Erasmus
Moderatorz 
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jan 26, 2011 14:12:17 GMT -5
OK. aside from Islam and its dream of a global Caliphate, who else has supporters of a world wide mission (CRU is not elegible). Christianity obviously! Get that wafer down them and they're IN even if they don't know what it is that in to - or for! Islam is a non-starter when it comes to world conquest - west and south Asia, north Africa, Spain, the Balkans don't compare to north Asia, north and south America, most of sub-saharan Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines. Can't count India because there was little effort to push the religion there and as Aleister Crowley observed, to make successful conversions you must either have more impressive mythology and miracles or more rational theology - against popular Buddhism and Hinduism Christianity fails the first and against their philosophers and Islam the second. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 26, 2011 14:30:25 GMT -5
OK. aside from Islam and its dream of a global Caliphate, who else has supporters of a world wide mission (CRU is not elegible). . Can't count India because there was little effort to push the religion there. oh purlese erasmus...you are much more history aware than to believe that....in india one fith of booty belonged to the caphilate and one fith of the proffit from slavery too..it has always been mandatory in islam where ever islam has landed that one fith goes to the head honcho..they even sent their own chroniclers to make sure they got their wack... it was rekoned that between 20 to 40 million were enslved from india and countless millions killed..in fact they glutted the market at one time and the price of slaves dropped to it not being worth the sales and a lowley soldier or house holder could have/own several slaves...the ottoman empire fell because the ottomans were denied the tax and booty from india..europe etc as the west became more powerful....the empire produced nothing and lived of booty so when supply dried up..the ottomans became weaker and more and more inefectual corrupt and mad ....collapsed and died finally after the taking of jeruselem by the british |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2011 14:34:00 GMT -5
OK. aside from Islam and its dream of a global Caliphate, who else has supporters of a world wide mission (CRU is not elegible). Can't count India because there was little effort to push the religion there and as Aleister Crowley observed, to make successful conversions you must either have more impressive mythology and miracles or more rational theology - against popular Buddhism and Hinduism Christianity fails the first and against their philosophers and Islam the second. Aleister Crowley is wrong. In India there was sustained forced conversion, on pain of death. The only reason, Kashmir (but not Jammu) has a Muslim majority now is because of systematic brutality and genocide carried out by Muslim invaders, especially Aurangazeb. The only reason Bangladesh has a Muslim majority now is because of systematic brutality and genocide carried out by Muslim invaders. Even now in Bangladesh systematic genocide and persecution of Hindus is routine. Why are there no Hindu temples from those days left in North India, against so many in South India? The reason is the systematic destruction of those by Muslim invaders. The ruins still provide silent testimony of the brutal way in which the Muslim invaders pushed Islam. As a foreigner you or Alistair Crowley can ignore the historic evidence. Having seen the evidence for myself, I cannot. Try reading Lajja by Taslima Nasreen. It's a graphic account of how brutally Islam is being pushed even now in Bangladesh. Regards. Prashna |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 26, 2011 14:41:34 GMT -5
! Islam is a non-starter when it comes to world conquest - west and south Asia, north Africa, Spain, the Balkans don't compare to north Asia, north and south America, most of sub-saharan Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines. . oh they did their best in the then known world...the entire middle east....persia.india,,afghanistan the sthans of the east,,russia.ukraine ..eastern europe..north africa...spain... portugal...northen france...where luckily they were stopped by martel at the gates of vienna ........it wasnt for want of them trying for yet more expansion islam far from being a non starter went where ever it could...and vaving the black flag for islam before them....read the docum,ents..their own historians they are very clear that expansian is for islam and done in the name of islam..allah akbar |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jan 26, 2011 15:20:09 GMT -5
OK. aside from Islam and its dream of a global Caliphate, who else has supporters of a world wide mission (CRU is not elegible). Christianity obviously! Get that wafer down them and they're IN even if they don't know what it is that in to - or for! Islam is a non-starter when it comes to world conquest - west and south Asia, north Africa, Spain, the Balkans don't compare to north Asia, north and south America, most of sub-saharan Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines. Can't count India because there was little effort to push the religion there and as Aleister Crowley observed, to make successful conversions you must either have more impressive mythology and miracles or more rational theology - against popular Buddhism and Hinduism Christianity fails the first and against their philosophers and Islam the second. Religion really is more trouble than its worth. The British Empire did not fight crusades, although it has arguably left a political, linguistic and cultural legacy, pushing Christianity was the sole preserve of the church(es). The Empire had nothing to do with faith and everything to do with the economy.... From its base in India, the East India Company had been engaged in an increasingly profitable opium export trade to China since the 1730s. This trade, illegal since it was outlawed by the Qing dynasty in 1729, helped reverse the trade imbalances resulting from the British imports of tea, which saw large outflows of silver from Britain to China. The East India Company drove the expansion of the British Empire in Asia. The Company's army had first joined forces with the Royal Navy during the Seven Years' War, and the two continued to cooperate in arenas outside India: the eviction of Napoleon from Egypt (1799), the capture of Java from the Netherlands (1811), the acquisition of Singapore (1819) and Malacca (1824) and the defeat of Burma (1826). The difference is Islam does not allow its believers to pick and choose which bits of the Qu'ran to take on board and which bits to ignore. Its all or nothing. And remember that Allah has warned them in the Koran, do not befriend the kuffar [unbelievers], do not align yourselves with the kuffar. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 26, 2011 16:11:13 GMT -5
absolutely fret...."""The British Empire did not fight crusades, although it has arguably left a political, linguistic and cultural legacy, pushing Christianity was the sole preserve of the church(es). The Empire had nothing to do with faith and everything to do with the economy...."""
