Israel thread
13 May 2011, 03:21 PM
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 May 2011, 03:51 PM
#95
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK.
To an extent, the redtops may do that for the reasons you describe and where there are short time slots on the news this happens as much for convenience and simplicity as anything else. Having said that, some of the more impressionable users who were born a Muslim on here will cry 'Muslim bashing' when discussing Islam inspired apostasy murders in Pakistan, often after just a few posts. I guess I'm interested in exploring the idea of the collective, the Ummah, if you'd prefer. I appreciate you're not a practising Muslim, but would be interested to read your thoughts on it. Would you say that Islam promotes the notion of the 'individual'?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah
If I'm right, i.e. that collectivism is a central tenet of Islamic thinking, I've observed that the notion of the collective is abandoned where an individual who is also a Muslim may bring disrepute or danger to Islam. I'm not sure if this is a concious extension of al-Taqiyya or simple instinct. In relation to this thread, and the others we've had in NSR, I've observed that all the board's members who have been born a Muslim have strongly negative remarks to make about Israel, her supporters, its inhabitants or all three. I can't say that I've seen the same consitstency from people that were not born a Muslim. I would extend this collective narrative to Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence, collective or not?
OK
You appeared to acknowledge the main thrust of my post - it was the 'only one man' notion that jumped out at me.
In answer to your first question, I did that to highlight what appears to my eyes to be at best a contradiction or, worse, hypocrisy. I'm sure it was the former. I try very hard not to make generalisations, although I'm certainly guilty of this when responding to collective narrative from the person with whom I'm conversing. I think we would all benefit from being sensitive to the language we use. Making a distinction between white Christians and the ***** would be helpful, for example.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah
If I'm right, i.e. that collectivism is a central tenet of Islamic thinking, I've observed that the notion of the collective is abandoned where an individual who is also a Muslim may bring disrepute or danger to Islam. I'm not sure if this is a concious extension of al-Taqiyya or simple instinct. In relation to this thread, and the others we've had in NSR, I've observed that all the board's members who have been born a Muslim have strongly negative remarks to make about Israel, her supporters, its inhabitants or all three. I can't say that I've seen the same consitstency from people that were not born a Muslim. I would extend this collective narrative to Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence, collective or not?
In answer to your first question, I did that to highlight what appears to my eyes to be at best a contradiction or, worse, hypocrisy. I'm sure it was the former. I try very hard not to make generalisations, although I'm certainly guilty of this when responding to collective narrative from the person with whom I'm conversing. I think we would all benefit from being sensitive to the language we use. Making a distinction between white Christians and the ***** would be helpful, for example.
Last edited by JTaylor; 13 May 2011 at 05:07 PM. Reason: Typos and change of the word 'pup' to 'impressionable' to avoid offence.
13 May 2011, 04:16 PM
#97
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To an extent, the redtops may do that for the reasons you describe and where there are short time slots on the news this happens as much for convenience and simplicity as anything else. Having said that, some of the pups on here will cry 'Muslim bashing' when discussing Islam inspired apostasy murders in Pakistan, often after just a few posts.
I guess I'm interested in exploring the idea of the collective, the Ummah, if you'd prefer. I appreciate you're not a practising Muslim, but would be interested to read your thoughts on it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah
I've observed that the notion of the collective is abandoned where an individual who is also a Muslim may bring disrepute or danger to Islam. I'm
not sure if this is a concious extension of al-Taqiyya or simple instinct. In relation to this thread, and the others we've had in NSR, I've observed that all the board's members who have been born a Muslim have strongly negative remarks to make about Israel, her supporters, its inhabitants or all three. I can't say that I've seen the same consitstency from people that were not born a Muslim. I would extend this collective narrative to Iraq and Afghanistan. So, collective or not?
not sure if this is a concious extension of al-Taqiyya or simple instinct. In relation to this thread, and the others we've had in NSR, I've observed that all the board's members who have been born a Muslim have strongly negative remarks to make about Israel, her supporters, its inhabitants or all three. I can't say that I've seen the same consitstency from people that were not born a Muslim. I would extend this collective narrative to Iraq and Afghanistan. So, collective or not?
