ISIS

[Billie]

Sometimes there's no solutions, and things just continue as they are...

Well, I agree that there is no "solution" that would work. There is far too much historical stuff and far too many vested interests that would ever allow one to work... but the question is more hypothetical... If you were personally given the global go-ahead to create a blueprint what would it be?

Too much meddling in other people's business, that never lead to a good thing. To me it looks like the powers of the West try to pick and choose who they are going to support in each individual case/country and then they find themselves entangled in a mess that they can't figure out. I think that Putin should side with ISIS and then the West will definitely be against them.:lolz:

 

[calitennis127]

Also, Bush showed absolutely no regard for the Christian population in Iraq, which has suffered immensely because of the U.S. invasion in 2003. Saying that Christianity was a motivation for the war is simply idiotic.

Ah, yes, I see. Christians being killed by Americans is proof that Christianity had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, but ISIS slaughtering Muslims is "absolutely irrelevant" according to you, despite the fact that by the same logic, this should mean taht what ISIS is doing has nothing to do with true Islam.

As Kieran and I explained to Murat, Pope John Paul II as well as the eventual Pope Benedict XVI warned quite clearly against the war in Iraq. The only case that you could possibly make of Christianity having anything to do with the invasion of Iraq is that there were a substantial number of Evangelical Christians in the United States who were whining for war because they favor Israel as a matter of dogma. But, in the end, they have no political power in America and they had no power under Bush. They may have been useful for a little bit of propaganda for certain quarters of the Republican "base", but they were not the ones ultimately making the decisions that took the U.S. into war; they were completely removed from them actually. The Bush administration and its support nexus of Fox News and the American Enterprise Institute are all dominated by neoconservative ideology, which has nothing at all to do with Christianity. In fact, many neoconservatives spoke well of Christopher Hitchens, and they even counted him among his ranks. The neoconservatives are a mixture of heavily pro-Israel Jewish-Americans and secular dolts like Dick Cheney or David Frum.

How could any sane person make the argument that Christianity had the slightest thing to do with causing the U.S. to invade Iraq? Please give me just one reason.

On the other hand, Islamic insurgents/militant groups/terrorist groups across the world, in a variety of locales and cultures, use the fundamental Islamic texts to constantly justify acts of "terrorism" and violence against the infidel. I don't even know where to start really:

- 9/11
- London bombings (7/7)
- Madrid bombings (3/11)
- Beslan hostage-taking
- Mumbai bombings
- Boston marathon bombings
- Tanzania, Kenya, other bombings in Africa
- Countless suicide attacks in Iraq in both directions (Sunni on Shia, Shia on Sunni)
- Palestinian aggression against Israel

Shall I go on?

Now I don't mean to imply that U.S. foreign policy is not an instigating menace (it is), but I do mean to say that there is no comparison in the warmongering of Islam to that of Christianity in the world today. I used to study this a whole lot more, but I do remember coming across a few verses from the Qu'ran which have been interpreted as allowing for Muslims to be collateral damage in the cause of building a true Islamic state that would please Allah. So ISIS killing "other Muslims" is not regarded as that big a deal to those who have an idealistic vision of a pure Islamic caliphate. The likes of Bin Laden or Baghdadi see many Muslims as weak Muslims or fake Muslims, so taking their lives is something they don't see as all that bad.

The fact that Bush's invasion led to the misery of Iraq's Christians today just shows how indifferent he and the Republican brass were to Christianity. You never heard a peep from any Republican leader in the run-up to the Iraq war about how it might impact the ancient Christian population.

 

[calitennis127]

All credit to them. Cannot be easy going against what makes you human. Also brownie points for putting your brain aside and not questioning it. Extra bonus points for the ones who DO question the absurdity of the whole thing but accept the answer " Lord works in mysterious ways".

Murat, I really do not appreciate being told that I have never looked into something or contemplated it when I really have. You are always saying that religious people don't investigate things or "question" their own beliefs, yet you never take the time to "question" your own beliefs or investigate what those who you oppose actually think and why.

