said Piglet.

Pbuh nodded thoughtfully. "It's the same thing," he said.

[zepyep]

"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind," the borderer said,still staring somberly at the Cimmerian. "Civilazation is unnatural.It is a whim of circumstance.And barbarism must ultimately triumph."

~ "Beyond the Black River"~

Robert E. Howard

[StringBender]

Intelligent, informed take on issues under discussion in this thread....

Women in Christianity and Islam

Nice try TD but just another feeble attempt to claim Christianity is basically the "same" as Islam, and fails miserably.

When "we" start executing women for losing their virginity while being raped then start the comparisons.

Keep trying.

[tangerinedream]

You seem to have missed many if not most of the main points of the essay I posted.

Not that I expected some nuanced response given post content thus far.

Still, it would have been refreshing.

[KashmirDevi]

"When you wake up in the morning, Pbuh," said Piglet at last,

"what's the first thing you say to yourself?"

"What's for breakfast? said Pbuh. "What do you say, Piglet?"

"I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting today?" said Piglet.

Pbuh nodded thoughtfully. "It's the same thing," he said.

Those are two GREAT books

[Old Scratch]

You seem to have missed many if not most of the main points of the essay I posted.

Not that I expected some nuanced response given post content thus far.

Still, it would have been refreshing.

Well SS, I think I've nuanced pretty well so far.

You know ... because religious totalitarianism, violent intolerance, oppression and misogyny are such delicately nuanced and intellectually complex ideas to ponder.

Yes ... we must really delve into the intricacies of such sublime matters before we pass judgment on them, surely!

SPEAK UP FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS.

SPEAK OUT AGAINST SHARIA LAW.

~666

[Hermit]

Nice try TD but just another feeble attempt to claim Christianity is basically the "same" as Islam, and fails miserably.

When "we" start executing women for losing their virginity while being raped then start the comparisons.

Keep trying.

That's a conveniently high bar you've set before you'll begin looking at comparisons, String.

By that logic we'd have to wait for a facist dictator to start a Holocaust-like genocide before

we start looking at comparisons between said fascist dictatorship and the Hitler regime.

I'm certainly not suggesting Islam and Christianity are the "same"; they're not. But the fact

that they're not the "same" doesn't mean there aren't valid comparisons worth examining..

like, for example, the use of "God's law" religious justifications in support of executions.

..you know,.. as one example.

Having said that,..

I reiterate that I'm not suggesting Christianity is "the same as" Islam.

I agree with what Old Snatch said..

There is no modern equivalent to Sharia Law in Christianity, no matter how you choose to view it.

~666

[spatdrastik]

Christianity is not worse than I slam...but it's no better either.

I don't split hairs when it comes to delusional people

[Debbie]

I am in shock by what I have read in this thread so far! I simply cannot believe that anyone would do what these people do and be able to look in the mirror every day. Of course, I knew practically nothing about Islam before I started reading this thread, but from what I have read here, I am horrified! And they actually believe that God is so violent? I am SO glad that I was born in a Western country.

[StringBender]

I reiterate that I'm not suggesting Christianity is "the same as" Islam.

I agree with what Old Snatch said..

You actually agree with me too. Just that your ego won't let you admit it.

[Old Scratch]

Christianity is not worse than I slam...but it's no better either.

I don't split hairs when it comes to delusional people

Shit ... I DO (believe it's better).

I would MUCH rather be a practicing Hindu in a secular, "Christian" land (are there any other kind, BTW?)... than in an Islamic nation ruled by sharia law.

MUCH rather.

HANDS DOWN rather.

~666

[Old Scratch]

You actually agree with me too. Just that your ego won't let you admit it.

He doesn't HAVE an ego ... because he doesn't believe it's real.

God, Calvin ... didn't you know that about Buddhists?

Jesus Friggan Christ!

~666

[spatdrastik]

Shit ... I DO (believe it's better).

I would MUCH rather be a practicing Hindu in a secular, "Christian" land (are there any other kind, BTW?)... than in an Islamic nation ruled by sharia law.

MUCH rather.

HANDS DOWN rather.

~666

It isn't just Christians, Muslims & Jews that are delusional

[tangerinedream]

I don't split hairs when it comes to delusional people.

If only THEY would split hairs.

[Old Scratch]

It isn't just Christians, Muslims & Jews that are delusional

I commend you on your witty repartee, Ass-plastic.

You have now earned the rank of "ignorant smart ass" on my scale of respect.

Congratulations.

~666

[spatdrastik]

I commend you on your witty repartee, Ass-plastic.

You have now earned the rank of "ignorant smart ass" on my scale of respect.

Congratulations.

~666

like I said...delusional

I don't usually make a habit of humoring them but in your case I guess I can make an exception

You don't think anyone takes this spiritual crap you claim to espouse seriously with all the shit you spew do you?

