Islamic & Christian Fundamentalism--What's the difference?

[Knot Again]

in case you forgot YESTERDAYS number

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClEUdogWMAA85Bi.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClKscnqVEAEMrPK.jpg

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Bill Maher rarely gets it right.

But in this instance he explains the exact difference better than I could...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpdGK3F4pC0

 

[wistfall1]

In my original post, my intent was to raise the awareness of Fundamentalism in any religion, but but in our times, the continuing strife between Christiananity, and its now fundamental aspects, and Islamic fundamentalism as is being expressed by too many redical groups.

I listed some of the things said early on by some preachers and others here, now silenced, at least publicly for the most part, by our media, and maybe the threat of being sued.

However, on the other side, Islamic laws seem to be quite different. In fact, Islam is more than often the law as noted in Saudi Arabia and a few other places.

What is not generally and popularly known is that Christianity, in its belief in the god of their bible, is not true, but a fiction instilled in us by, first of all, ignorance and the heavy hand of the original church of Catholicism which inculcated even our generation with both the threat of their punishment, and eternal punishment.

The first is real, the latter a fiction if it is based on the word of the bible (which very few realize).

There are those who are peaceful in their religion, but many who are such fundamentalist believers that they are perpetrating horrors on us, and on their own kind. Of course, now I am speaking of Muslims.

However, think about fundamentalists and abortion. They bomb and killl just like Islamist fundamentalists. Maybe not as prolifically, but we do have laws that put somewhat of a damper on them whereas it is often not so in the Middle East.

But for fundamentalism, this might be a rarity in its present expression and there would not be the greiving that is going on now on bott sides.

Someone, I think, said something about our side not being like what has recently happened in Orlando. However, on the fifteenth of this month, I found this by Mark Joseph Stern on the Internet. I'm just posting the last portion of it:

<quote> Until very recently, the Christian right’’s primary mode of attack on the LGBTQ community did not center around pleas for ““traditional marriage.”” It centered around cruel, ferocious attacks on our families and our identities, depicting us as debauched perverts and disgusting lechers. And once a year, the entire weight of this animus came crashing down on Orlando——just because a bunch of gay families wanted to take their kids to Disney World at the same time. Conservative Christian activists may not be directly to blame for the massacre at Pulse. But they are responsible for relentlessly vilifying the LGBTQ community in terms that often spilled over into outright hatred. </Quote>

It is not only people like Pat Robertson, but a multitude of ohters who hold fast to the fundamentalist view that even (and too often especially) the Old Testament is the word of god.

It is false! My words and proofs have been silenced by interested parties who have found a way past the rules, but this post can only be silenced by Laurel, and I don't think it is among the prohibited items of the forbidden. At least I hope not.

Please think about it.

Peace

w

 

[Hard_Rom]

Extremism is the enemy of western democracies. No matter what form it takes. From 'homegrown' fascist totalitarianism seen in Nazi Germany to Christian fundamentalism espousing hatred of gays to Daesh Islamo-fascists.

We have to stop supporting anyone espousing intolerance and extremism. From Saudi oil to populous POTUS candidates to local governments that enact discriminatory laws. Boycott all of them. Costly and inconvenient but the right thing to do.

Being good and doing the right thing is rarely easy.

 

[eyerami]

In my original post, my intent was to raise the awareness of Fundamentalism in any religion, but but in our times, the continuing strife between Christiananity, and its now fundamental aspects, and Islamic fundamentalism as is being expressed by too many redical groups.

I listed some of the things said early on by some preachers and others here, now silenced, at least publicly for the most part, by our media, and maybe the threat of being sued.

However, on the other side, Islamic laws seem to be quite different. In fact, Islam is more than often the law as noted in Saudi Arabia and a few other places.

What is not generally and popularly known is that Christianity, in its belief in the god of their bible, is not true, but a fiction instilled in us by, first of all, ignorance and the heavy hand of the original church of Catholicism which inculcated even our generation with both the threat of their punishment, and eternal punishment.

The first is real, the latter a fiction if it is based on the word of the bible (which very few realize).

There are those who are peaceful in their religion, but many who are such fundamentalist believers that they are perpetrating horrors on us, and on their own kind. Of course, now I am speaking of Muslims.

However, think about fundamentalists and abortion. They bomb and killl just like Islamist fundamentalists. Maybe not as prolifically, but we do have laws that put somewhat of a damper on them whereas it is often not so in the Middle East.

