• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A New Dark Age For Europe

sooda

Veteran Member
Actually, it was a simple question. If we don't have the right to ask simple questions, we have bigger things indeed to worry about than Islam.

If you want a pretty good analysis of Islam, watch The Breadwinner. It shows Afghanistan under the Taliban. The main character, a girl named (Parvana) has her dad taken to prison for no crime besides teaching her history while she sits and helps watch his store outside. Under the law, women cannot buy or sell, must remain covered, can barely fetch water, and are expected to travel only with men, and everyone male or female has to abide a curfew. And so, as the only man of the house who isn't an infant, the family is basically set up to starve. The buildings are war-torn, and male children about 12 are holding semi-automatics, expected to fight. Parvana goes with her mom to beg for her father's release and her mom gets caned without hearing any explanation because she's not supposed to be outside and it's indecent and immoral (or something). She eventually has to disguise herself as a boy, in order so the family can buy just a loaf of bread or two and some rice. When Parvana finally does get to the prison, they beat her even as a boy, and later try to kill her. The family tries to get help from an in-law, and practically gets kidnapped, screaming child and all, meaning Parvana will return to an empty house. Oh yes, and her older brother died in the war, when he was about her age. It doesn't paint the US well either, showing them mainly just fly by to bomb things.

I think there could be a few things understood about Islam made more harsh by the West, but I don't think you can make all of this up.

Sad.. Up until the communists overthrew the monarchy in 1974 Afghanistan had a high literacy rate, cinemas and a café society.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
ho was "sacrificing to demons"?

Paul was eating food sacrificed to idols/gods, which are representing the sons of the dragon/devil, demons. One of three things James told Paul not to do. Paul's followers also eat blood, and fornicate. Paul apparently lost the letter that was given to him by James, or the dog ate it.

1 Corinthians 8:4-13 4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that "An idol is nothing at all in the world" and that "There is no God but one." 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one LORD, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. 7But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god,
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Paul was eating food sacrificed to idols/gods, which are representing the sons of the dragon/devil, demons. One of three things James told Paul not to do. Paul's followers also eat blood, and fornicate. Paul apparently lost the letter that was given to him by James, or the dog ate it.

1 Corinthians 8:4-13 4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that "An idol is nothing at all in the world" and that "There is no God but one." 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one LORD, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. 7But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god,

Paul wrote Corinthians from Corinth in 56 AD... Your interpretation makes no sense at all.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
You or anyone else can slander my atheism if you like but you will have to wait a very long time to get any kind of reaction.

BTW, we are talking about ideologies here.
If I were to deliberately incite religious zealots to firebomb your house, and harass your family, I'm pretty certain I'd get a reaction. This is the kind of speech that is illegal in some countries, including the U.S.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
The people of Corinth sacrificed to gods, and apparently that meat was sold at the meat market. What is there to not understand?
"apparently" according to who? Was ALL meat sold in the Corinth market sacrificial? Seems unlikely. I think you're reaching.

What metal is Corinth, anyway?
 
Last edited:

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
If I were to deliberately incite religious zealots to firebomb your house, and harass your family, I'm pretty certain I'd get a reaction. This is the kind of speech that is illegal in some countries, including the U.S.

Uhhhhhh, that's not actually true.

The US has freedom of speech. It is restricted in some incidents (can't libel, slander, or get people to gather for a riot), but you won't get arrested if you annoy someone.

For one, this sort of speech does not ultimately have to be responded to, meaning you are proposing that being an idiot is a crime, and blaming the victim. For another, if you do get your house firebombed, arresting you for it, rather than arresting someone for oh I dunno firebombing your house is arresting the wrong person. The person doing all that is committing a crime, but here you're punishing speech.

Let's assume what you're saying, but for something different. I go online hoping to date. Go to, I dunno eHarmony. Instead, I meet a serial rapist. "Well because of what you said online, you deserve it!" Yeah, that's what this is implying. That somehow you should be not only firebombed and harassed but also arrested for speaking up. How about, how dare you. No.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I have recently encountered several interviews with Muslims in Europe.

A common thread in the interviews was a desire to outbreed native Europeans and impose Muslim religion and culture.

We have seen what muslim-majority countries look like.

