Gunmen Storm Office Of Satirical Magazine In Paris |
||
|
Forum » Everything Else »
Politics and Religion
»
Gunmen storm office of satirical magazine in Paris
Gunmen storm office of satirical magazine in Paris
Bahamut.Kara said: » Who is right and who is wrong? Anyone else think of Mao Zedong when this question comes up?
[+]
Blazed1979 said: » Is Evolution science? How about Morality? Science has no say on moral matters? Can one talk about social progress and not take into account morality and be taken seriously? No. Science prescribes to certain ethical procedures in their practices but make no claims of morality. Yes.
[+]
Blazed1979 said: » Because it and what it represents is at odds with the truth.
[+]
Blazed1979 said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Blazed1979 said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Blazed1979 said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Blazed1979 said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Blazed1979 said: » Insanity? So many claim to appreciate science yet they keep choosing the same methodology for "progress" when the results haven't been stellar. I think deep down inside they're just fooling themselves into thinking they're democratic and believe in equal rights. As soon as they encounter cultures that are different than theirs', out goes the equality, out goes the civility, out goes the respect. Fail fail fail. I mean... how insane is it that they are demonizing a religion, of which accounts for 2% of terrorist attacks, after they hosted the bloodiest wars in all of history? give me a break lol How exactly does social progress link with science? Are you saying Social progress is void of any science in practice and theory? You seem to be under the impression that science has no impact on social progress. I don't agree or disagree, I'm just curious. So please do answer the question. Blazed1979 said: » Insanity? So many claim to appreciate science yet they keep choosing the same methodology for "progress" when the results haven't been stellar. I was making note of one understanding of insanity to be doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results each time, which is at the opposite end of try and test->observe->make note->refine/innovate->try and test again. Again, I ask you to answer the question and quit stalling. Is Evolution science? How about Morality? Science has no say on moral matters? Can one talk about social progress and not take into account morality and be taken seriously? Are you a catholic? Is evolution is a scientific theory? Yes. Is Morality science? No. Is Morality scientific? No. Does science have a say on moral matters? No. Do scientists have a say on moral matters? Yes. Can one talk about social progress and not take into account morality and be taken seriously? Possibly. Are you a catholic? No.
[+]
The only question that needs to be asked in this thread is...
Are you a Potato? The answer, after these messages.
[+]
[+]
Blazed1979 said: » Because it and what it represents is at odds with the truth. if that is true, then it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, now does it? The problem might be more in your lack of faith in the truth.
[+]
Morals are purely subjective, just an fyi.
Blazed1979 said: » Because it and what it represents is at odds with the truth. Did someone say Voltaire?!
[+]
Bahamut.Milamber said: » Siren.Mosin said: » Blazed1979 said: » Because it and what it represents is at odds with the truth. if that is true, then it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, now does it? The problem might be more in your lack of faith in the truth. @Mil first: My truth. @Mosin: none of this really matters in the grande scheme of things. That's not going to stop me from voicing my opinion about it. I can see you're accustomed to talking to christians. I'm not trying to get you to see the glory of christ or Mohamed (pbut). I don't think that kind of divine guidance comes from me, or from a preacher, or the clergy. We have no clergy. The Quran asserts to the Prophet Paraphrased: "you are not a controller. You have been sent to deliver the message and to warn" It was I who posted at the start of this thread that what a muslim is to do when any speak badly of God's words or his prophet. Turn away from them. You guys seem to really want me to be this crazy radical muslim that screams Allahu Akbar, death to the infidels who violate our sacred icons! My beliefs are a lot deeper and I'm more convinced of them with no need to come on here and try to justify them by preaching to others. All I am saying is it offends me, I question the motives behind it, you won't find Muslims who do not get offended by it. They won't tolerate it in their different ways. Most will turn away from it and ask you not to show it to them or share it with them. Some will react in other, but legitimate ways. Publicizing it further is just provocative. The overwhelming majority of muslims haven't done anything about it. But now the west is goading and inviting trouble by obsessively publishing it and saying "LOOK LOOK LOOK LOOK HERE YOU MOSLEM"
[+]
Then continue to turn away. You have a right to be offended. No one advocates taking that from you. However, when people voice disdain in a way that it demands censorship, this is the appropriate response. If that offends you, again, turn away, but it is unallowable to let violence and cowards wield fear as a tool of motivation.
[+]
Blazed1979 said: » I question the motives behind it You're not here to question motives. You don't know what you're here for. For the record, I'm neither of Middle Eastern origin nor do I have any personal or familial ties to Islam, and I find many of the images Charlie Hebdo created offensive. I'd never pay a cent for them, but I'll stand up for their right to continue making them. Being offended is not a justification for anything. Oh, where is that Christopher Hitchens quotation... "I'm very depressed however in this country you can be told 'That’s offensive!' as if those two words constitute an argument or a comment, not to me they don’t, and I'm not running for anything so I didn't have to pretend to like people when I don’t." Shiva.Onorgul said: » Blazed1979 said: » Because it and what it represents is at odds with the truth. I know you probably think that your backyard represents what the rest of the world is like, but that's probably not the case. A religious person in one community or culture could be a infidel in another. Define religious. If you think it is the belief in a religion, then yes I am religious. (which is a pretty low bar, taking the entire world into account and not just the secular west) If you think it means that I am an individual who's sole purpose and existance is dependant on daily rituals glorifying my maker - then yes and no. I believe every act of kindness and every good deed glorifies my maker by being the human he created. So a smile, a good deed, a kind word, some charity here and there - all I consider to be acts towards attaining the approval of God. If you believe religious to be someone who is free of sin and constantly praying and "holier than though" aura, no I am not religious or anywhere near that.