But for fundamentalism, this might be a rarity in its present expression and there would not be the greiving that is going on now on bott sides.

Someone, I think, said something about our side not being like what has recently happened in Orlando. However, on the fifteenth of this month, I found this by Mark Joseph Stern on the Internet. I'm just posting the last portion of it:

<quote> Until very recently, the Christian right’’s primary mode of attack on the LGBTQ community did not center around pleas for ““traditional marriage.”” It centered around cruel, ferocious attacks on our families and our identities, depicting us as debauched perverts and disgusting lechers. And once a year, the entire weight of this animus came crashing down on Orlando——just because a bunch of gay families wanted to take their kids to Disney World at the same time. Conservative Christian activists may not be directly to blame for the massacre at Pulse. But they are responsible for relentlessly vilifying the LGBTQ community in terms that often spilled over into outright hatred. </Quote>

It is not only people like Pat Robertson, but a multitude of ohters who hold fast to the fundamentalist view that even (and too often especially) the Old Testament is the word of god.

It is false! My words and proofs have been silenced by interested parties who have found a way past the rules, but this post can only be silenced by Laurel, and I don't think it is among the prohibited items of the forbidden. At least I hope not.

Please think about it.

Peace

w

Maybe you should try some mustard with that AIDS dick, dude.

 

[phrodeau]

Maybe you should try some mustard with that AIDS dick, dude.

Do you prefer brown or yellow?

 

[srgreene]

I think it's interesting that when a Muslim kills homosexuals because Leviticus there's more screaming to ban Muslims entering the US, put all Muslims on a watch list and close Mosques, yet when a WASP kills homosexuals because Leviticus there's complete silence about anything other than guns and mental health, aside from the religious extremists celebrating the death of another sodomite.

Well despite Leviticus, Jews have not been killing homosexuals for 4000 years, and I don't believe that since the rabbinical tradition was established it has ever been advocated by rabbis. Nor am I aware of any significant Christian group in modern times that has advocated killing people because of their sexual orientation. As a Christian, I would certainly argue that killing people for their sexual orientation is a part of the law from which Jesus freed humanity.

Moslem clerics routinely call for the death sentence to be applied to homosexuals, and Moslems routinely do exactly that. They also kill people for a variety of other sexual transgressions. So I find your "interest" to be, well interesting. Are you trying to deflect attention from a very real contemporary problem?

 

[Hard_Rom]

Well despite Leviticus, Jews have not been killing homosexuals for 4000 years, and I don't believe that since the rabbinical tradition was established it has ever been advocated by rabbis. Nor am I aware of any significant Christian group in modern times that has advocated killing people because of their sexual orientation. As a Christian, I would certainly argue that killing people for their sexual orientation is a part of the law from which Jesus freed humanity.

Moslem clerics routinely call for the death sentence to be applied to homosexuals, and Moslems routinely do exactly that. They also kill people for a variety of other sexual transgressions. So I find your "interest" to be, well interesting. Are you trying to deflect attention from a very real contemporary problem?

You are about to be bombarded by clips and sites where Christian clerics call for violence against gays. Have a stroll about the GB and PB, you will find them yourself.

Been living under a rock or something?

 

[wistfall1]

Well despite Leviticus, Jews have not been killing homosexuals for 4000 years, and I don't believe that since the rabbinical tradition was established it has ever been advocated by rabbis. Nor am I aware of any significant Christian group in modern times that has advocated killing people because of their sexual orientation. As a Christian, I would certainly argue that killing people for their sexual orientation is a part of the law from which Jesus freed humanity.

Moslem clerics routinely call for the death sentence to be applied to homosexuals, and Moslems routinely do exactly that. They also kill people for a variety of other sexual transgressions. So I find your "interest" to be, well interesting. Are you trying to deflect attention from a very real contemporary problem?

First, your 4,000 years is off according to modern research, by textual religious research, and archeology, and now by genetic SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms). SNPs are in a library that is genetically able to tell different races, etc. In his book, A Troublesome Inheritance, Genes, Race, and Human History (The Penguin Press, 2014), the author, Nicholas Wade, mentions, among others, that about 3,000 years ago marks the probable beginning of the Jewish Religion

This is in line with other authoritative authors, many of whiich I have itemized in my stories and essays.

Secondly, you need to read my opening statement at the inception of this thread that speaks of several leaders of Christian extremists who call for the death of homosexuals and lesbians.

I repeat: the bible is not a historical document. The Hebrew language has not been historically known until about the time of David in approximately 1,000 BCE.

