Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

RobbyG wrote:Wonderful analogy. IF only DD would be able to project this reality in the right setting, this conversation would be alot easier...

You never have a conversation to hold but always an agenda to push and the same old tired one at that. Maybe if you go re read some of your posts from you past life here you'll notice that. And its the same thing all over again. I'll summrise it here and maybe you could stick it in your sig to save you and us the trouble of having to retype it in a new format everytime

1) All religion is bad

2) But Islam is the worst one.

3) Its old and belongs to the dark ages

4) Western society is the bomb

5) Islam is no way compatiblie with it

6) Atheism is the solution to all problems in the world

There are your usual sub sections to each of these aswell but I'll save those of later.

Now if you have something new to say I'm all ears

desertdudeshj wrote:Just because they are govt sponsered doesn't mean squat forums are just that forums, mostly used by people to vent their anger and politicaly incorrect frustrations.

That's what we're supposed to make of DD's opinions? Forums are forums and his opinions are squat!!!


I don't understand how you can say that a medium of expression is inconsequential. As long as the expression is legitimate, then no matter what the forum the opinion counts. Off-course if the forum like DF is populated by a handful of people then FD is wrong is associating it with a community perspective. But if the sample on the forums is sizable then it is a diff story.

desertdudeshj wrote:

RobbyG wrote:Wonderful analogy. IF only DD would be able to project this reality in the right setting, this conversation would be alot easier...

You never have a conversation to hold but always an agenda to push and the same old tired one at that. Maybe if you go re read some of your posts from you past life here you'll notice that. And its the same thing all over again. I'll summrise it here and maybe you could stick it in your sig to save you and us the trouble of having to retype it in a new format everytime

1) All religion is bad

2) But Islam is the worst one.

3) Its old and belongs to the dark ages

4) Western society is the bomb

5) Islam is no way compatiblie with it

6) Atheism is the solution to all problems in the world

There are your usual sub sections to each of these aswell but I'll save those of later.

Now if you have something new to say I'm all ears

Now, now DD. RobbyG is entitled to his opinion, even if he is wrong.

desertdudeshj wrote:

RobbyG wrote:Wonderful analogy. IF only DD would be able to project this reality in the right setting, this conversation would be alot easier...

You never have a conversation to hold but always an agenda to push and the same old tired one at that. Maybe if you go re read some of your posts from you past life here you'll notice that. And its the same thing all over again. I'll summrise it here and maybe you could stick it in your sig to save you and us the trouble of having to retype it in a new format everytime

1) All religion is bad

2) But Islam is the worst one.

3) Its old and belongs to the dark ages

4) Western society is the bomb

5) Islam is no way compatiblie with it

6) Atheism is the solution to all problems in the world

There are your usual sub sections to each of these aswell but I'll save those of later.

Now if you have something new to say I'm all ears

Partly agreed.. I don't know what's happening in the land of the Dutch, for his opinions to get so edgy but there are Muslims all over the world RobbyG. Like India for instance, where majority of them are lovely, peace loving, hardworking people.

Misery Called Life wrote:

desertdudeshj wrote:Just because they are govt sponsered doesn't mean squat forums are just that forums, mostly used by people to vent their anger and politicaly incorrect frustrations.

That's what we're supposed to make of DD's opinions? Forums are forums and his opinions are squat!!!


I don't understand how you can say that a medium of expression is inconsequential. As long as the expression is legitimate, then no matter what the forum the opinion counts. Off-course if the forum like DF is populated by a handful of people then FD is wrong is associating it with a community perspective. But if the sample on the forums is sizable then it is a diff story.

Thats what I am partly trying to say, that online forums in no way shape or form represent a society ( no matter how large they get ) maybe small groups or associations. They are as you said a legitimate form of expression but by no means a representation of a population.

Like I said I vist other forums aswell, and if you go by forums alone you'd think the whole USA was geared up and up in arms waiting for the Jihadis to land on their shores. But I know for a fact that is not true at all. As for the Dutch. My neighbour is from Holland and I have another good dutch friend and by no means share the view that G has or give the slightest bit of creedance to the wilders. Why because unlike G they have stepped out of the basement and see the world for themselves. And don't need people like geert forming opinions for them

desertdudeshj wrote:

RobbyG wrote:Wonderful analogy. IF only DD would be able to project this reality in the right setting, this conversation would be alot easier...

You never have a conversation to hold but always an agenda to push and the same old tired one at that. Maybe if you go re read some of your posts from you past life here you'll notice that. And its the same thing all over again. I'll summrise it here and maybe you could stick it in your sig to save you and us the trouble of having to retype it in a new format everytime

1) All religion is bad

2) But Islam is the worst one.

