Approximately 100. Not 2. There were 100000 evidently around 1950... The point was Iraqi speaking Jews not necessarily in Iraq, but I guess that was lost on you. I would guess there are probably 100K of them left too.
Quote:
Originally posted by Blue Shift
How many Christians in the magic kingdom of Arabia?
Good point. Let's leave Koresh out of it. i've got a better one:
The IRA were Catholics. They were also terrorists who purposefully planned to kill innocent people and over a 30 year period killed more such than al Qaeda and Obl.
Would you therefore describe Christianity as barbaric ?
How about the Stern Gang and Irgun ? Is Judaism barbaric ?
Or can you somehow justify the activities of these terrorists ?
That's untrue. Al Qaeda in their short history killed many more people than did the IRA in its long history. And the Irish dispute was more over territory than about religion. What territorial dispute does Al Qaeda have with the United States? What territorial dispute does Islam have with Israel?
As regards the Stern Gang and the Irgun. Were they religious organizations? No they were not. Did they have a history of chronic terrorism? No they did not. They were a small historical anomaly that was quickly rejected and soundly condemned. Islamic terrorism on the other hand, has a history spanning millennia. It is part of the culture, that's how deeply entrenched it is.
Oh, and yes. Judaism is barbaric. But much less so than Islam, which was invented a several millenia years of civilization later.
them muhammadinianistists is all evil and uncivillike . . . right Blue shift?
pfflam you seem to be defending the "muhammadinianistists" above via by proxy calling Blue Shift on his context. I suspect you do this because it rips at you when an entire group is labeled any one thing with a wide paint brush? Yes? No? But in another thread posted within the last week you say:
Quote:
"We've had plenty of 'watershed' moments of history with regards to Xtianity . . . I think the only 'Watersed' left for it is for it to slowly realize its irrelevance and illusory status"
and may I point out your play on spelling here where you type out the following (again from the same thread as the quote above):
Quote:
"NOT have anything to do with a human/god-son named Haysoos . . . . "
So you (pfflam) and Blue Shift have something in common as it would seem from my view. You like to have creative spelling as to minimize and belittle (by all means correct me if I am wrong with this).
Then segovius says the following in this other thread:
Quote:
"Fair enough - so it's about the film then - who said AI wasn't deeply educational
Umm....so what about this movie then ? Is it a sanctimonious tool of sinister religious forces, gratuitously and cynically designed to bolster the church's flagging attendance figures"
All upset over a movie as a "tool" and really really lumping all "Churches" in one lump yet in this quote from this very thread regarding a stone segovius segregates the individual out from a larger "group" hence giving a pass where in the former quote no pass was afforded to the possibility that not all modern day "Christians" are salespeople and worse in the mind of segovius:
Quote:
So someone scrawled USA on the pillar. There's a Muslim that hates the US out there somewhere. Imagine my shock....
Why did I point this out? Because I see inconsistencies in application of personal approval of various acts. I most enjoy reading both the words of pfflam and segovius and in no way am I trying to give either a hard time as I have no reason to do that. I was simply running into a bit of an integrity breakdown when I see the inconsistencies of your views covering multiple threads.
I would be willing to speculate that we ALL have like and dislike of the different cultures and belief systems. This is not to say that any of us is by default racist or better than another. I think it is perfectly normal for us to have our preferences and dislikes. This being said we can respect our differences to the degree that others do not infringe on our own liberties and yes this is a large area of disagreement.
Oh, and yes. Judaism is barbaric. But much less so than Islam, which was invented a several millenia years of civilization later.
So more civilization gives greater barbarism, supposing you had a point to these three sentances.
Judaism is barbaric? eh? Care to defend this statement?
Or I will make the logical leap for you. All religious groups are barbaric in some way or another. Whoa. Deep ain't it?
Sort of refutes the whole reason for pointing out that one religion is barbaric over another. Now I see that you have an objective system for evaluating a religion's barbarism and it seems from this quote that as civilization progresses religions are more and more barbaric. Hence the following tentative Blue Shift hypothesis for religious barbarism is proposed:
Approximately 100. Not 2. There were 100000 evidently around 1950... The point was Iraqi speaking Jews not necessarily in Iraq, but I guess that was lost on you. I would guess there are probably 100K of them left too.