It is easy, once you understand that the bible is not the work of any god, either directly or by inspiration, that the writers (and yes, there were many), did not know the history that they purported to write in the Book of Daniel, as well as elsewhere.

Peace

w

 

[VaticanAssassin]

First, your 4,000 years is off according to modern research, by textual religious research, and archeology, and now by genetic SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms). SNPs are in a library that is genetically able to tell different races, etc. In his book, A Troublesome Inheritance, Genes, Race, and Human History (The Penguin Press, 2014), the author, Nicholas Wade, mentions, among others, that about 3,000 years ago marks the probable beginning of the Jewish Religion

This is in line with other authoritative authors, many of whiich I have itemized in my stories and essays.

Secondly, you need to read my opening statement at the inception of this thread that speaks of several leaders of Christian extremists who call for the death of homosexuals and lesbians.

I repeat: the bible is not a historical document. The Hebrew language has not been historically known until about the time of David in approximately 1,000 BCE.

It is easy, once you understand that the bible is not the work of any god, either directly or by inspiration, that the writers (and yes, there were many), did not know the history that they purported to write in the Book of Daniel, as well as elsewhere.

Peace

w

If you where completely honest you would see that this type of behavior is a true outlier in today's Christianity while it is the norm in Islam in majority Muslim countries.

But that wouldn't exactly fit the dishonest narrative you are trying to build?

 

[MichaelinChina]

What must be really fucking with Fundamentalist Christians' heads is the fact that a whole heap of gays got shot (and FCs LOVE homosexuality, right?) and it was done by a Muslim guy - who they ought to be praising.

 

[Hard_Rom]

If you where completely honest you would see that this type of behavior is a true outlier in today's Christianity while it is the norm in Islam in majority Muslim countries.

But that wouldn't exactly fit the dishonest narrative you are trying to build?

The majority of Muslim nations are 3rd world shitholes, that has nothing to do with Islam. Same religion that ruled when the Islamic world was the leading center for learning and tolerance.

Christian fundies have always been intolerant and ignorant.

 

[wistfall1]

If you where completely honest you would see that this type of behavior is a true outlier in today's Christianity while it is the norm in Islam in majority Muslim countries.

But that wouldn't exactly fit the dishonest narrative you are trying to build?

If you would be specific with your vague accusations, I'd be more able to answer them properly. On this site, where there is no eye-to-eye contact, theory of mind just doesn't work, not by you, nor by me, so...

Peace

w

 

[Colonel Hogan]

However, think about fundamentalists and abortion. They bomb and killl just like Islamist fundamentalists. Maybe not as prolifically, but we do have laws that put somewhat of a damper on them whereas it is often not so in the Middle East.

You keep spewing this bullshit, and it is literally absurd -- and you clearly don't see the absurdity of it.

According to you, the frequency of Christian fundamentalist violence is only "dampened" by restrictive laws of Western society, while "not so much" in Middle Eastern countries often heavily influenced by Islamic legal traditions. Perhaps you were thinking of legal traditions were thieves have their hands cut off and beheading is actually a form of capital punishment inflicted by the state.

So what SHOULD that tell you about Christian based Western societies and Middle Eastern societies? Where the hell do you think LAW comes from? Christians in the West didn't have restrictive laws against violence imposed UPON them. They brought that concept of law WITH them when they first settled here. While the law has certainly evolved, the basic prohibition against murder and assault has remained consistent since its origins.

You've got your head so far up your ass you can't get a tan on your arms.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

The majority of Muslim nations are 3rd world shitholes, that has nothing to do with Islam. Same religion that ruled when the Islamic world was the leading center for learning and tolerance.

Christian fundies have always been intolerant and ignorant.

Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Saudi....

All not third world. All places it's ok to beat your wife. All places being gay will get you killed.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Saudi....

All not third world. All places it's ok to beat your wife. All places being gay will get you killed.

3rd world shitholes everyone of them. Is even one of them controlled by a democratically elected government with a total enfranchisement of it's people. US supported oil barons run those countries. There are African Christian countries were being gay gets you killed. 3rd world shitholes!

Give US Christian fundies free reign and see how safe gays are.

All the countries you stated are damn near dictatorships with limited franchises. Backward ass monarchies and oligarchies. Stunted cultural growth due to Imperial and colonial interference.

Islam did not take the ME from world cultural center to wife beating capital of the world. Intolerance and ignorance did.

 

[wistfall1]

You keep spewing this bullshit, and it is literally absurd -- and you clearly don't see the absurdity of it.