3) Its old and belongs to the dark ages

4) Western society is the bomb

5) Islam is no way compatiblie with it

6) Atheism is the solution to all problems in the world

There are your usual sub sections to each of these aswell but I'll save those of later.

Now if you have something new to say I'm all ears

Reality is a princess. It keeps repeating itself over and over again.

But you are deadwrong again.

1. You are free to worship whatever you like in my opinion. Just make sure you do it privately, so other people aren't offended by it. Secularity.

2. Islam is the youngest one and remains in the Middle Ages. I keep repeating that, cause it uses a backward learning curve IMO. If it tried a forward learning curve, I might improve my stance for once. I haven't seen it yet. But if your happy with it, fine. Just respect my opinion and I do yours.

3. Its comparatively young and indeed, its laws are from the dark ages compared to Western values and laws.

4. Western society has its problems. Its not the bomb, but it does have the most progressed society in the world. Also the most tolerant one I know. Agree to disagree. I'm fine with that. Just keep it on substance.

5. Compatible? Prove me wrong. Elaborate on the US Constitution and do a quick compliance check. I did. Negative.

6. Atheism is my personal conviction regarding the state of our universe and science. I stand firm and don't need guidance from an imaginary soul. Perhaps you do? I'm fine with that.

Nice try DD. Try to prove me wrong next time instead of the personal attacks. And remember, repetition is good. Just make sure you have your facts right and please try to explain in coherently. That way, I might actually be willing to respond to your ramblings.

Thank your very much.

-- 14 Sep 2010, 16:52 --

Misery Called Life wrote:

desertdudeshj wrote:

RobbyG wrote:Wonderful analogy. IF only DD would be able to project this reality in the right setting, this conversation would be alot easier...

You never have a conversation to hold but always an agenda to push and the same old tired one at that. Maybe if you go re read some of your posts from you past life here you'll notice that. And its the same thing all over again. I'll summrise it here and maybe you could stick it in your sig to save you and us the trouble of having to retype it in a new format everytime

1) All religion is bad

2) But Islam is the worst one.

3) Its old and belongs to the dark ages

4) Western society is the bomb

5) Islam is no way compatiblie with it

6) Atheism is the solution to all problems in the world

There are your usual sub sections to each of these aswell but I'll save those of later.

Now if you have something new to say I'm all ears

Partly agreed.. I don't know what's happening in the land of the Dutch, for his opinions to get so edgy but there are Muslims all over the world RobbyG. Like India for instance, where majority of them are lovely, peace loving, hardworking people.

Its not about the people MCL. The fooks are great. Love em to death.

Its the ideology that is making me edgy. I'm just wary because we have some experience in Europe regarding ideology and violence. From peace loving Germans, my fellow neighbours, to ideologically inclined jew murderers in a few years following war, poverty and hyperinflation.

People are not exactly the most stable individuals you might think. Convictions can change easily. I just don't like ideologies. They are indoctrinating and dangerous.

I like rational views more. But hey, I love my fellow muslim friends. They either respect my opinion or they go fish in the pond somewhere. I tell you like I see it.

Like I said cut and paste it to your sig, will save you the rehashs, because thats exactly what you did just now

desertdudeshj wrote:Like I said cut and paste it to your sig, will save you the rehashs, because thats exactly what you did just now

You don't have an answer to my findings. Thats your weakness mate, not mine.

RobbyG wrote:

shafique wrote:But the weird thing is that the people who claim the instruction manual says 'drive into pedestrians' haven't actually read the whole manual, or actually driven the car - they've just read about the car from 'trainspotting for cool guys' magazine - which says that cars are evil!

Haha, no no Shaffy.

The instruction manual might have a few flaws in it. The biggest flaw is the driving school (ideology) and its instructors (Imams) who teach how the drive the car.

On this I totally agree with you. By all means those who own the perfect car will also criticise those who aren't driving it correctly, but will always try and correct those ignorant people who blame the car rather than the instructers and incompetent drivers (who are driving the car backwards and upside down and causing havoc) - indeed they aren't even looking at the manual!

RobbyG wrote:In the West we regulate everything. In the ME, they tend to not care as much about safety or qualified instructors. After all, certain driving schools are fatalistically inclined and little happens to stop them, internally. Its all about 'gods willing'...

Yeah, but the people may still be comparing a donkey and cart on an empty road, with a Mercedes which is being driven in reverse and upside down by one idiot, and ignoring all the Mercedes whizzing along the highways!

Cheers,
Shafique

RobbyG wrote:Haha, no no Shaffy.
The instruction manual might have a few flaws in it. The biggest flaw is the driving school (ideology) and its instructors (Imams) who teach how the drive the car.

He-he. Good punch, Rob. In my view university is not about good books but mostly about good professors. However, somebody contunues reading faded ABC book instead, where most nowadays concepts are absent due to time of edition, more and more.