LOL. There were over 6,000,000 in Europe. Would have been many more if they weren't encouraged to leave by those good Europeans.
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
920000 if the 4% estimates are correct.
That's how many Filipino sex slaves per household?
LOL. There were over 6,000,000 in Europe. Would have been many more if they weren't encouraged to leave by those good Europeans.
That's how many Filipino sex slaves per household?
Huh? 6 Million. Is that a reference to the Holocaust? Or are you simply implying there is still antisemitism in Europe? In either case you couldnt be more obscure. And secondly, Filipino sex slaves?!? What is wrong with you?
So more civilization gives greater barbarism, supposing you had a point to these three sentances.
No. In the case of Islam, civilization is a factor it resists. That's why you still have them stack in the dark ages. Same with Orthodox Judaism. And I guess some flavours of Christianity.
No. In the case of Islam, civilization is a factor it resists. That's why you still have them stack in the dark ages. Same with Orthodox Judaism. And I guess some flavours of Christianity.
Dark ages? What do you mean by that? IIRC, most of the Islamic world was not affected by the so-called dark ages that resulted from the fall of Rome. In fact, the Islamic world was the carrier and propogator of "civilization" in the West during that period. Seems foolish to think that they are stuck in a time period they were centuries ahead of in both intellectual output and humanism. I fail to see any arguments that could tie any current religion to the "dark ages".
Fair points Fellows - none of us are really objective.
One thing I want to amplify though that although you are right about me bashing the Christians, I would not wish people to think I extended this to Christ. I was bashing them because (imo) they had diverted from Christ's message which I accept.
I know you are a very intelligent and fair person and wish to thank you for your reply. I agree some of the politics behind many American Churches and aside from the politcs just some of the infused religious doctrine is completely against the grain the teachings of Jesus. I am glad you see that as do I and no doubt countless millions. I just wanted to make sure integrity was preserved in the posts but I do feel it has been restored.
Dark ages? What do you mean by that? IIRC, most of the Islamic world was not affected by the so-called dark ages that resulted from the fall of Rome. In fact, the Islamic world was the carrier and propogator of "civilization" in the West during that period. Seems foolish to think that they are stuck in a time period they were centuries ahead of in both intellectual output and humanism. I fail to see any arguments that could tie any current religion to the "dark ages".
Dark Ages - a period of stagnation and obscurity in literature and art, lasting, according to Hallam, nearly 1000 years, from about 500 to about 1500 A. D.. See Middle Ages.
I guess you also failed to see this on page1 of this thread. Maybe it has something to do with Muhammad being a documented pedophile? You think?
Getting back on track from the obvious troll-attempt by blue (rift), Segovius you didn't really answer my question from page 1, which in essence is:
Do the other 95% of Muslims in this world see those 260 deaths as "just life / fate / etc", or do they see it as a sign that perhaps the way the Hajj is organized (to use a general phrase) needs work? Thereby admitting it is tragic and not just some unfortunate thing that always happens at the Hajj.
Perhaps, but what I'm getting at is the attitude taken by non-Saudi Muslims when they hear of these things. Is it something disturbing enough to them to put some kind of change in motion? Is it meanginless? Or maybe it's sad to them but they feel it's silly to try and change the Hajj? I really don't know. I just know it bugs the hell out of me that no Muslim leaders are speaking up for those who died / trying to enact some sort of logistical changes.
Comments
Originally posted by Blue Shift
How many Iraqi speaking Jews are there in Iraq? Two?
Twenty-eight in Baghdad, actually, as of last July. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ews-usat_x.htm
Hussein made it a point to purge them... and he was not a Muslim.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
How many Iraqi speaking Jews are there in Iraq?
Approximately 100. Not 2. There were 100000 evidently around 1950... The point was Iraqi speaking Jews not necessarily in Iraq, but I guess that was lost on you. I would guess there are probably 100K of them left too.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
How many Christians in the magic kingdom of Arabia?
