Hello!
Today many people go to islam? Why?
Today many people go to islam? Why?
Welcome to islam
| salaf wrote: |
| Hello!
Today many peaples go to islam? Why? |
Well, why not attempt to answer your own question before expecting others to do so? Why do YOU think?
Here's two possible suggestions;
a) For Muslim countries - birth rate
b) For western countries - immigration rate
Bear in mind that converts are normally expressed as a percentage, rather than an absolute figure. Thus if you have a relatively small percentage of Muslims in a country, a relatively small number of converts yields a high percentage....
hehe, well here up north it is really strange... OK so we have it in our genecodes to believe in something but still... here religion is only a second opinion - just an intrest or oddidity...
So people went on a stroll--- or eh stroll that was not the word. So U wander of together along with other people to touch a stone or what it is??? hm, if people believe in a god why does just one thing become more holy that another? All things must belong to a god! Every fart belongs to god (if any) and it is as much holy as that rock or what ever it is! Think of that next time u fart!!
Then we have the clothes... they cant think that it is a good looking style??? What if they could have seasonly clothes that was designed by a priest or so... a new show every year! Yeah they can do that at the stone and have some fun at the same time
)
Hm, What if they cut the stone in half and move it a bit from the other . what chaos it should be!!! they have to touch both and it will be a mayhem
Well hm I wonder how many kids that is made under that stroll... hm, or is it just as boring as it seem??
So people went on a stroll--- or eh stroll that was not the word. So U wander of together along with other people to touch a stone or what it is??? hm, if people believe in a god why does just one thing become more holy that another? All things must belong to a god! Every fart belongs to god (if any) and it is as much holy as that rock or what ever it is! Think of that next time u fart!!
Then we have the clothes... they cant think that it is a good looking style??? What if they could have seasonly clothes that was designed by a priest or so... a new show every year! Yeah they can do that at the stone and have some fun at the same time
)
Hm, What if they cut the stone in half and move it a bit from the other . what chaos it should be!!! they have to touch both and it will be a mayhem
Well hm I wonder how many kids that is made under that stroll... hm, or is it just as boring as it seem??
What "gene codes" do we have that demand metaphysical or theological beliefs?
| salaf wrote: |
| Hello!
Today many people go to islam? Why? |
| liljp617 wrote: |
| What "gene codes" do we have that demand metaphysical or theological beliefs? |
Possibly the same ones that lead to schizophrenia? I mean, you are, after all, seeing 'genes' that aren't there...
| Hogwarts wrote: | ||
Possibly the same ones that lead to schizophrenia? I mean, you are, after all, seeing 'genes' that aren't there... |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
| liljp617 wrote: |
| What "gene codes" do we have that demand metaphysical or theological beliefs? |
Well, it would seem something fundamental to humans causes religion. After all, every culture we can find has its own religion, or at least had one before giving it up for atheism.
Gene or meme, either way it must be something rooted very deeply in humans.
| deanhills wrote: | ||||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme |
I'm not sure you understood what I was hinting at
| Hogwarts wrote: | ||||||
I'm not sure you understood what I was hinting at |
I did, first time round
Another enjoyable vintage posting by Hogwarts.I haven't noticed many converts. Some statistics would be nice.
| lagoon wrote: |
| I haven't noticed many converts. Some statistics would be nice. |
There are many claims on being the fastest growing religion. Here is what wikipedia has to say on the subject.
| Quote: |
| Islam
Data for Islam reveal that the growing number of Muslims is due primarily to high conversion rates (in the West) (worldwide).[15] * In 2006, countries with a Muslim majority had an average population growth rate of 1.8% per year (when weighted by percentage Muslim and population size). However, this number is far exceeded by number of converts added each year.[16] This compares with a world population growth rate of 1.12% per year.[17] * According to the "Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life"[18] Islam is the fastest-growing religion in Europe, and is forecasted to have a similar or higher rate of growth in the coming decades. * According to most professional sources, Islam has the highest conversion rates, which is why it is generally accepted as the fastest growing religion. “ It is widely reported that Islam is the "second-largest religion in the world after Christianity" with Islam being the "fastest-growing religion".[2] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest_growing_religion
Anyone realize this discussion was sparked by a spambot? 