Should the rest of the civilized world prepare for a flood of refugees from Europe as their countries descend into barbarity?
Even if that were true, it's the European's fault for becoming nihilistic and decadent, allowing their cultures to slip into decline. Vacuums will be filled.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I have recently encountered several interviews with Muslims in Europe.

A common thread in the interviews was a desire to outbreed native Europeans and impose Muslim religion and culture.

We have seen what muslim-majority countries look like.

Should the rest of the civilized world prepare for a flood of refugees from Europe as their countries descend into barbarity?

I once calculated based on a polling study that 60% of Trump supporters are xenophobes.

I will pray that you find peace in your heart and that you stop being afraid of people different than yourself to the point that you go around looking for videos that fuel your fear.

Hating others wont make your life any better.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
If I were to deliberately incite religious zealots to firebomb your house, and harass your family, I'm pretty certain I'd get a reaction. This is the kind of speech that is illegal in some countries, including the U.S.

What has all that got to do with criticising/slandering an ideology?
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
I once calculated based on a polling study that 60% of Trump supporters are xenophobes.

I will pray that you find peace in your heart and that you stop being afraid of people different than yourself to the point that you go around looking for videos that fuel your fear.

Hating others wont make your life any better.

Ignoring the evidence will not make your life any better.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The Quran only has the proper authority to define what is a true Muslim so let’s see what it says.
You aren't even a Muslim, and many Muslims would disagree with you. Much like Christianity, some Muslims believe that duty is solely up to god. And like Christianity, some of them also believe in predestination. Are you going to next declare some Christians aren't Christians because they might accept infant baptism as legit or do not accept the divinity of the trinity? And of course the Abrahamic texts as a whole have a very flawed sense of morality, such as labeling Lot as a righteous man despite him doing things such as offering his daughters to be gang raped.
No true Scotsman - Wikipedia
No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.[1][2] Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).[3]
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
You aren't even a Muslim, and many Muslims would disagree with you. Much like Christianity, some Muslims believe that duty is solely up to god. And like Christianity, some of them also believe in predestination. Are you going to next declare some Christians aren't Christians because they might accept infant baptism as legit or do not accept the divinity of the trinity? And of course the Abrahamic texts as a whole have a very flawed sense of morality, such as labeling Lot as a righteous man despite him doing things such as offering his daughters to be gang raped.
No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

The only authority which all sects of Islam agree upon is the Quran. Apart from that the Sunnis follow the Caliphs and the Shiahs the 12 Imams.

There are many Muslim’s now who only accept the Quran and not the hadiths.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The only authority which all sects of Islam agree upon is the Quran.
Christianity says the same thing about the Bible. That didn't prevent countless schisms from forming a myriad of denominations. Different interpretations, different paths, different beliefs, same book. And no objective way to verify who is and who isn't right or wrong because each and every group brings their own passages to support their claims, and all three religions rely on books riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Christianity says the same thing about the Bible. That didn't prevent countless schisms from forming a myriad of denominations. Different interpretations, different paths, different beliefs, same book. And no objective way to verify who is and who isn't right or wrong because each and every group brings their own passages to support their claims, and all three religions rely on books riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions.

Yes in both the cases of Jesus and Muhammad They never appointed successors or wrote a will so it became a contentious and controversial issue after Their passing which led to sects being formed. The same with Moses too.
 

Firemorphic

Activist Membrane
Christianity says the same thing about the Bible. That didn't prevent countless schisms from forming a myriad of denominations. Different interpretations, different paths, different beliefs, same book. And no objective way to verify who is and who isn't right or wrong because each and every group brings their own passages to support their claims, and all three religions rely on books riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions.

The schisms of Christianity are nothing like that of Islam, it's really not comparable.

Yes in both the cases of Jesus and Muhammad They never appointed successors or wrote a will so it became a contentious and controversial issue after Their passing which led to sects being formed. The same with Moses too.

Jesus had disciples. As for Muhammad, that's the whole root of the Sunni/Shia split. We believe there is direct succession in the Prophet's family (Ahlbayt), namely Ali, whereas Sunnis believe the succession is through Aisha's father Abu Bakr.
Either way, it resulted in two completely different Islams, one with a strong tendency towards Esotericism (Shia) and the other with a tendency towards Exotericism (Sunnism).
As a Baha'i, I'd expect you to both know that and side with Shi'ism on that topic, seeing that your religion came out of the Shayki School..........:rolleyes:
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
The schisms of Christianity are nothing like that of Islam, it's really not comparable.