There are plenty of anti Israelis on this Board, all decent people with good values and common sense.
It might be a collective, so what? Does that legitimise trying to kill them all?
In answer to your first question, I did that to highlight what appears to my eyes to be at best a contradiction or, worse, hypocrisy. I'm sure it was the former. I try very hard not to make generalisations and I'm certainly guilty of this when responding to collective narrative from the person with whom I'm conversing. I think we would all benefit from being sensitive to the language we use. Making a distinction between white Christians and the ***** would be helpful, for example.
My use of language was 100% deliberate, but you know that, don't you?
But, after all, the ***** weren't brown faced, Muslims were they? (Except Mufti Whatsisface of course!
)You are James, despite some of the things you say, a pretty smart character. I have made plenty of effort to make my points over the years in a reasonable fashion, but this has not been reciprocated. I will therefore, where I choose to and within the T's & C's of this site, respond in whichever way I feel is appropriate. It tends to be in the same way that I am spoken to.
Again, I think you know all this.
Last edited by AsifScoob; 13 May 2011 at 04:19 PM.
13 May 2011, 04:36 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 May 2011, 04:44 PM
#99
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No.
Jewry is distinct from these religions in that it is also an ethnicity and/or a race. There are genetic and hereditary links that cannot be applied to other Abrahamic religions or other religions and traditions from around the world. It is sometimes the case that anti-Semites deny this so as to avoid criticism for racism.
The common understanding is that to be Jewish (rather than a practioner of Judaism) one's mother must be a Jew. This does not apply to Christianity or Islam - where conversion is encouraged irrespective of ethnic or genetic provenance. This explains why, alongside the holocaust and despite being the oldest of the monotheistic religions, the Jews are just 13 million in number. This compares to, for example 1.5 billion Muslims. It's worth considering these numbers when people talk of minority groups.
Jewry is distinct from these religions in that it is also an ethnicity and/or a race. There are genetic and hereditary links that cannot be applied to other Abrahamic religions or other religions and traditions from around the world. It is sometimes the case that anti-Semites deny this so as to avoid criticism for racism.
The common understanding is that to be Jewish (rather than a practioner of Judaism) one's mother must be a Jew. This does not apply to Christianity or Islam - where conversion is encouraged irrespective of ethnic or genetic provenance. This explains why, alongside the holocaust and despite being the oldest of the monotheistic religions, the Jews are just 13 million in number. This compares to, for example 1.5 billion Muslims. It's worth considering these numbers when people talk of minority groups.
13 May 2011, 04:46 PM
#100
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I'm right, i.e. that collectivism is a central tenet Islamic thinking, I've observed that the notion of the collective is abandoned where an individual who is also a Muslim may bring disrepute or danger to Islam. I'm not sure if this is a concious extension of al-Taqiyya or simple instinct. In relation to this thread, and the others we've had in NSR, I've observed that all the board's members who have been born a Muslim have strongly negative remarks to make about Israel, her supporters, its inhabitants or all three. I can't say that I've seen the same consitstency from people that were not born a Muslim. I would extend this collective narrative to Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence, collective or not?
I'm willing to not be right about that and I am ready to have this idea of Islamic collectivism refuted.
Any collectivist idea is incompatible with liberal-democracy especially one which stresses fatalism as it says the individuals conscience and decisions as irrelevent. You can't have a proper democracy when 'the biggest team' wins....it has to be about the individual choosing who to vote for according to their personal conscience and reasons....it has to be based on reason.
Much greater minds than me have written about how Marxism is incompatible with democracy because Marxism stresses historical determinism by material forces and class struggle; it's a fatalism, the individuals choice and conscience is made irrelevant by greater forces.