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Anyone realize this discussion was sparked by a spambot? :P |
Ehh... whatever. It still sparked some sort of discussion (even though it was a poor discussion). Anyways, welcome back. I haven't seen you post here in several months, HBP.
Welcome to Is spam.
| lagoon wrote: |
| I haven't noticed many converts. Some statistics would be nice. |
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
Well, why not attempt to answer your own question before expecting others to do so? Why do YOU think? Here's two possible suggestions; a) For Muslim countries - birth rate b) For western countries - immigration rate Bear in mind that converts are normally expressed as a percentage, rather than an absolute figure. Thus if you have a relatively small percentage of Muslims in a country, a relatively small number of converts yields a high percentage.... |
Muslim countries also have the highest mortality rates:
- *at least* 1 Million innocent Iraqis have died as a result of American occupation of their country. Note the population of Iraq being only 21 million.
- How many Palestinians have been forced out their homes, and died out of poverty and war as a result of Israeli occupation of their country?
- What about Afghanistan which the United States carpet bombed killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians with *precision based missiles*? If that isn't murder, I do not know what is.
- or Lebanon Sabra and Shatila or even the recent lebanese massacre?
- or ethnic cleansing in Sudan? and Uganda?
- or the forgotten Chechnya which Russian forces day by day cripple Grozny and surrounding areas?
- or Kosovo - where the European govts were too scared to raise a finger and debated on the notion of it being an ethnic cleaning over genocides while thousands of MUSLIM men and boys were being massacred in what was apparently the holocaust of Muslims.
- or the Iran-Iraq war which the United States played a large role in funding Saddam and providing him with intelligence and weapons (inclduing chemical weapons) on how to massacre and gas innocent Iranians.
And secondly, what has immigration rate got to do with people turning to Islam?
| ThePolemistis wrote: | ||||
Muslim countries also have the highest mortality rates: - *at least* 1 Million innocent Iraqis have died as a result of American occupation of their country. Note the population of Iraq being only 21 million. - How many Palestinians have been forced out their homes, and died out of poverty and war as a result of Israeli occupation of their country? - What about Afghanistan which the United States carpet bombed killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians with *precision based missiles*? If that isn't murder, I do not know what is. - or Lebanon Sabra and Shatila or even the recent lebanese massacre? - or ethnic cleansing in Sudan? and Uganda? - or the forgotten Chechnya which Russian forces day by day cripple Grozny and surrounding areas? - or Kosovo - where the European govts were too scared to raise a finger and debated on the notion of it being an ethnic cleaning over genocides while thousands of MUSLIM men and boys were being massacred in what was apparently the holocaust of Muslims. - or the Iran-Iraq war which the United States played a large role in funding Saddam and providing him with intelligence and weapons (inclduing chemical weapons) on how to massacre and gas innocent Iranians. And secondly, what has immigration rate got to do with people turning to Islam? |
Regarding immigration, quite a number of people from the Middle and Far East are emigrating to the West and take their religion with them. That obviously adds to the percentage of increase in Islam for the countries that they emigrate to.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
|
Muslim countries also have the highest mortality rates: - *at least* 1 Million innocent Iraqis have died as a result of American occupation of their country. Note the population of Iraq being only 21 million. - How many Palestinians have been forced out their homes, and died out of poverty and war as a result of Israeli occupation of their country? - What about Afghanistan which the United States carpet bombed killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians with *precision based missiles*? If that isn't murder, I do not know what is. - or Lebanon Sabra and Shatila or even the recent lebanese massacre? - or ethnic cleansing in Sudan? and Uganda? - or the forgotten Chechnya which Russian forces day by day cripple Grozny and surrounding areas? - or Kosovo - where the European govts were too scared to raise a finger and debated on the notion of it being an ethnic cleaning over genocides while thousands of MUSLIM men and boys were being massacred in what was apparently the holocaust of Muslims. - or the Iran-Iraq war which the United States played a large role in funding Saddam and providing him with intelligence and weapons (inclduing chemical weapons) on how to massacre and gas innocent Iranians. |
The mass media only reports what happens to muslims and displays the US and Israel as the ones causing trouble. Israel has for long tried to be peaceful, even at her own expence, but that never gets reported. They only say, Israel did this again and so and so many people died. Israel has the right to the land of Gaza which God gave to them as an everlasting inheritance as the Bible clearly states. The Bible was written much before the Koran, and anyway the Koran has taken various Biblical stories and twisted them to fit Mohammed's ideology. Btw, Mohammed was a Christian who then turned away from it and founded his own religion, today known as Islam.