On the issue of clerical celibacy, let me start first with something that predated Christianity by about 350 years: the philosophy of Plato. Now let me ask you this: do you think that Plato never questioned things? I ask because his remarks on sexuality's effects on the human soul in the Phaedo dialogue are frankly much sterner than anything you will hear from the Catholic Church. Consider:

In section 64 Socrates is discussing the soul’s separation from the body, and then he goes on to state that a philosopher should not be concerned “with such so-called pleasures as those of food and drink” or “the pleasures of sex” or “the other pleasures concerned with the service of the body” (64d-e). Furthermore, “the soul of the philosopher most disdains the body, flees from it and seeks to be by itself” (65d1-2) and “the body confuses the soul and does not allow it to acquire truth and wisdom whenever it is associated with it” (66a5-6). The body is not merely an impediment, but an outright “evil” for the philosopher: “…..as long as we have a body and our soul is fused with such an evil we shall never adequately attain what we desire, which we affirm to be the truth” (66b3-5).

Now while I don't completely agree with everything Socrates says here, there is still very strong merit to it, and because Christianity was still hundreds of years from coming into existence, you cannot say that these thoughts were just coming from a pontiff whose proclamations were blindly accepted by the masses. Furthermore, the role of the priest is largely one of theologian and philosopher, so at least having concerns about priests behaving like white losers on an American Pie movie is legitimate.

And if you think that the Church has never dealt with this issue in a philosophical or thoughtful way that gave some justification for clerical celibacy, then at least have the courtesy of clicking this link and spending one minute glancing through the paragraphs:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6sacerd.htm

 

[Billie]

The Westgate shopping mall attack in Nairobi was also planned by an extremist group, al-Shabaab. I watched a documentary about it the other night, as it was an anniversary of the event. No real plan or sense in what they were doing, they would just shoot and kill, but then they would let some mothers go (white Western mothers and their kids). Over 60 killed, over 175 wounded by 4 young people.

 

[tented]

^ Here's more on this, if anyone is interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westgate_shopping_mall_attack

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

All credit to them. Cannot be easy going against what makes you human. Also brownie points for putting your brain aside and not questioning it. Extra bonus points for the ones who DO question the absurdity of the whole thing but accept the answer " Lord works in mysterious ways".

Murat, I really do not appreciate being told that I have never looked into something or contemplated it when I really have. You are always saying that religious people don't investigate things or "question" their own beliefs, yet you never take the time to "question" your own beliefs or investigate what those who you oppose actually think and why.

On the issue of clerical celibacy, let me start first with something that predated Christianity by about 350 years: the philosophy of Plato. Now let me ask you this: do you think that Plato never questioned things? I ask because his remarks on sexuality's effects on the human soul in the Phaedo dialogue are frankly much sterner than anything you will hear from the Catholic Church. Consider:

In section 64 Socrates is discussing the soul’s separation from the body, and then he goes on to state that a philosopher should not be concerned “with such so-called pleasures as those of food and drink” or “the pleasures of sex” or “the other pleasures concerned with the service of the body” (64d-e). Furthermore, “the soul of the philosopher most disdains the body, flees from it and seeks to be by itself” (65d1-2) and “the body confuses the soul and does not allow it to acquire truth and wisdom whenever it is associated with it” (66a5-6). The body is not merely an impediment, but an outright “evil” for the philosopher: “…..as long as we have a body and our soul is fused with such an evil we shall never adequately attain what we desire, which we affirm to be the truth” (66b3-5).

Now while I don't completely agree with everything Socrates says here, there is still very strong merit to it, and because Christianity was still hundreds of years from coming into existence, you cannot say that these thoughts were just coming from a pontiff whose proclamations were blindly accepted by the masses. Furthermore, the role of the priest is largely one of theologian and philosopher, so at least having concerns about priests behaving like white losers on an American Pie movie is legitimate.

