Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 
Send Topic Print
Why import this danger? (Read 8007 times)
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Why import this danger?
Reply #105 - Jul 28th, 2015 at 9:06pm
 
Pho Huc wrote on Jul 28th, 2015 at 7:42pm:
Soren wrote on Jul 28th, 2015 at 7:21pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 27th, 2015 at 11:42pm:
Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 27th, 2015 at 7:30pm:
Soren wrote on Jul 27th, 2015 at 6:15pm:
Flying planes into the WTC in NYC cannot be ignored. ...


I agree. It ranks right up there alongside the attack on Pearl Harbour, at least as far as the Americans are concerned.

The biggest problem is the fact that an ideology is not a state, or a country, therefore there is no clear enemy against which a reprisal attack can be launched.

However, with this one combined action, radical Islam had declared war on the West. This then, resulted in the 'War on Terror' which has had no resolution since, and has merely inflamed tensions across the radical Islamic world.

Probably the greatest good to emerge from that tragedy is the reinforcement, at least in Western eyes, the similarity between the 'Untermensch' and the 'Kuffir', when viewed through the eyes of the differing opposition ideologies. The difference being that one of those ideologies was founded on the rhetoric of a 'modern' lunatic, and the other has had the benefit of being accepted and enforced over thousands of years as the voice of a 'prophet', and has a much more committed following.

Never forget that Islam sided with the Reich, and sidled out of the way when the going got tough.

I'm a lapsed Catholic, do I fear for my life? I can comment about the wealth held by the Vatican while crying for donations for the poor - but I never fear for my head.

Once a Muslim, always in Islam - and forever opposed to the 'Kuffir' and their way of life and religions.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Thereby declaring yourself 'apostate' and subject to the rules and penalties that apply.

Therein lies the difference.



You’re wrong. "Islam" did not ally itself with Nazi Germany. All throughout South East Asia, Muslims (not "Islam") fought against the Reich’s allies, Japan.

"Islam" has nuffin’ to do wiv whatever you’re on about here.

Islam is the new unicorn then - a mythical thing that has no bearing on anything actual.

Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv Islam.  Islam has nuffin to do wiv Muslims.

It's all about the excusing, innit.

'You say you act in the name of Islam? Well you don't know what you are talking about. What?? You are 35? We don't care, you are misled, you cannot possibly think and speak for yourself. AND we cannot possibly allow you to think that you are a Muslim if you cut someone's head orf. You are allowed to consider yourself Muslim only if you hand out out ice cream to homeless children.

Otherwise you are a faithless pig and we'll keeel you.... oooops, sorry, we can't say that. So.... tut tut until the journalists look away....






I think that your confusing a lack of agreement with your assertions regarding Islam with a lack of coherence by Moslems regarding their faith.
Easy to do but self serving and non-productive.

 

The Koran and the hadith are the 'coherent' core of Islam.

If they are incoherent, blame Mohammed and Muslims. They think nit makes sense, not me.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pho Huc
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 985
Victoria
Gender: male
Re: Why import this danger?
Reply #106 - Jul 28th, 2015 at 9:19pm
 
great example.

Your assertion is that the Koran\Hadith are incoherent.

The counter assertion is that they are coherent, and you simply do not understand.

If you read and do not understand the Quran then you are completely within your rights to state it is incoherent. It is statement totally true from your perspective.

If someone else reads it and derives clear meaning from it they can legitimately state that it has clear meaning. Totally true from their perspective. 

To state that either party is incorrect simply because they hold opposing views is overly simplistic when dealing with philosophical matters.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 28th, 2015 at 9:25pm by Pho Huc »  

The law locks up the man who steals the goose from the common, but leaves the greater criminal loose who steals the common from the goose (convict saying)
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 91852
Gender: male
Re: Why import this danger?
Reply #107 - Jul 28th, 2015 at 11:46pm
 
Soren wrote on Jul 28th, 2015 at 7:21pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 27th, 2015 at 11:42pm:
Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 27th, 2015 at 7:30pm:
Soren wrote on Jul 27th, 2015 at 6:15pm:
Flying planes into the WTC in NYC cannot be ignored. ...


I agree. It ranks right up there alongside the attack on Pearl Harbour, at least as far as the Americans are concerned.

The biggest problem is the fact that an ideology is not a state, or a country, therefore there is no clear enemy against which a reprisal attack can be launched.

However, with this one combined action, radical Islam had declared war on the West. This then, resulted in the 'War on Terror' which has had no resolution since, and has merely inflamed tensions across the radical Islamic world.

Probably the greatest good to emerge from that tragedy is the reinforcement, at least in Western eyes, the similarity between the 'Untermensch' and the 'Kuffir', when viewed through the eyes of the differing opposition ideologies. The difference being that one of those ideologies was founded on the rhetoric of a 'modern' lunatic, and the other has had the benefit of being accepted and enforced over thousands of years as the voice of a 'prophet', and has a much more committed following.

Never forget that Islam sided with the Reich, and sidled out of the way when the going got tough.

I'm a lapsed Catholic, do I fear for my life? I can comment about the wealth held by the Vatican while crying for donations for the poor - but I never fear for my head.