Israel has suffered much more from the palestines than vice versa. And the president of Iran has said many times that he wants to wipe out Israel from the world. No one says anything to that sort of a comment, but when Israel says or does something everybody reacts to it. Antisemitism is rising once again and will probably rise for the last time in this millenium.
Something more worse than Hitler is ahead...
LORD, have mercy on your people Israel.| Quote: |
| Israel has the right to the land of Gaza which God gave to them as an everlasting inheritance as the Bible clearly states. |
OK, here's a quote on this, taken from Zephaniah:
| Bible:Zephaniah wrote: |
| For Gaza shall be forsaken, And Ashkelon desolate;
They shall drive out Ashdod at noonday, And Ekron shall be uprooted. Woe to the inhabitants of the seacoast, The nation of the Cherethites! The word of the Lord is against you, O Canaan, land of the Philistines: I [God] will destroy you, So there shall be no inhabitant." |
Of course, we should remember that the Old Testament also tells us that followers of other religions (Christians, for example) should be killed:
| Deuteronomy wrote: |
| If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. |
Finally
| Quote: |
| Btw, Mohammed was a Christian who then turned away from it and founded his own religion, today known as Islam. |
| Whong wrote: |
| Israel has the right to the land of Gaza which God gave to them as an everlasting inheritance as the Bible clearly states. The Bible was written much before the Koran, and anyway the Koran has taken various Biblical stories and twisted them to fit Mohammed's ideology. |
Okay. Well I have the right to the land of the whole entire world... it's mine! Why do I say that? Well I say that because Lord Daniel stated it in Daniel's Holy Book. See the difference? Probably not because there is none.
| Whong wrote: |
| The mass media only reports what happens to muslims and displays the US and Israel as the ones causing trouble. Israel has for long tried to be peaceful, even at her own expence, but that never gets reported. |
| Quote: |
| Hello!
Today many people go to islam? Why? |
Very very funny statement ...
I can see reverse of this happening.
People are moving away from Islam.Terrorists have made bad image of Islam everywhere.
People are looking at Islam as religion of Terror.Actual Islams ethics and thoughts were beautiful.Terrorists leaders conveyed wrong meaning of itand added some harsh fire inside innocent Muslim people.
In some magazine i had read one comment. "Every terrorists is Muslim, but not every Muslim is terrorist"See what is happening in East Asia. Take example of Afghan,Pakistan.Every Terrorist wants "Jihad". Well according to "Quran" that i have read "Jihad" means killing devil within ourselves and what is going on in actual ?. By looking at this situation of Islamic countries these days, how people will go to Islam ?
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
That is the lie of the media. It is common knowledge that the media doesn't always give a true picture of the situation. Look at the thing from this perspective:
1. Israel (about 6 million Jews) is living in the middle of a vast Arab/Muslim population. They are surrounded by Arabs/Muslims on all sides and even in their own land there live Arabs/Muslims.
2. These Muslims have in their Koran a statement where it tells them to put to death all of those who don't submit themselves to Allah. Don't take my word for it; check it for yourselves. I've heard muslims themselves tell this.
3. Iran's president has told on various occations that he wants to wipe out Israel from the world map. The same thing as Hitler and Saddam Hussein tried and you can see what has come of both of them. Both died in a rather terrible way.
4. Israel has NEVER, to my knowledge, stated that they want to wipe out the Muslims or Christians or anyone else. Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and many other places in order that they would get piece. Israel wants peace, Palestine doesn't! Look further than what the media tells you.
| Quote: |
| OK, here's a quote on this, taken from Zephaniah:
Bible:Zephaniah wrote: For Gaza shall be forsaken, And Ashkelon desolate; They shall drive out Ashdod at noonday, And Ekron shall be uprooted. Woe to the inhabitants of the seacoast, The nation of the Cherethites! The word of the Lord is against you, O Canaan, land of the Philistines: I [God] will destroy you, So there shall be no inhabitant." So much for promising an 'everlasting inheritance'.... |
God promised the land to the Jews as an everlasting inheritance. That wheter they get to live in the land is dependent on their conduct. But God will always bring them back to Israel. LOOK, in 1948 Israel was born yet again. That is a miracle!!! After Hitler's attempt to destroy Israel it became a nation once again. It is a sign from God that you cannot wipe out Israel, never ever can it be done even though many have tried to do it!