[+]
Blazed1979 said: » I can see you're accustomed to talking to christians. with other humans, yes. I dabble in dog as well. Blazed1979 said: » Publicizing it further is just provocative. The overwhelming majority of muslims haven't done anything about it. But now the west is goading and inviting trouble by obsessively publishing it and saying "LOOK LOOK LOOK LOOK HERE YOU MOSLEM" to be fair I think it's being over publicized because a bunch of people died because someone's precious "feelings" got hurt. your beliefs end at your mailbox, & comedians are a good, necessary facet of a free society. Shiva.Onorgul said: » Blazed1979 said: » I question the motives behind it You're not here to question motives. You don't know what you're here for. For the record, I'm neither of Middle Eastern origin nor do I have any personal or familial ties to Islam, and I find many of the images Charlie Hebdo created offensive. I'd never pay a cent for them, but I'll stand up for their right to continue making them. Being offended is not a justification for anything. Oh, where is that Christopher Hitchens quotation... "I'm very depressed however in this country you can be told 'That’s offensive!' as if those two words constitute an argument or a comment, not to me they don’t, and I'm not running for anything so I didn't have to pretend to like people when I don’t." You seem to keep going back to the "were the attacks justified" argument which never actually happened anywhere other than your own head. You're making the connection to the attacks, not him.
[+]
Blazed1979 said: » Define religious. If you think it is the belief in a religion, then yes I am religious. Your specific faith is Islam and I'm pretty sure Yeshua would have something to say about you implicitly denying being Muslim to me several hours ago. You've got two more chances to deny it before the *** crows here in the US tomorrow.
[+]
Blazed1979 said: » All I am saying is it offends me, I question the motives behind it, you won't find Muslims who do not get offended by it. Blazed1979 said: » Publicizing it further is just provocative. The overwhelming majority of muslims haven't done anything about it. But now the west is goading and inviting trouble by obsessively publishing it and saying "LOOK LOOK LOOK LOOK HERE YOU MOSLEM" Right now, you are trying to say that the problem is both the people who performed the attacks, and the drawings. That's where things are falling apart. You will get lots of agreement on the former. You will get very little on the latter. Blazed1979 said: » You seem to keep going back to the "were the attacks justified" argument which never actually happened anywhere other than your own head. Blazed1979 said: » You seem to keep going back to the "were the attacks justified" argument which never actually happened anywhere other than your own head. Except, in any instance that someone's said something bad about God or his prophets, you haven't so much as turned the other cheek, let alone turn away from them.
However, I do agree that obsessive publication is a goading tactic - either consciously or otherwise, but should be seen for what it is - a practice of freedom of speech, when there are those who invariably try to desecrate that freedom by forcing others to be silent. Be it from physical harm, threat of physical harm, jail, threat of imprisonment, blackmail, or other demands of appeasement, is when it should be exercised the most. As people have said - you have the right to say whatever the *** you want, and I have the right to be offended by it. However, it does not grant me the right to cause you or your loved ones physical harm. Even in the town where I live, the Muslim community is torn over how to react, despite a call to condemn the attacks. Which is really more offensive - asinine drawings of the Prophet Mohammad, or the fact that people would *kill* over such an asinine drawing? So far, the consensus seems to the drawings are more offensive than the killings. The reactions globally of the Muslim community seems to point this out rather well. The behavior that has come after the condemnations in particular, because even as moderate as many appear to be, there are still large amounts of people that accept it as an honor killing. Someone had to step in to protect the honor of the prophet. To those people, it makes it ok, but the drawings are not. This would be the entire crux of the issue at hand. Those who claim to turn away, or can cite the part of the Quran to turn away, have yet to do so. Then again, it is also dishonorable to preach all that is good, without accepting the bad that was necessary, or the bad that was made necessary through convoluted reasoning. Blazed1979 said: » Relating to or believing in a religion: both men were deeply religious and moralistic Quote: So you are justifying the attacks by saying they were provoked by a drawing? If you say they were killed because they drew images found offensive by terrorists, you are justifying their deaths by your logic. Understanding what the motives were of the terrorists, is not = to justifying them. Hypothesizing that there are Muslims who are offended, but who will not resort to violence, does not = Muslims who will not take some sort of LEGITIMATE action, such as boycotting Kinder surprises and Nuttella, Perier etc etc. Things that will effect future cooperation and good relationships between peoples. Blazed1979 said: » If you say they were killed because they drew images found offensive by terrorists, you are justifying their deaths by your logic. I've seen dogs chasing their own tails with less circular motion than your argumentation. Blazed1979 said: » Quote: So you are justifying the attacks by saying they were provoked by a drawing? If you say they were killed because they drew images found offensive by terrorists, you are justifying their deaths by your logic. "both men were deeply religious and moralistic"
That would suggest that there are varying degrees of "religious"ness... Asking someone where they place the term "religious" in terms of measure is founded. It is relative, which is what I went through the effort to explain but it seems you just want to be difficult. Shiva.Onorgul said: » Blazed1979 said: » If you say they were killed because they drew images found offensive by terrorists, you are justifying their deaths by your logic. I've seen dogs chasing their own tails with less circular motion than your argumentation. You can't be this dumb, you must be trolling.
[+]
Or the term is used inaccurately in that context. If you are religious, you ascribe to a religion, which is a set of rituals typically (not always) having to do with a mythology, shared by a group of people. It's a yes/no type of thing. A spectrum of how deeply you hold those beliefs is probably better factored by the word faith. But each religion may quantify it differently.
|
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||