Once a Muslim, always in Islam - and forever opposed to the 'Kuffir' and their way of life and religions.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Thereby declaring yourself 'apostate' and subject to the rules and penalties that apply.

Therein lies the difference.



You’re wrong. "Islam" did not ally itself with Nazi Germany. All throughout South East Asia, Muslims (not "Islam") fought against the Reich’s allies, Japan.

"Islam" has nuffin’ to do wiv whatever you’re on about here.

Islam is the new unicorn then - a mythical thing that has no bearing on anything actual.

Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv Islam.  Islam has nuffin to do wiv Muslims.

It's all about the excusing, innit.

'You say you act in the name of Islam? Well you don't know what you are talking about. What?? You are 35? We don't care, you are misled, you cannot possibly think and speak for yourself. AND we cannot possibly allow you to think that you are a Muslim if you cut someone's head orf. You are allowed to consider yourself Muslim only if you hand out out ice cream to homeless children.

Otherwise you are a faithless pig and we'll keeel you.... oooops, sorry, we can't say that. So.... tut tut until the journalists look away....





What made you feel compelled to write this, dear boy?

Been snorting Mormor’s knickers again, eh?

Good show.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
issuevoter
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male
Re: Why import this danger?
Reply #108 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 9:44am
 
Pho Huc wrote on Jul 28th, 2015 at 9:19pm:
great example.

Your assertion is that the Koran\Hadith are incoherent.

The counter assertion is that they are coherent, and you simply do not understand.

If you read and do not understand the Quran then you are completely within your rights to state it is incoherent. It is statement totally true from your perspective.

If someone else reads it and derives clear meaning from it they can legitimately state that it has clear meaning. Totally true from their perspective. 

To state that either party is incorrect simply because they hold opposing views is overly simplistic when dealing with philosophical matters.


I agree up to the point where practice takes over from philosophy. The entire Koran is an assertion, yet Muslim believe it to be fact. That is how they justify suicide bombing to themselves. "It is written."
Back to top
 

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Why import this danger?
Reply #109 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 4:24pm
 
Pho Huc wrote on Jul 28th, 2015 at 9:19pm:
great example.

Your assertion is that the Koran\Hadith are incoherent.

The counter assertion is that they are coherent, and you simply do not understand.

If you read and do not understand the Quran then you are completely within your rights to state it is incoherent. It is statement totally true from your perspective.

If someone else reads it and derives clear meaning from it they can legitimately state that it has clear meaning. Totally true from their perspective. 

To state that either party is incorrect simply because they hold opposing views is overly simplistic when dealing with philosophical matters.

They are not incoherent and contradictory to me alone.

Most Muslims haven't read it either, BTW, and if they did they would not understand it any better than me. Or you.

Because it is incoherent the memorization of it is prized - including by those who have not Arabic speakers.

Coherence and understanding and reason do not come into Submission. Submission to Islam is not the result of intellectual or spiritual efforts. It is a simple utterance.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pho Huc
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 985
Victoria
Gender: male
Re: Why import this danger?
Reply #110 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 4:55pm
 
Soren wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 4:24pm:
Pho Huc wrote on Jul 28th, 2015 at 9:19pm:
great example.

Your assertion is that the Koran\Hadith are incoherent.

The counter assertion is that they are coherent, and you simply do not understand.

If you read and do not understand the Quran then you are completely within your rights to state it is incoherent. It is statement totally true from your perspective.

If someone else reads it and derives clear meaning from it they can legitimately state that it has clear meaning. Totally true from their perspective. 

To state that either party is incorrect simply because they hold opposing views is overly simplistic when dealing with philosophical matters.

They are not incoherent and contradictory to me alone.

Most Muslims haven't read it either, BTW, and if they did they would not understand it any better than me. Or you.



Agreed- They are not incoherent to you alone. That is irrelevant.

If you judged the coherence of a text based on mass comprehension then most scientific papers would be deemed incomprehensible.

I don't comprehend what point you are making with the recitation and submission statements.
Back to top
 

The law locks up the man who steals the goose from the common, but leaves the greater criminal loose who steals the common from the goose (convict saying)
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 91852
Gender: male
Re: Why import this danger?
Reply #111 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 5:08pm
 
Soren wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 4:24pm:
Pho Huc wrote on Jul 28th, 2015 at 9:19pm:
great example.

Your assertion is that the Koran\Hadith are incoherent.

The counter assertion is that they are coherent, and you simply do not understand.

If you read and do not understand the Quran then you are completely within your rights to state it is incoherent. It is statement totally true from your perspective.

If someone else reads it and derives clear meaning from it they can legitimately state that it has clear meaning. Totally true from their perspective. 

To state that either party is incorrect simply because they hold opposing views is overly simplistic when dealing with philosophical matters.

They are not incoherent and contradictory to me alone.

Most Muslims haven't read it either, BTW, and if they did they would not understand it any better than me. Or you.

Because it is incoherent the memorization of it is prized - including by those who have not Arabic speakers.

Coherence and understanding and reason do not come into Submission. Submission to Islam is not the result of intellectual or spiritual efforts. It is a simple utterance.