And if you think that the Church has never dealt with this issue in a philosophical or thoughtful way that gave some justification for clerical celibacy, then at least have the courtesy of clicking this link and spending one minute glancing through the paragraphs:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6sacerd.htm

If you have looked into celibacy, contemplated it and your end result is that it is healthy for an adult male to suppress his sexual desires , which is one of the fundamental urges for people in general according the hierarchy of needs, and then put that person in a position of power with vulnerable young persons around him, then I do not really care how long you have contemplated it, I just do not agree with the basic premise. It is not reasonable and it is not logical.

Also, your examples above about Islamic extremism , 9-11, London, etc, just proves my point about how easy it is to manipulate religion. You say these guys were using Koran to do their dirty deeds. They were not. They were using their OWN sick version of text that was not meant to be used that way to begin with. Had you read Koran yourself, you would know that all those violent versus are meant to be for exactly ONE local war, against ONE specific tribe. In fact , billions of Muslims in the world know that and live their lives nowhere near like a fundamentalist terrorist.

Interpretation is the biggest evil religion has given to mankind. It is so easy to manipulate. Your religion is the same. One can easily kill ones children if they are disrespectful to their parents. Oh, you say, I do not understand it that way...Well, SOME can, and you cannot do anything about it. It is their interpretation.

Some ( around %50 of the US population) believe the Earth is around 5-6 thousand years old. Who are YOU to say they are wrong? That is THEIR interpretation. YOU might not believe in creation...you say " Oh well, that part is not supposed to be taken literally" Well, others think it is so. If they want to believe Jesus rode dinos, they will believe that. If they want to believe homosexuality is a deadly sin, they will believe that.

Islam is the same way. Some will believe what is written was meant to go on forever, not evolve at all. Some believe 72 virgins story, others translate it is 72 dates(fruits). You see what is happening? SOMETHING THAT IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION CAN NEVER BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTH.

Now, to be an atheist and to be credible, one has to read all the holy books. I have, in multiple languages. Have you? Wait, scratch that because I already know you have never read the Koran. If you did , you would know what you were talking about. You don't. And that's actually fine because even if you did, you would interpret it YOUR way.

 

[Kieran]

Murat, there's no connection between celibacy and paedophilia. None that I've ever heard of. Paedophiles are a special breed of pervert and a lot of them attached themselves to youth clubs, sports clubs, etc, just so they have access to children. Likewise, they attach themselves to the church, and also it happens most regularly within families. Nowadays, the Church has tightened up its screening process and it's actually a long procedure before you can be a monk, priest or nun. My pal gave up a great job a few years back to become a Cistercian monk, and despite the shrinking numbers, he said they had huge tests and psychological examinations and conditions he had to face before he was even accepted at the early stages.

Paedophilia is a derangement, but priests who have difficulty with celibacy either struggle with it lifelong, or they go with a woman. The desire they're battling is not for a child. I posted an interesting article somewhere from Newsweek which says that according to insurance companies in America, paedophilia is more an issue among males in general, and certainly not more prevalent among celibate clergy. In fact, it's just as prevalent among married men, statistically...

EDIT: I agree with your bigger point about interpretation, which is why we have the Church, but i see it happen among the sects and also in Islam. I also see it, buddy, among liberal atheists. They bring things like euthanasia and abortion casually to the table, and this is based upon their dogmas. This is all part of being human, but I agree - ISIS are taking a literal interpretation of the Koran and following it to the extremes. Even al-qaeda complained about them, which is a bit like a Fred West complaining to the press about the exploits of Ted Bundy...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Murat, there's no connection between celibacy and paedophilia. None that I've ever heard of. Paedophiles are a special breed of pervert and a lot of them attached themselves to youth clubs, sports clubs, etc, just so they have access to children. Likewise, they attach themselves to the church, and also it happens most regularly within families. Nowadays, the Church has tightened up its screening process and it's actually a long procedure before you can be a monk, priest or nun. My pal gave up a great job a few years back to become a Cistercian monk, and despite the shrinking numbers, he said they had huge tests and psychological examinations and conditions he had to face before he was even accepted at the early stages.