According to you, the frequency of Christian fundamentalist violence is only "dampened" by restrictive laws of Western society, while "not so much" in Middle Eastern countries often heavily influenced by Islamic legal traditions. Perhaps you were thinking of legal traditions were thieves have their hands cut off and beheading is actually a form of capital punishment inflicted by the state.

So what SHOULD that tell you about Christian based Western societies and Middle Eastern societies? Where the hell do you think LAW comes from? Christians in the West didn't have restrictive laws against violence imposed UPON them. They brought that concept of law WITH them when they first settled here. While the law has certainly evolved, the basic prohibition against murder and assault has remained consistent since its origins.

You've got your head so far up your ass you can't get a tan on your arms.

I can see that I've touched many unknown nerves in you. I'll try to respond with civility.

However, please advise me specifically what bullshit it is that I am spewing. I've seen where you've been highly praised for your clarity of thought. Speak your mind specifically. I will, beside being as civil as possible, answer or say that I can't answer, but honestly.

As to Islamic laws not being in place, or if they are yet ignored with impunity, try a woman being without escort of the male variety and from kin. You may also think of "shaming" of family by a woman--I think you will understand what I mean.

ISIS takes women ala Old Testament style, and makes them "go with" or actually be "married" to another of her captives. Think of the Yazidis, or those taken by Boku Haran (sp?).

As to Christians, you must read up on church history and divide it up into segments for discussion. Before there was a Christian church as we think of it in our day, there were many "Crhirstians", though some, like Ignatius, thought a bishop should be over his flock, however they might determine their "flock". Further, those like Iraneus thought that there should be an even greater heirarchy.

That said, as far my meager understanding goes, Hammurabi had some of the earliest laws, if not the earliest way back before there were even any Hebrews, or even Apiru, or whatever/

Still, back to the Christians and what laws they brought with them, sorry, but you're vague on that. Which Christians brought a law with them? And brought to where? Into Europe? America?

A Christian church was ordered by Constantine so that there would be only one Christian denomination. That was in about 325 CE. Those in attendance had to perform to please the emperor, thus Arianism was declared a no-no. That church was the true beginning of the Catholic, or Universal, church, which, as I understand it, was "given" many powers to make and enforce some laws. Is this some of the laws you speak of?

Later, somewhere about 366 to 384, Damasus I declared himslelf Pope (thought others before him had tried to claim this), and as such, the head of all of Christianity.

Still, some rogue Christian doctrines continued. What was Christian Doctrine? Whatever the Pope said it to be, though maybe in consultation with some of his clerical croonies (those in Rome were never thought to be too brilliant). They had the power.

The pope used that power to have what was considered a rogue bishop, namely Priscillian, executed for "Heresy", wouldn't you know it. Hey, the pope, or whoever his surrogates were, had the law(s).

The popes had even more power through the agency of fear (an estimated 90 to 95 percent of the people being illiterate and thus ignorant so the fear of hell, not to mention excommunication and/or burning at the stake were within the church's power), and there was, basically no emperor in the West as Rome had been sacked twice.

However, Byzantium still had an emperor, but he was in the East.

The popes were the law save those few times, and in some places, were some bucked the church with whatever army they had. And it went back and forth until the princes of Europe agreed with the pope to have Charlemange as The Holy Roman Emperor. We all know about him, and he became the law, but often with papal okay, maybe sometimes with the okay.

Papal power increased even unto 1077 when Henry IV tried to buck the popes power but then gave up and was said to have gone before Gregory VII at the popes residence where he was said to be made to wait three days, barefoot in the snow, to receive Gregory's absolution. Is that historical? I'm not sure, but it is written as a piece of history.

The Christian Catholic pope making an English king obey him? Why not, he had the power and made the laws.

He was so powerful that he was said to ordain and orchestrate the slaughter and burning alive the hundreds, if not thousands, or Cathars, a peace loving bunch said to be "Heretics" who just wouldn't obey. Again, he had the power for he made laws in Europe.

Speaking of power and use of it a if it were law, how about the ordering of a Crusade, which resulted in the slaughter of Jews while enroute to do God's work?

Okay, maybe you mean America and the Puritans, who really weren't so pure, turkey day notwithstanading. They, uh, killed some in the name of the church for witchcraft. The Mayflower compact wasn't good enough to provide for that chrurch (Old Testament) mandate.