| Quote: |
| Of course, we should remember that the Old Testament also tells us that followers of other religions (Christians, for example) should be killed:
Deuteronomy wrote: If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. |
This doesn't tell that go and kill all people who aren't willing to become Jews. No, this tells that a Jew must not turn to any other gods and even if his brother or sister or father or mother or son or daughter comes and tries to get him (a Jew) to worship another god he must kill the one who did this. But no that he must go and find unbelieving people and kill them, NO! That was what the crusades were all about and they are NOT at all Biblical. The crusades were a big mistake, Jesus never intended that the Gospel be spread like that!!!
| Whong wrote: |
| God promised the land to the Jews as an everlasting inheritance. That wheter they get to live in the land is dependent on their conduct. But God will always bring them back to Israel. LOOK, in 1948 Israel was born yet again. That is a miracle!!! After Hitler's attempt to destroy Israel it became a nation once again. It is a sign from God that you cannot wipe out Israel, never ever can it be done even though many have tried to do it! |
| Quote: |
| This doesn't tell that go and kill all people who aren't willing to become Jews. No, this tells that a Jew must not turn to any other gods and even if his brother or sister or father or mother or son or daughter comes and tries to get him (a Jew) to worship another god he must kill the one who did this. But no that he must go and find unbelieving people and kill them, NO! That was what the crusades were all about and they are NOT at all Biblical. The crusades were a big mistake, Jesus never intended that the Gospel be spread like that!!! |
| Chronicles wrote: |
| They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. |
| Deuteronomy wrote: |
| Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| any literal reading of the bible leads to contradiction, paradox, and plain absurdity, very quickly indeed. |
If an imaginary voice in your head is your defense for having the right to a specific plot of land, your case isn't very strong.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| If an imaginary voice in your head is your defense for having the right to a specific plot of land, your case isn't very strong. |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| You, like many Christians, either don't read your own scripture, or you choose which bits to 'filter out'. That latter tendency is entirely understandable, since any literal reading of the bible leads to contradiction, paradox, and plain absurdity, very quickly indeed. |
That is not my case. The Bible must be read as a whole and you cannot filter out the parts you don't like. And yes, I read my Bible because it is the Word of God. The Bible may seem to have contradictions but they aren't if you truly can understand it with God's wisdom and the help of the Holy Spirit.
Please note that those parts talking about Jews killing those who are leading you astray to worship other gods belongs to the Old Covenant, the Mosaic covenant and so doesn't apply to believers for we are under Grace, the New Covenant. God always told the Jews to be kind to foreigners living in their own land. See Exodus:
NIV Exodus 22:21 "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.
Here is about the land of Israel!
KJV Genesis 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
Was directed mostly at this:
| Whong wrote: |
| God promised the land to the Jews as an everlasting inheritance. |
| liljp617 wrote: | ||||||
Was directed mostly at this:
|
| Whong wrote: | ||
That is not my case. The Bible must be read as a whole and you cannot filter out the parts you don't like. And yes, I read my Bible because it is the Word of God. The Bible may seem to have contradictions but they aren't if you truly can understand it with God's wisdom and the help of the Holy Spirit. |
| Quote: |
| Please note that those parts talking about Jews killing those who are leading you astray to worship other gods belongs to the Old Covenant, the Mosaic covenant and so doesn't apply to believers for we are under Grace, the New Covenant. God always told the Jews to be kind to foreigners living in their own land. See Exodus:
NIV Exodus 22:21 "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt. |
The OT says a lot of contradictory things. I have already given you two quotes which call for unbelievers to be killed. Do you want more?
Try the following: Deuteronomy 13:7-12; Deuteronomy 17:2-5; Exodus 22:19; Chronicles 15:12-13;
Zechariah 13:3
| Quote: |
| KJV Genesis 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. |
You see, you are doing a 'classic Christian'. You start by saying that the OT is actually part of the 'Old Covenant' which was (presumably) superceded by the NT which forms the 'New Covenent'. (This is a common Christian argument - largely because Christians know that the OT is actually the Jewish Bible and contains much which cannot be justified in terms of a loving Christian God).