Paedophilia is a derangement, but priests who have difficulty with celibacy either struggle with it lifelong, or they go with a woman. The desire they're battling is not for a child. I posted an interesting article somewhere from Newsweek which says that according to insurance companies in America, paedophilia is more an issue among males in general, and certainly not more prevalent among celibate clergy. In fact, it's just as prevalent among married men, statistically...

EDIT: I agree with your bigger point about interpretation, which is why we have the Church, but i see it happen among the sects and also in Islam. I also see it, buddy, among liberal atheists. They bring things like euthanasia and abortion casually to the table, and this is based upon their dogmas. This is all part of being human, but I agree - ISIS are taking a literal interpretation of the Koran and following it to the extremes. Even al-qaeda complained about them, which is a bit like a Fred West complaining to the press about the exploits of Ted Bundy...

My point about celibacy is not that it is just about clergy. My point is it is unnatural, it can lead to unhealthy results and it IS mandated by the Church for thousands of healthy adults as a good thing. I do not believe it and nobody so far has been able to explain to me why it is such a great thing for everyone. We are human beings. We have needs. General public might have certain outlets for their frustrations. The outlets for the priests are ...well, you know.

You are talking about dogmas. My belief system does not endorse dogmas. When I am saying I am an atheist, I am meaning %99.99 because I will never NOT leave the door a tiny crack open because that would be against my scientific way of looking at things. As new info comes along, I am willing to look at my position and evaluate it. Can religion do that? I do not see it around me, honestly.

I am willing to discuss issues like euthanasia or abortion just as a person, not an atheist person, but can a religious person do that? Once you say "All life is holy" , how can we go on from there? Besides, I have about 3 million examples of all life NOT being holy according to various religions, so what do you do.

Back to the subject. This religious stuff never goes anywhere.:s

 

[Kieran]

Arguing religion is like trying to peel the skin off water. Messy! :laydownlaughing

These things obviously have a deeper theology behind them, and finding what's "natural" with regards to humans is not an activity that'll lead to any single way. Celibacy isn't for everyone, but it is for some. And others struggle with monogamy. And so on. Is monogamy natural? Doesn't always feel so to me, especially at about 2am on a Saturday night. :snigger

Anyway, you're right, if it's possible, we should try stay on topic. There's still stuff to be discussed here, about ISIS. I'd like to read more of people's ideas for a solution. What about the suggestion that we should talk to ISIS? Are they the kind of people who can be dealt with through diplomacy? They've gained huge swathes of land and riches by using violence, what could be said to them that would make them think of other ways? Personally, I don't think talking to them would yield anything other than show them that their opponents are weaker than them... :hug

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Arguing religion is like trying to peel the skin off water. Messy! :laydownlaughing

These things obviously have a deeper theology behind them, and finding what's "natural" with regards to humans is not an activity that'll lead to any single way. Celibacy isn't for everyone, but it is for some. And others struggle with monogamy. And so on. Is monogamy natural? Doesn't always feel so to me, especially at about 2am on a Saturday night. :snigger

Anyway, you're right, if it's possible, we should try stay on topic. There's still stuff to be discussed here, about ISIS. I'd like to read more of people's ideas for a solution. What about the suggestion that we should talk to ISIS? Are they the kind of people who can be dealt with through diplomacy? They've gained huge swathes of land and riches by using violence, what could be said to them that would make them think of other ways? Personally, I don't think talking to them would yield anything other than show them that their opponents are weaker than them... :hug

Brother, the problem with ISIS issues is that almost all of the solutions require some sort of time travel:laydownlaughing

Nehmeth went back to creation, I went back to a time Saddam and Gaddafi was still in power, some went back to a time where the Middle east borders were being written. It is such a huge mess that the solution has to be extremely left field. I do not have one.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Also, Bush showed absolutely no regard for the Christian population in Iraq, which has suffered immensely because of the U.S. invasion in 2003. Saying that Christianity was a motivation for the war is simply idiotic.