this also goes for germany..russia..france..spain..portugal in their aquisitions and adventure..i dont remeber the flag of the christians going forth in the soloman islands..or australia ..canada etc etc,..it was all about proffit not religion....where in islam its all about the glory of islam yet knowing there will be booty
slavery by the way is not outlawed in islam even today....and is alive and well in muslim countries
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jan 26, 2011 21:31:55 GMT -5
The entire conquest of Latin America was justified as bringing the natives to God. I said that British India was an exception. That is why you went on at such great length about it being an exception, to distract attention from the enforced conversion of other peoples under Christian rule which England rejected under Henry VIII and much more so under Elizabeth. It is not so surprising that a country self-excluded from the Christian mainstream did not join the mainstream in justifying its conquests as spreading the gospel. Still, the possibility and hope for Christian World domination still exists: www.truth-out.org/onward-christian-soldiers-to-hypocrisy67164The campaign against Islam is part of demonization af all dissidents, starting with the most alien, but openly including all non-believers and believers in the wrong sects and independent thinkers placing science above blind belief in an interpretation of the Bible to suit a wild minority of murderous inbred freaks unable to handle 17th century European liberalism just like their Muslim equivalents from the mountain wilds of Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of Appalachia today. The only difference between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists is that the Muslim creed is rational. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 27, 2011 4:41:42 GMT -5
. The only difference between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists is that the Muslim creed is rational. the muslim creed is rational... ;D whoopee do so you believe the moon sets in a muddy pool...and that the mountains are held down by pegs and you can go to heaven flying on a donkey that women are worth half of a man and the kaffir is worth nothing at all all adulterers should be stoned and homos thrown off a high place and the that the world should be divided into two to say nothing of beheading the unarmed and taking of slaves ...yeah..yeah... right that is really really rational..... |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 27, 2011 4:50:23 GMT -5
The entire conquest of Latin America was justified as bringing the natives to God.. gold..gold and more gold....phillipe needed and wanted gold and treasure....and america...canada...africa...australia..newzealand...malta...newfoundland..india...... blah blah blah blah ""The campaign against Islam is part of demonization af all dissidents,""" the ""campain"" against islam is due to one thing and one thing only...the actions of those who follow islam i will take the words and experience of those who have left islam..have lived with and under islam..i will take the evidence of my own experience..the evidence of history...the evidence of the present day ...and having weighed up the evidence find islam guilty on all counts |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jan 27, 2011 8:22:32 GMT -5
"The only difference between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists is that the Muslim creed is rational."
Erasmus, what the hell are you drinking?