After saying this, however, you then move on to give two quotes from the Bible - both from the Old Testament. This shows two things:
a) The OT frequently contradicts itself - nothing new there.
b) You are very confused about the bible (again this is not surprising since it is open to as many interpretations as there are readers).
Peace.
You may find these statistics interesting. I collected them a while ago and posted them on frihost previously.
209,020,000 World Almanac and Book of Facts 1935
700,000,000 Readers Digest Almanac and Yearbook 1983
0.700 billion or more, Barnes & Noble Encyclopedia 1993
0.817 billion, The Universal Almanac (1996)
0.951 billion, The Cambridge Factfinder (1993)
1.100 billion, The World Almanac (1997)
1.200 billion, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic relations) (1999)
1,188,242,789, 1.1 Billion Muslims (2000) World Christian Encyclopaedia
1,400,000,000, 1.4 Billion Muslims me/loyal in 2006 (yes i know this can't be seriously considered)
1,449,765,439 - 1,512,655,647, (2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country
A convenient excuse is that the only reason the Muslim population have grown so large is high birth rates of Muslim families. Although this excuse is partially true, it isn't the full story. A large number of constant converts are also part of the story.
If the birth rates thing were the only explanation, then one would have to explain why christian numbers have fallen despite the fact that there are more christians and they are not only in first world countries, but in third world countries too, such as in a few african countries (therefore high birth rates).
Here's one agnostic/atheist/non-Muslim's opinion on the growth rate of Muslims. http://www.geocities.com/richleebruce/b/islam.html The writer actually did some research (unlike the majority of pages out there which cry "high birth rates" without serious research).
EDIT: I think he's catholic.
Hope you find that useful.
Peace.
You may find these statistics interesting. I collected them a while ago and posted them on frihost previously.
209,020,000 World Almanac and Book of Facts 1935
700,000,000 Readers Digest Almanac and Yearbook 1983
0.700 billion or more, Barnes & Noble Encyclopedia 1993
0.817 billion, The Universal Almanac (1996)
0.951 billion, The Cambridge Factfinder (1993)
1.100 billion, The World Almanac (1997)
1.200 billion, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic relations) (1999)
1,188,242,789, 1.1 Billion Muslims (2000) World Christian Encyclopaedia
1,400,000,000, 1.4 Billion Muslims me/loyal in 2006 (yes i know this can't be seriously considered)
1,449,765,439 - 1,512,655,647, (2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country
A convenient excuse is that the only reason the Muslim population have grown so large is high birth rates of Muslim families. Although this excuse is partially true, it isn't the full story. A large number of constant converts are also part of the story.
If the birth rates thing were the only explanation, then one would have to explain why christian numbers have fallen despite the fact that there are more christians and they are not only in first world countries, but in third world countries too, such as in a few african countries (therefore high birth rates).
Here's one agnostic/atheist/non-Muslim's opinion on the growth rate of Muslims. http://www.geocities.com/richleebruce/b/islam.html The writer actually did some research (unlike the majority of pages out there which cry "high birth rates" without serious research).
EDIT: I think he's catholic.
Hope you find that useful.
Peace.
| loyal wrote: |
| Peace.A convenient excuse is that the only reason the Muslim population have grown so large is high birth rates of Muslim families. Although this excuse is partially true, it isn't the full story. A large number of constant converts are also part of the story. |
http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm
This seems to indicate that relatively few 'new' Muslims are converts (less than a million, globally, over a decade). I'm willing to grant that this may not be a totally unbiased source but until you can actually provide such a source then I don't see what the basis for your claim about "a large number of constant converts" actually is.
| Quote: |
| If the birth rates thing were the only explanation, then one would have to explain why christian numbers have fallen despite the fact that there are more christians and they are not only in first world countries, but in third world countries too, such as in a few african countries (therefore high birth rates). |
Most sources put the annual growth of Christianity at between 1.9% and 2.4% whereas Islam grows at around 2.9%. The difference is almost entirely down to birth rates.
| loyal wrote: |
| A convenient excuse is that the only reason the Muslim population have grown so large is high birth rates of Muslim families. Although this excuse is partially true, it isn't the full story. A large number of constant converts are also part of the story.
|
| Bikerman wrote: |
| And Genesis IS ALSO the Old Covenant - didn't you know that? You said that the Old Covenant no longer applies....