To a point, you’re right. Many religious texts ask for submission. They demand to be chanted, or sung, or read aloud to reverent crowds in reverent buildings. Most have their own preserved language - Hebrew, Latin, Sanscrit, Biblical Greek. The only purpose of these languages today is to study religious texts.

Religious texts present an enigma - the language, the purpose, the intended audience and historical context. But submission is not required. Good texts are persuasive in themselves - Ecclesiastes, Psalms, the Dharmapada, the Bhagavad Gita. But the best texts convey instruction beyond the surface rhetoric.

To be receptive to this instruction does require submission, but not blind submission. Being written in "dead" languages even assists meditation, as you need to unpack and understand the language from scratch. You need to understand what users of those languages meant by "camel", for example, and  "needle". Beyond the translation, these words resonated to their audience and can still do this, with knowledge.

This knowledge cam require a form of hermeneutic scrying. Poetry is not studied by mathematicians. Reading requires reflection, and if you’re mind is made up on a text, you never learn a thing.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Why import this danger?
Reply #112 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 7:11pm
 
Quote:
If you judged the coherence of a text based on mass comprehension then most scientific papers would be deemed incomprehensible.


They are incoherent - to the non-target audience. The Koran is incoherent to the target audience.

Quote:
Poetry is not studied by mathematicians.


What makes you think that?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Why import this danger?
Reply #113 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 7:14pm
 
Pho Huc wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 4:55pm:
I don't comprehend what point you are making with the recitation and submission statements.

Muslims are parrotting what they do not understand.


Got it?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Baronvonrort
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17387
Gender: male
Re: Why import this danger?
Reply #114 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 7:20pm
 
Pho Huc wrote on Jul 28th, 2015 at 9:19pm:
great example.

Your assertion is that the Koran\Hadith are incoherent.

The counter assertion is that they are coherent, and you simply do not understand.

If you read and do not understand the Quran then you are completely within your rights to state it is incoherent. It is statement totally true from your perspective.



Have you read the Quran?


Back to top
 

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.
 
IP Logged
 
Pho Huc
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 985
Victoria
Gender: male
Re: Why import this danger?
Reply #115 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 7:34pm
 
Yep. twice. I found the language extremely hard to understand, and many contradictory points. Its probally marginally more consistent than the bible, but a much harder read.
For coherence I think the easiest to understand is the Tipitaka but i must admit i havn't managed the whole thing yet.

What did you get out of reading it Baron?
Back to top
 

The law locks up the man who steals the goose from the common, but leaves the greater criminal loose who steals the common from the goose (convict saying)
 
IP Logged
 
Pho Huc
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 985
Victoria
Gender: male
Re: Why import this danger?
Reply #116 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 7:47pm
 
Soren wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 7:14pm:
Pho Huc wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 4:55pm:
I don't comprehend what point you are making with the recitation and submission statements.


Muslims are parrotting what they do not understand.


Got it?


freediver wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 7:11pm:
Quote:
If you judged the coherence of a text based on mass comprehension then most scientific papers would be deemed incomprehensible.


They are incoherent - to the non-target audience. The Koran is incoherent to the target audience.



Both of these statements claim that Moslem's find the Quran incomprehensible.

The Moslem's state they do not.
It is not possible for you to state that they do not understand it because their understanding or comprehension is totally disconnected from you.(unless your telepathic)

Comprehension is an aspect of consciousness unique to each individual and to claim omnipotent knowledge of anyone else's capacity to process information is arrogant in the extreme.   
Back to top
 

The law locks up the man who steals the goose from the common, but leaves the greater criminal loose who steals the common from the goose (convict saying)
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Why import this danger?
Reply #117 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 8:03pm
 
People often insist they understand what I say when they clearly do not.

The message gets through - that is the point of the clerics and scholars. Why do you think sites like IslamQA are so popular? If the book was easy to read, they would just read it.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 91852
Gender: male
Re: Why import this danger?
Reply #118 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 8:43pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 8:03pm:
People often insist they understand what I say when they clearly do not.


That’s true, FD. G gets your posts muddled up.all the time. I mean, why would you ever claim G wanted to blow up the Mardi Gras, it’s ridiculous. Why would you say G evades all your questions, or practices taqiyya, or believes Muhammed was the perfect man? Why would you be proclaiming G’s beliefs anyway?

Only a Muslim would say stuff like that. Why can’t people just admit that they get things wrong?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Baronvonrort
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17387
Gender: male
Re: Why import this danger?
Reply #119 - Jul 29th, 2015 at 8:57pm
 
Pho Huc wrote on Jul 29th, 2015 at 7:34pm:
Yep. twice. I found the language extremely hard to understand, and many contradictory points.

What did you get out of reading it Baron? 


Speaking of contradictions muslims say there are no contradictions in the Quran ,what does it say about contradictions in this verse?
quran.com/4/82

There are verses that don't make any sense,i reckon the scholars would have been at wits end trying to make sense out of it.

The Quran was made into a book about 23 years after Muhammad died,it was passed down in the memory of people who memorised it until the hafiz were getting killed in battles so uthman made it into a book.
Back to top
 

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 
Send Topic Print