A shame really because you are very articulate when you choose to be and have a vicious wit (of which I am no doubt about to recieve a good dose)

It just reeks of Bullshit

[Old Scratch]

You don't think anyone takes this spiritual crap you claim to espouse seriously with all the shit you spew do you?

Surely you know I could give a shit less whether or not "anyone" takes my "spiritual crap" seriously...?

I could give a flying fuck if anyone thought I was a closet atheist, a Mormon, or a Satan worshiper!

A shame really because you are very articulate when you choose to be and have a vicious wit (of which I am no doubt about to recieve a good dose)

It just reeks of Bullshit

Sir, with all due respect ... I have made a fucking intellectual and humorously gratifying living being a Bullshitter on this board.

So ... stick you indignant nose all up in and around it. ALL up in it. Smell it.

And love it.

natch.

~666

[spatdrastik]

Surely you know I could give a shit less whether or not "anyone" takes my "spiritual crap" seriously...?

I could give a flying fuck if anyone thought I was a closet atheist, a Mormon, or a Satan worshiper!

Sir, with all due respect ... I have made a fucking intellectual and humorously gratifying living being a Bullshitter on this board.

So ... stick you indignant nose all up in and around it. ALL up in it. Smell it.

And love it.

natch.

~666

like I said...humour

[Jarlaxle 56]

http://offthederech.blogspot.com/2007/01/d...-zeitgeist.html

Dawkins' "Shifting Moral Zeitgeist"

In sum, Dawkins points out that even the most enlightened men of their past generations 40 or 100 years ago say things we would say are immoral, while the evilest people of our times would seem more tame by comparison with the same time frames.

Abe Lincoln, HG Wells, TH Huxley all enlightened for their times would seem horribly immoral for our own times, irrespective of one's religious views (unless one is a muslim, puritan, jewish, fundamentalist of the most extreme proportions).

Likewise a Donald Rumsfeld would seem like a pussycat compared to Bomber Harris of England in WWII during the blitzkreigs on Dresden.

You can take anyone, say Thomas Jefferson and point out he was a slave owner, for example. We all collectively shrug our shoulders and acknowledge that we can't hold people from so long ago accountible for our morals today.

Dawkins' point is transformative- it is like a time machine that by its presence in a room explains why a person in colonial garb is standing next to you.

We can come up with all kinds of theories as to why this phenomenon is, whether it is a good thing and so on, but do we agree Dawkins is in fact correct? If he is, he has identified why "Conservatives" are less "moral" by today's standards than "Liberals/Progressives."

That is, Conservatives wish to hold onto the values and viewpoints of the past. Liberals, at a minimum want to "live and let live" but often prefer to push the envelope in terms of what is accepted. These are generalities, broad-brush statements, but they tend to show how conflicts arise. They also explain why the press and universities are for the most part more socially/morally "liberal."

The press is by and large comprised of reporters and editors who have exposure to universities, and universities, at least nowadays work hard at presenting diverse viewpoints. Of course, the press and universities weren't always this way! It took social change from within and without to shape the collective "morality" of these two institutions.

A few examples of how this whole SMZ plays out:

Race and the Rights of Women and Children, and of people in general.

If conservatives have essentially longed to hold on to what they have, and have consistently done so, then they have fought hard for slavery, and to keep women from voting, and to maintain segregation, and to limit civil and criminal rights for the general public.

So, were/are they immoral to do so? That is an irrelevant question. The important question, from where I'm sitting is, who is most likely to shape morality of the future and is this a "good thing?"

I think we can see from Dawkins' examples that we can all agree racist attitudes that blacks are inferior genetically to whites or that women are less intelligent than men are immoral nowadays. We feel good that we've come so far, that women can vote and blacks are considered equal citizens in our democracy (something even Abe Lincoln was startlingly against at one point).

We might even think to ourselves, what can we do next? Gays' rights and acceptance seem to be the next step. If we were to fast-forward 100 years, or perhaps just 25 years, would our societies' current attitudes toward homosexuals seem awful or immoral? Are we better now than we were decades ago? It would seem, with all the gay-oriented TV shows and movies and the like that a lot of progress has been made in that regard.

But one liberal's "progress" is likely to be Exhibit A of the decline of western civilization to a conservative commentator.

Yeridas HaDoros?

According to Orthodox Judaism, there is a phenomenon that earlier generations were on a "higher spiritual level" than ours and call this "yeridas hadoros" - declining of the generations. I think we can only imagine what it would be like to be in the company of a man from 3000 years ago. The image, especially if the person is an ancient Jew, is one of perhaps someone pure and simple, but with totally distorted and deficient views on human interrelations, science and social justice. For him, multiple wives are fine, even necessary. Same for slaves. Same for selling or beating ("abusing" nowadays) his wives, children and animals. Same for genocide on the biblical scale and corporeal punishment and torture.