You see, you are doing a 'classic Christian'. You start by saying that the OT is actually part of the 'Old Covenant' which was (presumably) superceded by the NT which forms the 'New Covenent'. (This is a common Christian argument - largely because Christians know that the OT is actually the Jewish Bible and contains much which cannot be justified in terms of a loving Christian God). After saying this, however, you then move on to give two quotes from the Bible - both from the Old Testament. This shows two things: a) The OT frequently contradicts itself - nothing new there. b) You are very confused about the bible (again this is not surprising since it is open to as many interpretations as there are readers). |
Note! When I'm talking about the Old covenant I'm not talking about the Old Testament but rather the Mosaic law. The events of Genesis happened much before the Old Covenant (Mosaic). This has nothing to do with the Old Covenant because the Old covenant did not exist at that time. This statement is still true!
There are 5 covenants in the Bible of which 4 still apply. There is the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the Davidick covenant and the covenant with Christ Jesus. Out of these 5 the Mosaic covenant doesn't apply to us because we cannot achieve righteousness with God by obeying a set of laws.
I may not know the Bible very well yet, but I do know that the Bible is the Word of God. Just look at how the Bible has survived over 3500 years! Can you name any other book that would have survived such a period of time? And the Bible has been under attack for ages and people have tried to destroy it, but to no avail. You can not destroy the Bible. You can try if you want to.
| Whong wrote: |
| I may not know the Bible very well yet, but I do know that the Bible is the Word of God. |
If you don't know it very well, how can you know it's the word of god? The answer is this: because someone told you it is. You are falling into blind faith, which promotes ignorance and arrogance.
| Whong wrote: |
| Just look at how the Bible has survived over 3500 years! Can you name any other book that would have survived such a period of time? |
Ahem. Veda Vyasa, the author of the Mahabharata, arranged the Hindu Vedas around 3,000 BC. The Vedas themselves are said to have been passed down orally from much further in the past. There are plenty of books and religious texts older than the bible. Do some research and you'll find them.
The reason the bible and it's followers are in such great numbers is because it was forced upon people, most times through murder, torture, and outright genocide. Christianity became popular because the leaders of empires declared it the state religion and forcibly converted pagans and jews etc, and when conversion didn't work they murdered them.
| Whong wrote: |
| And the Bible has been under attack for ages and people have tried to destroy it, but to no avail |
Your religion has a long. bloody legacy attatched to it. Christianity destroyed more religious texts from other cultures(as well as the cultures themselves), than can be counted. No other group has tried to destroy the bible the way christians have attacked other religious texts, so spare us the martyr story of how people tried to destroy the bible. If you are going to blindly follow your religion, try not to make false assumptions about it's origins and history.
Can you name a religion other than the Judaeo/Islamic/Christian one that was used to justify mass torture, mass murder and genocide?
And if you are going to blame that on catholicism, as opposed to christianity, spare me. They may follow different rules and play the game a different way, but they both play the same game.
| Whong wrote: |
| Note! When I'm talking about the Old covenant I'm not talking about the Old Testament but rather the Mosaic law. The events of Genesis happened much before the Old Covenant (Mosaic). This has nothing to do with the Old Covenant because the Old covenant did not exist at that time. This statement is still true!
There are 5 covenants in the Bible of which 4 still apply. There is the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the Davidick covenant and the covenant with Christ Jesus. Out of these 5 the Mosaic covenant doesn't apply to us because we cannot achieve righteousness with God by obeying a set of laws. |
If you want to say that only the Mosaic covenant does not apply then what you are essentially saying is that the OT is OK apart from Exodus (19-24) which is now obsolete. Classic case of 'special pleading'.
You try to make the case that the bible (minus the 'Old Covenant') tells Jews to be kind to 'foreigners'. To illustrate this you quote Exodus 22:21 which is - yep, part of the Old Covenant.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| This is exactly the sort of wriggling I would expect. You WANT some parts of the OT not to apply any more. Theologians therefore construct a convoluted argument to make this possible by defining several covenants - classic Jesuitical nonsense.