Ah, yes, I see. Christians being killed by Americans is proof that Christianity had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, but ISIS slaughtering Muslims is "absolutely irrelevant" according to you, despite the fact that by the same logic, this should mean taht what ISIS is doing has nothing to do with true Islam.

As Kieran and I explained to Murat, Pope John Paul II as well as the eventual Pope Benedict XVI warned quite clearly against the war in Iraq. The only case that you could possibly make of Christianity having anything to do with the invasion of Iraq is that there were a substantial number of Evangelical Christians in the United States who were whining for war because they favor Israel as a matter of dogma. But, in the end, they have no political power in America and they had no power under Bush. They may have been useful for a little bit of propaganda for certain quarters of the Republican "base", but they were not the ones ultimately making the decisions that took the U.S. into war; they were completely removed from them actually. The Bush administration and its support nexus of Fox News and the American Enterprise Institute are all dominated by neoconservative ideology, which has nothing at all to do with Christianity. In fact, many neoconservatives spoke well of Christopher Hitchens, and they even counted him among his ranks. The neoconservatives are a mixture of heavily pro-Israel Jewish-Americans and secular dolts like Dick Cheney or David Frum.

How could any sane person make the argument that Christianity had the slightest thing to do with causing the U.S. to invade Iraq? Please give me just one reason.

On the other hand, Islamic insurgents/militant groups/terrorist groups across the world, in a variety of locales and cultures, use the fundamental Islamic texts to constantly justify acts of "terrorism" and violence against the infidel. I don't even know where to start really:

- 9/11
- London bombings (7/7)
- Madrid bombings (3/11)
- Beslan hostage-taking
- Mumbai bombings
- Boston marathon bombings
- Tanzania, Kenya, other bombings in Africa
- Countless suicide attacks in Iraq in both directions (Sunni on Shia, Shia on Sunni)
- Palestinian aggression against Israel

Shall I go on?

Now I don't mean to imply that U.S. foreign policy is not an instigating menace (it is), but I do mean to say that there is no comparison in the warmongering of Islam to that of Christianity in the world today. I used to study this a whole lot more, but I do remember coming across a few verses from the Qu'ran which have been interpreted as allowing for Muslims to be collateral damage in the cause of building a true Islamic state that would please Allah. So ISIS killing "other Muslims" is not regarded as that big a deal to those who have an idealistic vision of a pure Islamic caliphate. The likes of Bin Laden or Baghdadi see many Muslims as weak Muslims or fake Muslims, so taking their lives is something they don't see as all that bad.

The fact that Bush's invasion led to the misery of Iraq's Christians today just shows how indifferent he and the Republican brass were to Christianity. You never heard a peep from any Republican leader in the run-up to the Iraq war about how it might impact the ancient Christian population.

Wait, you actually don't really see that my initial comment about the war in Iraq being driven by Christianity was sarcasm in response to you bringing up gay rights?

 

[calitennis127]

Arguing religion is like trying to peel the skin off water. Messy! :laydownlaughing

These things obviously have a deeper theology behind them, and finding what's "natural" with regards to humans is not an activity that'll lead to any single way. Celibacy isn't for everyone, but it is for some. And others struggle with monogamy. And so on. Is monogamy natural? Doesn't always feel so to me, especially at about 2am on a Saturday night. :snigger

Anyway, you're right, if it's possible, we should try stay on topic. There's still stuff to be discussed here, about ISIS. I'd like to read more of people's ideas for a solution. What about the suggestion that we should talk to ISIS? Are they the kind of people who can be dealt with through diplomacy? They've gained huge swathes of land and riches by using violence, what could be said to them that would make them think of other ways? Personally, I don't think talking to them would yield anything other than show them that their opponents are weaker than them... :hug

Brother, the problem with ISIS issues is that almost all of the solutions require some sort of time travel:laydownlaughing

Nehmeth went back to creation, I went back to a time Saddam and Gaddafi was still in power, some went back to a time where the Middle east borders were being written. It is such a huge mess that the solution has to be extremely left field. I do not have one.