If you're referring to our Constitutional Convention, and the results, it was people like Jefferson who pushed our Freedom of Religion, but it was only after much fighting and scratching. That's similar to the way it continues to this day, isn't it?

So tell me, what laws do you mean that they brought, and to where? But you're right, there are laws her against murder, and they've been more or less consistent. That's had a pretty visible dampening effect, and some security (though I wouldn't match that security to some Europen or Scandinavian countries). Still, they had to have the laws, at times, imposed upon them, like the Whiskey Rebellion, and oops, the Civel War, and then after that the killing of former slaves even into the twentieth century. Is that right?

Then there was Selma and Birmingham. Those were iimposed laws, though they were bad laws. Were those some of the laws that you mean that were brought with them (if you meant to America, that is)?

I think that having my "head up my ass" isn't qujite true, but then I believe that maybe you've let your emotions get the best of you and lost your objectivity.

No need to apoligize, if you've even thought to do so. Maybe the nerves I've touched are those of a Christian believer, but if so, is it of a Fundamentalist Christian believer? I don't know for as I've said, you have been touted as a paragon of objectivity and and good sense.

I hope this answers you fairly respectfully, but as I said, if you have any specific questions, please, just ask, and if I can, I will address them.

Peace

w

 

[phrodeau]

What must be really fucking with Fundamentalist Christians' heads is the fact that a whole heap of gays got shot (and FCs LOVE homosexuality, right?) and it was done by a Muslim guy - who they ought to be praising.

Oh, there are some who praise him.

http://www.kcra.com/news/local-news...stor-upset-more-didnt-die-in-orlando/40049716

 

[Ldy_Sea]

Then why is the birthrate in "Christian" nations declining while the population of the religion of Peace is ballooning?

Because traditionally christian nations like the US, Ireland, etc... have all legalized abortion.

Meanwhile, in third world Muslim nations woman are property to be used to breed the next generation of Muslims.

 

[toubab]

Painting Muhammad with Bob Ross

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7PpE15yh58

 

[RobDownSouth]

Then why is the birthrate in "Christian" nations declining while the population of the religion of Peace is ballooning?

Because the majority of "Christian" countries are considered to be first-world nations, and the majority of "Moslem" countries are essentially third world shitholes.

In a first world country, birth control (and abortion) are generally available (despite the best efforts of conservative fundamentalists to the contrary).

In third world countries, mortality rates are much higher, sex education is non-existent, and the general patriarchal attitude reduces a woman's role to A) birthing babbies and B ) carryin' a man's spunk from the marital bed to teh toilet.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Because the majority of "Christian" countries are considered to be first-world nations, and the majority of "Moslem" countries are essentially third world shitholes.

In a first world country, birth control (and abortion) are generally available (despite the best efforts of conservative fundamentalists to the contrary).

In third world countries, mortality rates are much higher, sex education is non-existent, and the general patriarchal attitude reduces a woman's role to A) birthing babbies and B ) carryin' a man's spunk from the marital bed to teh toilet.

Let's not forget the fact that in 1st world countries most kids grow up into adulthood, you don't have to have 17 kids just to make sure 1-2 of them make it.

 

[hashtag45]

Because traditionally christian nations like the US, Ireland, etc... have all legalized abortion.
Meanwhile, in third world Muslim nations woman are property to be used to breed the next generation of Muslims.

But how do they go about it?

Do all these Muslim countries share the stance of their more radical Christian counter-parts (focus almost entirely on criminalization of women, and no preventive measures like birth control or other measures to support women )?

Or do some of them share the more moderate attitudes of the other group of "anti-abortion" (so to speak) advocates?
Trying to balance the two ethical dilemmas - the rights of the foetus (whom they consider to be a developing person) versus women's rights?
And if so, which countries and how?

 

[Ldy_Sea]

In muslim countries woman are property and have no rights. THey are strictly for breeding.

ABortion is non existent in muslim countries.

Hell TP is non existent in Muslim countries.

In Islam woman have no rights. They are forbidden to even speak to someone. They are jailed if not murdered for being raped. They can't drive, own property, or leave the house without their husbands or fathers permission. Girls are murdered just for going to school, or for not wearing a Hijab (head scarf).

Girls as young as 8 are sold to be brides.

SO what "rights" are you refering too?

Mohamed himself married and had sex with an 8 year old girl. This is historical fact.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Let's not forget the fact that in 1st world countries most kids grow up into adulthood, you don't have to have 17 kids just to make sure 1-2 of them make it.

Exactly. Except for Utah, of course.