920000 if the 4% estimates are correct.
Originally posted by segovius
Good point. Let's leave Koresh out of it. i've got a better one:
The IRA were Catholics. They were also terrorists who purposefully planned to kill innocent people and over a 30 year period killed more such than al Qaeda and Obl.
Would you therefore describe Christianity as barbaric ?
How about the Stern Gang and Irgun ? Is Judaism barbaric ?
Or can you somehow justify the activities of these terrorists ?
That's untrue. Al Qaeda in their short history killed many more people than did the IRA in its long history. And the Irish dispute was more over territory than about religion. What territorial dispute does Al Qaeda have with the United States? What territorial dispute does Islam have with Israel?
As regards the Stern Gang and the Irgun. Were they religious organizations? No they were not. Did they have a history of chronic terrorism? No they did not. They were a small historical anomaly that was quickly rejected and soundly condemned. Islamic terrorism on the other hand, has a history spanning millennia. It is part of the culture, that's how deeply entrenched it is.
Oh, and yes. Judaism is barbaric. But much less so than Islam, which was invented a several millenia years of civilization later.
Originally posted by pfflam
them muhammadinianistists is all evil and uncivillike . . . right Blue shift?
pfflam you seem to be defending the "muhammadinianistists" above via by proxy calling Blue Shift on his context. I suspect you do this because it rips at you when an entire group is labeled any one thing with a wide paint brush? Yes? No? But in another thread posted within the last week you say:
"We've had plenty of 'watershed' moments of history with regards to Xtianity . . . I think the only 'Watersed' left for it is for it to slowly realize its irrelevance and illusory status"
and may I point out your play on spelling here where you type out the following (again from the same thread as the quote above):
"NOT have anything to do with a human/god-son named Haysoos . . . . "
So you (pfflam) and Blue Shift have something in common as it would seem from my view. You like to have creative spelling as to minimize and belittle (by all means correct me if I am wrong with this).
Then segovius says the following in this other thread:
"Fair enough - so it's about the film then - who said AI wasn't deeply educational
Umm....so what about this movie then ? Is it a sanctimonious tool of sinister religious forces, gratuitously and cynically designed to bolster the church's flagging attendance figures"
All upset over a movie as a "tool" and really really lumping all "Churches" in one lump yet in this quote from this very thread regarding a stone segovius segregates the individual out from a larger "group" hence giving a pass where in the former quote no pass was afforded to the possibility that not all modern day "Christians" are salespeople and worse in the mind of segovius:
So someone scrawled USA on the pillar. There's a Muslim that hates the US out there somewhere. Imagine my shock....
Why did I point this out? Because I see inconsistencies in application of personal approval of various acts. I most enjoy reading both the words of pfflam and segovius and in no way am I trying to give either a hard time as I have no reason to do that. I was simply running into a bit of an integrity breakdown when I see the inconsistencies of your views covering multiple threads.
I would be willing to speculate that we ALL have like and dislike of the different cultures and belief systems. This is not to say that any of us is by default racist or better than another. I think it is perfectly normal for us to have our preferences and dislikes. This being said we can respect our differences to the degree that others do not infringe on our own liberties and yes this is a large area of disagreement.
Fellows
Lame.
I'd like sources on your IRA/alQueda deaths.
BTW... *pssst* Christianity is barbaric too: Exodus 22:18.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Oh, and yes. Judaism is barbaric. But much less so than Islam, which was invented a several millenia years of civilization later.
So more civilization gives greater barbarism, supposing you had a point to these three sentances.
Judaism is barbaric? eh? Care to defend this statement?
Or I will make the logical leap for you. All religious groups are barbaric in some way or another. Whoa. Deep ain't it?
Sort of refutes the whole reason for pointing out that one religion is barbaric over another. Now I see that you have an objective system for evaluating a religion's barbarism and it seems from this quote that as civilization progresses religions are more and more barbaric. Hence the following tentative Blue Shift hypothesis for religious barbarism is proposed:
Native religions<Hinduism<Buddhism<Judaism<Christianity<I slam<New Age.