Can we blame ABC book? No! No! Of cause not.

^So let's focus on the teachers and not the ABC book.

That's exactly my point! (That and the view that the majority of professors are using the books correctly, but that the media focuses on the nutters and concludes that the books are bad!)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:^So let's focus on the teachers and not the ABC book.

That's exactly my point! (That and the view that the majority of professors are using the books correctly, but that the media focuses on the nutters and concludes that the books are bad!)

Cheers,
Shafique

The book is shitty too, but so is every form of Bible!

Allright, I'll give it a rest. But if I see more nutters on the telly, I will stock up food and dig my bunker for the day of reckoning.

Duck and cover... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwlNPhn6 ... re=related

Just kidding fooks. Having 'a blast' here.

Our Geert

To understand 'our Geert'... you need to understand the fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/ ... d_isl.html

Its an excellent short article that gives some additional insight into the differences between the secular Western World (Christianity) and the theocratic Islamic world.

This article basically holds the key to the progressive development (learning curve) of both worlds. Think of human rights, equal rights for women, social conduct, radical fundamental (hardline) elements etc.

Perhaps this article will bring some light into the eyes of others also, when you read my opinion regarding religions and ideologic 'ways of life'. The one enlightened, the other not. I use the words, forward learning curve, and backward learning curve in this regard.

A must read. It also adds insight to why Geert Wilders sees Christian-Judaic religion as a 'better' set of values. As an atheist myself, I don't have that problem of choosing, but I can certainly agree from a rational viewpoint that Christianity is (or has developed) seen as more forgiving, compassionate and forward thinking (science) than Islam.

Nevertheless, make up your own mind and debate.

^Well, I guess one must be careful with labels here.

I would call the Orthodox Jews who thank God each morning for not creating them as women or gentiles to be part of the 'Christian-Judaic' religion, as well as those defending the Rabbi saying it is ok to kill Gentile women and children under certain circumstances - and I'd certainly argue that the Catholic Church and African Anglicans are part of the same tradition/religion.

Then I'd refer Wilders to actual religious scholars (a Christian one in this case, but also all the Muslim scholars) who rightly point out that the religious traditions are a continuous spectrum:

Prof Hans Kung, Islam:Past, Present and Future, pg 123

Anyone who puts the Bible and the Qur’an side by side and reads them will recognize that the three revelatory religions of Semitic origin—Judaism, Christianity and Islam—and especially the Hebrew Bible and the Qur’an all have the same basis. One and the same God speaks clearly in both. ‘Thus says the Lord’ in the
Hebrew Bible corresponds to the ‘Say’ (qul: 332 times) of the Qur’an; the biblical ‘Go and proclaim!’ corresponds to the Qur’anic ‘Arise and warn!’.And finally, the millions of Arabic-speaking Christians know no other word for God but Allah!

So isn’t it perhaps simply a dogmatic prejudice for Christians to recognize Amos and Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah and the extremely violent Elijah as prophets, but not Muhammad?

and pg 90-91

Last is belief in the merciful, gracious God, who accepts human beings. In the Qur’an, as in the Bible, human beings are called ‘servants of God’: this does not mean slavery under a despot but expresses elementary human creatureliness before the one Lord. The Arabic ar-rahman (the ‘merciful’) is etymologically connected with the Hebrew rahamim, which together with hen and hesed represents the word-field of the New Testament charis and our word grace. Some statements in the Bible and the Qur’an can make God appear arbitrary, but the overall testimony of the Bible and the Qur’an is decisively that God is a God of grace and mercy.

Thus Judaism, Christianity and Islam together represent belief in the one God; they all are part of the one great monotheistic world movement. We should not underestimate the political significance of this shared belief in the one God, but be aware of it.

Eh helpfully started a thread on Kung here:
philosophy-dubai/the-true-meaning-islam-hans-kung-t43296.html


Therefore, I think Wilders is not comparing apples to apples - but rather a loon interpretation of Islam with a secular society.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:^Well, I guess one must be careful with labels here.

I would call the Orthodox Jews who thank God each morning for not creating them as women or gentiles to be part of the 'Christian-Judaic' religion, as well as those defending the Rabbi saying it is ok to kill Gentile women and children under certain circumstances - and I'd certainly argue that the Catholic Church and African Anglicans are part of the same tradition/religion.