I'm sure that Christopher Hitchens would have with his atheist wisdom.

 

[Kieran]

He's not an atheist anymore...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

He's not an atheist anymore...

He is not anything anymore

 

[Billie]

Not all churches are the same. Some allow their priests to wed and have children. It's typical, always brand everybody the same, that is our biggest mistake.:nono

 

[Kieran]

That's it, Billie. In the orthodox, only bishops and monks and nuns are celibate, but priests can marry. And to be fair, in the Catholic Church there are many rites, but only those of the Roman rite have taken the vow of celibacy for priesthood, far as I know. Others in the Catholic Church can marry.

And this isn't some killjoy practice (and it is only a "practice", and not a dogma, so it can be changed) but it's a centuries old tradition with a deep theology behind it. I know priests and nuns and monks and trust me, these people aren't interested in marriage. They're wed to their vocation, literally. They're in a different world, and they're the most beautiful, wise and thoughtful people you could meet. Of course there are bad apples in the church, but they're a tiny minority, and the problem isn't celibacy.

I believe that the pagans have celibacy in their religions, but I can vouch for nothing there...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Not all churches are the same. Some allow their priests to wed and have children. It's typical, always brand everybody the same, that is our biggest mistake.:nono

But how can we ever do that? When it is all open to interpretation?

 

[calitennis127]

If you have looked into celibacy, contemplated it and your end result is that it is healthy for an adult male to suppress his sexual desires , which is one of the fundamental urges for people in general according the hierarchy of needs, and then put that person in a position of power with vulnerable young persons around him, then I do not really care how long you have contemplated it, I just do not agree with the basic premise. It is not reasonable and it is not logical.

No, you are not reasonable and you are not logical.

The Catholic Church has upheld the discipline of clerical celibacy for around 1,000 years by now and it has been, overwhelmingly, a success. There is no chain of 30% of priests for a millenium being serial pedophiles, as you believe in your imagination. If you look at the overall numbers and study something, you will see that statistically the percentage of Catholic priests who have committed these acts is minute, and frankly, the reasons for this perversion among Catholic priests the last 50 years has much more to do with the softening of standards in entering the priesthood and the overall emasculation of Christianity. Priests used to be disciplined, active members of their communities. Now they are isolated psychotherapists whose minds have been influenced by nefarious secular influences.

I am also thrilled to see that you think Socrates never thought things through. Too bad the ancient Greeks couldn't produce the atheist-bred high culture of North America in the 21st century, centered on the Kardashian family. Since you refused to answer my question about Socrates, let me ask you a more highbrow atheist question: can you believe what Scott said to Chloe about Kim's divorce?

That's a really intellectual question of enlightened atheist culture. Please answer it.

SOMETHING THAT IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION CAN NEVER BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTH.

Including the stupid and ignorant philosophy works of Ayn Rand, who was an undereducated clown of a human being.

I will address your larger silly point about interpretation later this weekend when I have more time.....

 

[calitennis127]

Not all churches are the same. Some allow their priests to wed and have children. It's typical, always brand everybody the same, that is our biggest mistake.:nono

But how can we ever do that? When it is all open to interpretation?

There is not a single intellectual discipline, including political philosophy and science, that is not "open to interpretation". Religion is by no means unique for being open to interpretation.

Do you know how many scientists throughout history have put forward inaccurate and incomplete hypotheses? Countless. Copernicus and Galileo, for instance, got it right that the sun was at the center of the universe, but they each held a number of other beliefs about the planetary systems that were proven to be outright false in later centuries. I guess science is stupid too then, because it is "open to interpretation" and people say false things when discussing it.

 

[britbox]

The Catholic Church has upheld the discipline of clerical celibacy for around 1,000 years by now and it has been, overwhelmingly, a success.

Out of interest, what measurement are you using to judge clerical celibacy a success?