Religion is irrational and so, it seems, are your thoughts on the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 27, 2011 11:07:12 GMT -5
jihad..war is inbuilt in the islamic creed..and to have war inbuilt is not rational
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jan 27, 2011 13:12:35 GMT -5
"The only difference between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists is that the Muslim creed is rational." Erasmus, what the hell are you drinking? Religion is irrational and so, it seems, are your thoughts on the subject. Religion is not irrational in itself. The cosmos appears to be orderly and rational in itself, therefore a rational deduction is that some power keeps it that way. In earlier times when the world appeared capricious, it was equally rational to conclude capricious powers at work. However, the theology of Judaeism and Islam is simply that: a power behind the scenes devised and maintains cosmic order: buck the system and the system throws you out, go with it and get to a state of bliss. That's less true for Jews since they don't mandate an afterlife. Christian theology has never been fully agreed between the churches. A glitch in the early works somehow threw the entire system off-balance in a way that the omnipotent power behind the scenes was unable to fix except by several thousand years later becoming personally one of his creatures letting himself become a sacrifice to himself and even then that only allowed for the possibility of allowing individuals to fix it for themselves providing that they believed the current twaddle understanding of it, which has varied through time. An earlier version that CS Lewis appears to have picked up makes a little more sense in that the original glitch gave a lesser destructive power authority over descendants and it was only by tricking that power with a life not subject to it that the authority could be said to have been exercised incorrectly, therefore rendered invalid. This sounds like another case of taking an allegorical parallel literally. All the same, it is quite obvious which theology is going to make sense to anybody who'd never heard any of them. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jan 27, 2011 15:08:46 GMT -5
"The only difference between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists is that the Muslim creed is rational." Erasmus, what the hell are you drinking? Religion is irrational and so, it seems, are your thoughts on the subject. Religion is not irrational in itself. The cosmos appears to be orderly and rational in itself, therefore a rational deduction is that some power keeps it that way. In earlier times when the world appeared capricious, it was equally rational to conclude capricious powers at work. However, the theology of Judaeism and Islam is simply that: a power behind the scenes devised and maintains cosmic order: buck the system and the system throws you out, go with it and get to a state of bliss. That's less true for Jews since they don't mandate an afterlife. Christian theology has never been fully agreed between the churches. A glitch in the early works somehow threw the entire system off-balance in a way that the omnipotent power behind the scenes was unable to fix except by several thousand years later becoming personally one of his creatures letting himself become a sacrifice to himself and even then that only allowed for the possibility of allowing individuals to fix it for themselves providing that they believed the current twaddle understanding of it, which has varied through time. An earlier version that CS Lewis appears to have picked up makes a little more sense in that the original glitch gave a lesser destructive power authority over descendants and it was only by tricking that power with a life not subject to it that the authority could be said to have been exercised incorrectly, therefore rendered invalid. This sounds like another case of taking an allegorical parallel literally. All the same, it is quite obvious which theology is going to make sense to anybody who'd never heard any of them. If I were going to choose a favourite myth, it would probably be the Silmarillion. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 27, 2011 17:23:35 GMT -5
islam is simply a plagerised version of judaism and christianity..with tribal add ons and left overs from the moon worshippers they were originally
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jan 28, 2011 20:48:32 GMT -5
Absolutely. That is what it said it set out to be, an updated interpretation of Judaeism for Arabs correcting the centuries of Christian error turning their Prophet Y'shugh into a Divine Caesar better worshiped than his word followed, and the Emperor in Constantinople better as Thirteenth Apostle and God's Chosen, Vicar of the Christ than even his pagan predecessors who might be demi-gods in their life and with the gods after, but at least only one of many, not the sole Voice of the sole Deity.
We may disagree or not, but that carries no slander with it. Muslims committed what today we call crimes against humanity. Show me who did not. Muslims forced conversion in India? Do you think Latin America is Catholic with some very strange customs included because their Spanish and Portuguese conquerors gave them the option to continue the religion of their tradition or to convert if they felt like it? Where are the Muslim Autos-da-Fé?
It is said that Mexico, of all New Spain took to Catholicism the most because they saw its emphasis on penance and readiness to burn people alive as their traditional religion's thirst for suffering and blood and death to gods hostile to human life, while the Inca were appalled at their barbarity even though they were not averse to the rare human sacrifice, and Catholicism in western South America is still much more superficial name that means nothing than it is in Mexico, where it was so similar ot their own religion of masochistic penance and demand for death.
Islam is a simple religion. It never faced any religion as blood-thirsty as the Aztecs', so we can't know whether it would have converted them or slaughtered them. We do know that where it met tribes as ruthless and more as the Aztecs with only primitive shamanistic religion, they converted even though they then went on to invade and devastate other Muslims as viciously as anything in South America.
That is, those Turkish converts had the military upper hand, so chose Islam without being forced into it and still attacked other Muslims exactly as Teutonic Christians conquered the Western Roman Empire. Islam never did to them what Christianity did to Latin America and before that, to Europe because even if it had wanted to, it lacked the power to do so.
|
|
Alpha