Then I'd refer Wilders to actual religious scholars (a Christian one in this case, but also all the Muslim scholars) who rightly point out that the religious traditions are a continuous spectrum:

Prof Hans Kung, Islam:Past, Present and Future, pg 123

Anyone who puts the Bible and the Qur’an side by side and reads them will recognize that the three revelatory religions of Semitic origin—Judaism, Christianity and Islam—and especially the Hebrew Bible and the Qur’an all have the same basis. One and the same God speaks clearly in both. ‘Thus says the Lord’ in the
Hebrew Bible corresponds to the ‘Say’ (qul: 332 times) of the Qur’an; the biblical ‘Go and proclaim!’ corresponds to the Qur’anic ‘Arise and warn!’.And finally, the millions of Arabic-speaking Christians know no other word for God but Allah!

So isn’t it perhaps simply a dogmatic prejudice for Christians to recognize Amos and Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah and the extremely violent Elijah as prophets, but not Muhammad?

Good point. prof. I also don't understand why Mr. Wielders included Judaism. I always treated Islam as one more try to expand Judaism to the whole World. It's something what St. Paul tried to make a little bit earlier.

I would be also carefull to "label" NT as a semitic tradition. As you know the earliest texts we can read nowadays are in Greek.

^It's pretty obvious why he's including Judaism - he's a loon.

The loon (I.e. Islamophobic) argument is to demonise Islam and to hell with reason/rationality.

His motives are exactly the same as the far right groups in the UK (for example) who used to be anti-Semitic and now have embraced Zionism - such as the English Defence League (EDL) whose members came from the British National Party (BNP) and the NF (National Front) before. They are trying to legitimise their bigotry.


As for NT texts - some were written in Greek, others in Hebrew - (so not all were translated into Greek). But historians of Christianity (like Kung) make a distinction between the first form of Christianity - which he calls 'PI' or 'Jewish Christianity' and 'PII' or 'Hellenistic/Byzantine Christianity' which I tend to call 'Pauline Christianity'. But that is another discussion for the religion forum.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:the far right groups in the UK (for example) who used to be anti-Semitic and now have embraced Zionism - such as the English Defence League (EDL) whose members came from the British National Party (BNP) and the NF (National Front) before.

It's relatively new and dangerous shift I must say.

Red Chief wrote:I also don't understand why Mr. Wielders included Judaism.

If he was referring to the US, thats a question for the writers of the US constitution.

Red Chief wrote:I always treated Islam as one more try to expand Judaism to the whole World.

Correct, I wouldn't refer to the current society of the Netherlands as Judeo-Christian, but more like Judeo-Christian-Muslim.

In God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, he argues that the founding fathers of the USA didn't, after all, intend to have the USA a 'Christian' country (and certainly not a Judaic country).

Eg. on pg 40:

Contrary to their view, the fact that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation was early stated in the terms of a treaty with Tripoli, drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The opening words of this quotation would cause uproar in today's Washington ascendancy. Yet Ed Buckner has convincingly demonstrated that they caused no dissent at the time, among either politicians or public.

Pretty clear statement of religious tolerance, I think.

Cheers,
Shafique

Red Chief wrote:Good point. prof. I also don't understand why Mr. Wielders included Judaism. I always treated Islam as one more try to expand Judaism to the whole World. It's something what St. Paul tried to make a little bit earlier.

I would be also carefull to "label" NT as a semitic tradition. As you know the earliest texts we can read nowadays are in Greek.

Did you read the article Chief? You didn't!

Both Christianity and Islam are offshoots of Judaism. From Judaism, Christianity and Islam derived the doctrines of monotheism, prophecy, resurrection, and a belief in the existence of heaven and hell.

There's your Judaic-Christian offspring. Its not that there is any Judaic origines in Holland, except for the fact that Christian values are derived from it. But so is Islam.

-- 16 Sep 2010, 18:27 --

shafique wrote:^It's pretty obvious why he's [Wilders] including Judaism - he's a loon.

The loon (I.e. Islamophobic) argument is to demonise Islam and to hell with reason/rationality.

His motives are exactly the same as the far right groups in the UK (for example) who used to be anti-Semitic and now have embraced Zionism - such as the English Defence League (EDL) whose members came from the British National Party (BNP) and the NF (National Front) before. They are trying to legitimise their bigotry.

Ah, the islamophobic argument again. Lets debunk that for once and for all Shaffique.

Notice you don’t say naziphobic, or marxophobic, or christophobic. But apparently islam is special, and so a disdain for commands equally if not more vile than christianity is deemed a phobia, as if to imply there is something wrong with you.

Christianity is liberal and getting more liberal. Islam is more fundamentalist and is growing. Based on trends, a special hatred for islam but not christianity is completely warranted and rational. It’s not a double standard. It’s treating different things differently.

http://fringeelements.info/post/1097772 ... ganda-term

The only thing I didn't like from this article is that is justifies are 'special hatred' for Islam. With this I don't agree. I would reject and condemn Islam as an ideology repetitively, but 'hate' it, well thats not my thing. Hate can be deadly. I say live and let die when its time has come. Just don't feed it.