Marxism is fatalistic, collectivist....Islam also from what I can see???. Is Marixisms incompatibility with democracy the same as Islam?
This is a theme which needs discussion.
13 May 2011, 04:57 PM
#101
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think so but if Jewish people want to define themsleves as one then its their choice. I think the arguments around it are a bit pointless unless you are one of those 'we are god chosen people and better than all others' type of people when I guess the racial thing becomes impmortant to them.
13 May 2011, 04:58 PM
#102
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes that (political) collectivism is arguably manifest in the 'group-think' about Israel, not based on any ideas of personal conscience but just because it's for the benefit of 'the team'.
I'm willing to not be right about that and I am ready to have this idea of Islamic collectivism refuted.
Any collectivist idea is incompatible with liberal-democracy especially one which stresses fatalism as it says the individuals conscience and decisions as irrelevent. You can't have a proper democracy when 'the biggest team' wins....it has to be about the individual choosing who to vote for according to their personal conscience and reasons....it has to be based on reason.
Much greater minds than me have written about how Marxism is incompatible with democracy because Marxism stresses historical determinism by material forces and class struggle; it's a fatalism, the individuals choice and conscience is made irrelevant by greater forces.
Marxism is fatalistic, collectivist....Islam also from what I can see???. Is Marixisms incompatibility with democracy the same as Islam?
This is a theme which needs discussion.
I'm willing to not be right about that and I am ready to have this idea of Islamic collectivism refuted.
Any collectivist idea is incompatible with liberal-democracy especially one which stresses fatalism as it says the individuals conscience and decisions as irrelevent. You can't have a proper democracy when 'the biggest team' wins....it has to be about the individual choosing who to vote for according to their personal conscience and reasons....it has to be based on reason.
Much greater minds than me have written about how Marxism is incompatible with democracy because Marxism stresses historical determinism by material forces and class struggle; it's a fatalism, the individuals choice and conscience is made irrelevant by greater forces.
Marxism is fatalistic, collectivist....Islam also from what I can see???. Is Marixisms incompatibility with democracy the same as Islam?
This is a theme which needs discussion.
13 May 2011, 05:05 PM
#104
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's a question asked to find something out - then everything IMHO.
For example: I know very little about Islam so am asking questions (actually having a blinding argument (as in the correct definition of the term) with a Muslim girl at work. I counter her points and she vehemently disagrees with me, but at the same time we're both learning.
Of course, it may not be
(incidentally my own opinion is that all organised religions enforce a colective mindset on their followers, which is why I disagree with them all)
13 May 2011, 05:06 PM
#105
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the truth behind the pro Israeli lobby, here and around the World and gives the terrorists all the grist they need.
You're an absolute disgrace Tony! A new low, even for you!
13 May 2011, 05:10 PM
#106
Why do you guys even bother with these threads? Is it for entertainment purposes or do you really think something will come of it?
You all will be arguing about the same **** for eternity - why waste time and effort?
You all will be arguing about the same **** for eternity - why waste time and effort?
13 May 2011, 05:11 PM
#107
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christianity stresses the individual; it's the individuals choices which effect his/her relationship with God, and God is not abstract or distant, he cares about the individual hence why he sent his own son.
13 May 2011, 05:14 PM
#109
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's a question asked to find something out - then everything IMHO.
For example: I know very little about Islam so am asking questions (actually having a blinding argument (as in the correct definition of the term) with a Muslim girl at work. I counter her points and she vehemently disagrees with me, but at the same time we're both learning.
Of course, it may not be
(incidentally my own opinion is that all organised religions enforce a colective mindset on their followers, which is why I disagree with them all)
For example: I know very little about Islam so am asking questions (actually having a blinding argument (as in the correct definition of the term) with a Muslim girl at work. I counter her points and she vehemently disagrees with me, but at the same time we're both learning.