Jesus had disciples. As for Muhammad, that's the whole root of the Sunni/Shia split. We believe there is direct succession in the Prophet's family (Ahlbayt), namely Ali, whereas Sunnis believe the succession is through Aisha's father Abu Bakr.
Either way, it resulted in two completely different Islams, one with a strong tendency towards Esotericism (Shia) and the other with a tendency towards Exotericism (Sunnism).
As a Baha'i, I'd expect you to both know that and side with Shi'ism on that topic, seeing that your religion came out of the Shayki School..........:rolleyes:

Yes Baha’is believe that the Shiah line was the correct one.
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The schisms of Christianity are nothing like that of Islam, it's really not comparable.
But yet nevertheless they formed over some very significant issues. Some Sunnis will insist Shias have it wrong, while some Shias will denounce Sunnis as false and hell-bound. Some that don't care all that much for that divide. Some, such as Wahabi, that are extremely conservative (with Saudi Arabia having "morality police" to enforce "proper and righteous Muslim behaviors"), while most Muslims would find such an interpretation to be unreasonable. And we have no way to objectively determine who is write and who is wrong.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
The people of Corinth sacrificed to gods, and apparently that meat was sold at the meat market. What is there to not understand?

Do you eat only Kosher foods?

Any sacrifice to idols was, therefore, meaningless. The meat sacrificed to non-existent gods was just food and nothing more. So the enlightened Christians at Corinth believed they could attend a feast in a pagan temple safe in the knowledge that pagan gods did not exist, that the sacrifice was meaningless and the food served up was just food.

In chapters 8–10, Paul works on an elaborate compromise between two factions in the Corinthian church. The more educated and socially elite group, who unlike the poor ate meat regularly and not just when it was doled out at pagan festivals, had well-to-do friends who would serve meat. They probably represent the liberal faction, who consider themselves “strong” and the socially lower group “weak.”

The Christian could never be sure about any meat which he bought if he held it wrong to partake of these offerings. Further than this, he would—especially if he were poor—feel it a great privation to be entirely out off from the public feasts (sussitia), which perhaps were often his only chance of eating meat at all; and also to be forbidden to take a social meal with any of his Gentile neighbours or relatives.

St. Paul treats it with consummate wisdom and tenderness. His liberality of thought shows itself in this—that he sides with those who took the strong, the broad, the common-sense view, that sin is not a mechanical matter, and that sin is not committed where no sin is intended. He neither adopts the ascetic view nor does he taunt the inquirers with the fact that the whole weight of their personal desires and interests would lead them to decide the question in their own favour.

On the other hand, he has too deep a sympathy with the weak to permit their scruples to be overruled with a violence which would wound their consciences.

While he accepts the right principle of Christian freedom, he carefully guards against its abuse. It might have been supposed that, as a Jew, and one who had been trained as a “Pharisee of Pharisees,” St. Paul would have sided with those who forbade any participation in idol-offerings. Jewish rabbis referred to passages like Exod. 34:15; Numb. 25:2; Ps. 106:28; Dan. 1:8; Tobit 1:10, 11. Rabbi Ishmael, in ‘Avoda Zara,’ said that a Jew might not even go to a Gentile funeral, even if he took with him his own meat and his own servants. The law of the drink offering forbids a Jew to drink of a cask if any one has even touched a goblet drawn from it with the presumed intention of offering a little to the gods.

Besides this, the Synod of Jerusalem had mentioned the eating of idol-offerings as one of the four things which they forbade to Gentile converts, who were only bound by the Noachian precepts (Acts 15:29). But St. Paul judged the matter independently by his own apostolic authority. The decision of the synod had only had a local validity and was inapplicable to such a community as that of Corinth. St. Paul had to suffer cruel misrepresentation and bitter persecution as the consequence of this breadth of view (Acts 21:21–24); but that would not be likely to make him shrink from saying the truth.

Were the Corinthians sacrificing to idols?
 
Top