Thats it. KILL ALL THE NEW AGE BARBARIANS.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Approximately 100. Not 2. There were 100000 evidently around 1950... The point was Iraqi speaking Jews not necessarily in Iraq, but I guess that was lost on you. I would guess there are probably 100K of them left too.
LOL. There were over 6,000,000 in Europe. Would have been many more if they weren't encouraged to leave by those good Europeans.
Originally posted by billybobsky
920000 if the 4% estimates are correct.
That's how many Filipino sex slaves per household?
Originally posted by Blue Shift
LOL. There were over 6,000,000 in Europe. Would have been many more if they weren't encouraged to leave by those good Europeans.
That's how many Filipino sex slaves per household?
Huh? 6 Million. Is that a reference to the Holocaust? Or are you simply implying there is still antisemitism in Europe? In either case you couldnt be more obscure. And secondly, Filipino sex slaves?!? What is wrong with you?
Originally posted by billybobsky
So more civilization gives greater barbarism, supposing you had a point to these three sentances.
No. In the case of Islam, civilization is a factor it resists. That's why you still have them stack in the dark ages. Same with Orthodox Judaism. And I guess some flavours of Christianity.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
LOL. There were over 6,000,000 in Europe. Would have been many more if they weren't encouraged to leave by those good Europeans.
Who were Christian.
Next?
Originally posted by Blue Shift
No. In the case of Islam, civilization is a factor it resists. That's why you still have them stack in the dark ages. Same with Orthodox Judaism. And I guess some flavours of Christianity.
Dark ages? What do you mean by that? IIRC, most of the Islamic world was not affected by the so-called dark ages that resulted from the fall of Rome. In fact, the Islamic world was the carrier and propogator of "civilization" in the West during that period. Seems foolish to think that they are stuck in a time period they were centuries ahead of in both intellectual output and humanism. I fail to see any arguments that could tie any current religion to the "dark ages".
Originally posted by segovius
Fair points Fellows - none of us are really objective.
One thing I want to amplify though that although you are right about me bashing the Christians, I would not wish people to think I extended this to Christ. I was bashing them because (imo) they had diverted from Christ's message which I accept.
I know you are a very intelligent and fair person and wish to thank you for your reply. I agree some of the politics behind many American Churches and aside from the politcs just some of the infused religious doctrine is completely against the grain the teachings of Jesus. I am glad you see that as do I and no doubt countless millions. I just wanted to make sure integrity was preserved in the posts but I do feel it has been restored.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Fellows
Originally posted by billybobsky
Dark ages? What do you mean by that? IIRC, most of the Islamic world was not affected by the so-called dark ages that resulted from the fall of Rome. In fact, the Islamic world was the carrier and propogator of "civilization" in the West during that period. Seems foolish to think that they are stuck in a time period they were centuries ahead of in both intellectual output and humanism. I fail to see any arguments that could tie any current religion to the "dark ages".
Dark Ages - a period of stagnation and obscurity in literature and art, lasting, according to Hallam, nearly 1000 years, from about 500 to about 1500 A. D.. See Middle Ages.
I guess you also failed to see this on page1 of this thread. Maybe it has something to do with Muhammad being a documented pedophile? You think?
*sigh*
Oh Blue Shift, you're just too funny for words.
Why were they in a rush to throw stones at the devil?
I'd think since the idol is made of marble or granite I assume, it wasn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Is there some sort of status that comes with casting the first stone?
It's the same sort of thing that led to the Salem witch trials, etc.
Religious zealotry knows no religious bounds.
Do the other 95% of Muslims in this world see those 260 deaths as "just life / fate / etc", or do they see it as a sign that perhaps the way the Hajj is organized (to use a general phrase) needs work? Thereby admitting it is tragic and not just some unfortunate thing that always happens at the Hajj.
I guess there is no good way to control a crowd of over a million people.
It never states if anyone stopped to help the fallen.
I bet they did have medical crews to help, but were too late and almost impossible to get to them.
I find calling an event in which 260 people die a success deplorable
There seemed to be a total lack of remorse from the religious leaders..