Of course, it may not be
(incidentally my own opinion is that all organised religions enforce a colective mindset on their followers, which is why I disagree with them all)
You're missing the point. That line is one which Tony uses all the time, to other people who choose a line of argument that he doesn't like.
It's pointless having a sensible discussion with him as he does not debate, he simply either ignores, changes the subject, etc etc.
You will notice that he does not respond well to the same line of questioning, that he likes to dish out.
Whatever one may say about JT, he is capable of debating, when he wants to.
The point of my post is to make Tony understand that he can come here and have a debate, but that he needs to act in the same manner that he would want to be treated.
We can all get along just fine then.
My view of organised religion is not a good one either.
Asif
13 May 2011, 05:17 PM
#111
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally don't see how Christianity can stress the individual though - you have a set of rules that must be obeyed if you are to gain enlightenment, you are required to tithe your time to the Church and stress is placed heavily on following the herd.
13 May 2011, 05:20 PM
#113
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I honestly think Tonys post was an attempt at a wind up Kieran. I am happy to be wrong, but just a gut feeling.
13 May 2011, 05:20 PM
#114
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The use of it is disgusting as opposed to what is actually being shown? You defend your Israeli friends to THAT extent do you? You clearly condone the murder of children then, do you Tony? As long as they are Muslim, Palestinian, etc etc?
This is the truth behind the pro Israeli lobby, here and around the World and gives the terrorists all the grist they need.
You're an absolute disgrace Tony! A new low, even for you!
This is the truth behind the pro Israeli lobby, here and around the World and gives the terrorists all the grist they need.
You're an absolute disgrace Tony! A new low, even for you!
At best it is just imagery, it means nothing compared to the human stories, causes, intentions behind it etc the other side of the story...it's devoid of context
Imagery of suffering just desensitises the individual anyway.
It's a pornography of suffering and violance...there is no context.
13 May 2011, 05:27 PM
#116
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Christianity, God sends his son to mix with the poor and nobodies and talk to them. He is listening and available to the individual who can have a relationship with God bypassing the Leaders etc. Anyone can have a relationship with God if rich or poor, no matter what tribe you are from etc, it's open to all unlike say Judaism as I mentioned which stresses the tribe and tribes fate.
So the individual matters. He/she can acquire grace through his/her actions/thoughts etc.
13 May 2011, 05:27 PM
#117
What is being shown? Pallywood?
At best it is just imagery, it means nothing compared to the human stories, causes, intentions behind it etc the other side of the story...it's devoid of context
Imagery of suffering just desensitises the individual anyway.
It's a pornography of suffering and violance...there is no context.
At best it is just imagery, it means nothing compared to the human stories, causes, intentions behind it etc the other side of the story...it's devoid of context
Imagery of suffering just desensitises the individual anyway.
It's a pornography of suffering and violance...there is no context.
13 May 2011, 05:39 PM
#118
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was revolutionary to previous religions. With Judaism God never bother and talks to the individual just to the Leaders etc. The individuals fate is collective with the tribe.
With Christianity, God sends his son to mix with the poor and nobodies and talk to them. He is listening and available to the individual who can have a relationship with God bypassing the Leaders etc. Anyone can have a relationship with God if rich or poor, no matter what tribe you are from etc, it's open to all unlike say Judaism as I mentioned which stresses the tribe and tribes fate.
So the individual matters. He/she can acquire grace through his/her actions/thoughts etc.
With Christianity, God sends his son to mix with the poor and nobodies and talk to them. He is listening and available to the individual who can have a relationship with God bypassing the Leaders etc. Anyone can have a relationship with God if rich or poor, no matter what tribe you are from etc, it's open to all unlike say Judaism as I mentioned which stresses the tribe and tribes fate.
So the individual matters. He/she can acquire grace through his/her actions/thoughts etc.
To the early religions their Gods were all around them, day to day. Christianity was a bit of a 'johnny-come-lately' to the idea if you ask me