Can we really say such people were on a "higher plane?" "Of course not!" you would reflexively say. But they clearly were for their time.

In reality, we judge morality from our own vantagepoint, even the religious among us do. Reading the Talmud on a daily basis, perhaps even for the whole day every day, is in many ways a time transport back to medieval times and mindset. I think that is what irked me the most about it. Sitting in daf yomi and just getting a fast forward of how backward the sages were compared to our times was very grating for me.

Apologists try to harness whatever moral progress has been made and apply it to the Torah or the Talmud. However, the authors of the torah and gemara would be appalled by our modern day sensibilities, that much we can all agree on.

Picking and Choosing- Even Chazzal and the Gedolim Do it

Perhaps the most profound lesson to learn from the Shifting Moral Zeitgeist theory is that it shows a road map of picking and choosing, even by the most religious people (other than wahabbist moslems who seem impervious to progress of any kind).

For example, even the most religious man in Lakewood or Israel wouldn't dream of having two wives. It would be unseemly and overtly sexual. And yes, the reason for the extra wives in the old days absolutely was sexual one. The men who had enough money or property and possessions could have more than one wife and this suited him to not just have other women available during the times his wife was nidah or too pregnant/infirm/etc, to serve his needs.

Hence, when we hear about King Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines (not the 1000 wives of the artscroll version, btw) we are talking about a man whose wives were much more sexual objects for him than anything else. The Shifting Moral Zeitgeist meant that even in medieval times, the Jews had to abandon polygamy. And nowadays, even the richest or most powerful or most learned Jew wouldn't think of having a second wife and would feel queasy just thinking about owning slaves. He likely wouldn't want to see even Saddam Hussein have hot lead poured down his throat rather than hanged.

This is why the real blowhards like Dennis Prager and Medved and all the christian evangelical nuts are so infuriating when they selectively quote the bible, or want the 10 commandments in a courthouse. Don't they see how many other parts of the torah they are overlooking because such parts are so immoral in comparison with the zeitgeist of today?

[Roisin Dubh]

You're such and ignorant, bigoted redneck. Who the hell are you to judge?

She was being disrespectful to the Propet (PBUH), asshole.

That kafir bitch deserves her fate.

~666

The 'Law of Moses' is a fundamental 'Law', that Muslims as well as Christians are supposed to follow and you are calling yourself a 'Muslim'?

The 'Lynch Mob' that were shouting and screaming gross insults and suggesting the Teacher was murdered in the name of their 'Religeon', were ignorant peasants,

The Woman has done nothing wrong and the Child is within their rights to call their teddy anything they wish, especially if it's someone they thought was 'GOOD'.

My teddy is called 'Momo', any problems with that?

So who are you to Judge her or the Child or me?

P.S, Back to the three bears, so if I call my teddy 'Jesus'? = (three ad-infinitum)

[eternal light]

The 'Law of Moses' is a fundamental 'Law', that Muslims as well as Christians are supposed to follow and you are calling yourself a 'Muslim'?

The 'Lynch Mob' that were shouting and screaming gross insults and suggesting the Teacher was murdered in the name of their 'Religeon', were ignorant peasants,

The Woman has done nothing wrong and the Child is within their rights to call their teddy anything they wish, especially if it's someone they thought was 'GOOD'.

My teddy is called 'Momo', any problems with that?

So who are you to Judge her or the Child or me?

P.S, Back to the three bears, so if I call my teddy 'Jesus'? = (three ad-infinitum)

Old Scratch may have been joking in his remarks that are the subject of your comment here.

[Roisin Dubh]

Old Scratch may have been joking in his remarks that are the subject of your comment here.

Strange sense of humour

[Hermit]

^^ it's a form of humor called 'facetiousness'.

Old Snatch uses it fairly effectively.

..so much so that sometimes people mistake him for being serious.

-------

Props to spatdrastik for goin toe-to-toe with mOld Snatch.

Give him Hindu hell, buddy boy!

..send him home crying to his Maa-ma.

You actually agree with me too. Just that your ego won't let you admit it.

My fundamental sense of self identity..from which is created a dualistic

perception of relative reality..won't let me admit that I agree with you?

anyway..

I've no problem saying I agree with you, String. None at all.

I agree with you that Islam and Christianity are not "the same".

There.

Now then,..

Can you bring yourself to agree with me that Christianity

and Islam do in fact share some common characteristics?

[you know, like the "one true God" and "God's law" beliefs.]

..or will your Christian pride (and/or a dose of self-delusion)

prevent you from saying you agree with me on this point?