If you want to say that only the Mosaic covenant does not apply then what you are essentially saying is that the OT is OK apart from Exodus (19-24) which is now obsolete. Classic case of 'special pleading'. You try to make the case that the bible (minus the 'Old Covenant') tells Jews to be kind to 'foreigners'. To illustrate this you quote Exodus 22:21 which is - yep, part of the Old Covenant. |
But Whong said the "bible is the word of God". Why did god include an entire section of his "word" knowing that we would discount it later as being useless for our times? Shouldn't an omniscient being such as god have foreseen this, and planned for it, giving us a bible that will survive all ages, retaining it's usefullness in it's entirety for all eternity?
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | ||
But Whong said the "bible is the word of God". Why did god include an entire section of his "word" knowing that we would discount it later as being useless for our times? Shouldn't an omniscient being such as god have foreseen this, and planned for it, giving us a bible that will survive all ages, retaining it's usefullness in it's entirety for all eternity? |
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm This seems to indicate that relatively few 'new' Muslims are converts (less than a million, globally, over a decade). I'm willing to grant that this may not be a totally unbiased source but until you can actually provide such a source then I don't see what the basis for your claim about "a large number of constant converts" actually is. |
I suppose the phrase "large number of constant converts" is too vague. What I meant was that there is a steady number of converts to Islam; there are enough of them to be a significant number.
Yes, less than a million converted over a decade. I'm not surprised; I wouldn't expect there to be millions upon millions of converts. Populations reproduce and that's how they stabilize and grew. The figure of less than a million does not suggest that birth rates are mostly responsible. All it says is that there were 1.2 billion Muslims in 2000, and over a decade and (less than) a million of them were converts.
I don't have enough time now but if i remember i will (inshallah) calculate an estimate percentage of converts of the total new population growth and post back.
On a side note, I have no idea how they managed to calculate the number of converts. (The figure is probably an underestimate considering that alot of people who convert to Islam don't tell the government or whatever. I.e. it's a personal thing known to family and friends.)
| Quote: | ||
|
In other words, some say they've fallen.
It's obvious they're falling. Lots of christians in the west seem to becoming agnostic/atheist/other. my argument was that a high birth rate in the non-western places would cancel out this decline in the west either to such an extent that the total population continues to grow or is stable. But since the total christian population declines/falls, the birth rates of the non-west don't have as a great an impact as you'd think. therefore, the impact of birth rates on muslim population is also smaller, and since there are less muslims worldwide to breed, it is smaller still. i'm not converts are the main reason for the growth; i'm saying there are enough converts so that it isn't only growing out of birth rates.
| Quote: |
|
What we see is exactly what one would predict - the number of Christians IS declining in the West (partly due to birthrates and partly due to the fact that religion, per se, is in decline in many western countries). |
Partly due to birth rates? Perhaps on a small scale, but Doubtful if you mean the decline to a large or moderate extent. People didn't stop having families of ten children a few years ago. Most of the impact of the decline in total christian popluation, because of the fall in birth rates in the west, occured decades ago.
| Quote: |
|
In Africa and other 'high birthrate' areas then Christianity is growing. The overall effect is a yearly increase which matches, or doesn't quite match, the global birth rate. Most sources put the annual growth of Christianity at between 1.9% and 2.4% whereas Islam grows at around 2.9%. The difference is almost entirely down to birth rates. |
I disagree. But I don't have any more time. Not much of a response lol.
hopefully i'll have time and remember tomorrow.
Enjoy your day. peace.
| loyal wrote: |
| In other words, some say they've fallen. |
| Quote: |
| It's obvious they're falling. Lots of christians in the west seem to becoming agnostic/atheist/other. my argument was that a high birth rate in the non-western places would cancel out this decline in the west either to such an extent that the total population continues to grow or is stable. |
| Quote: |
| But since the total christian population declines/falls, the birth rates of the non-west don't have as a great an impact as you'd think. therefore, the impact of birth rates on muslim population is also smaller, and since there are less muslims worldwide to breed, it is smaller still. i'm not converts are the main reason for the growth; i'm saying there are enough converts so that it isn't only growing out of birth rates. |
Islam is different - there is not a huge declining Muslim population in the west simply because there never was to start with. Most Muslim countries are in the 'developing' category and have increasing population numbers. That is not debatable, it is a simple fact. If you look at the largest Muslim countries - Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Sudan, Algeria and so on -you will see that they have annual population increases of between 1% and 3%. It follows that the current growth rate in Islam (2.9%) is MOSTLY down to population increase.
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
Islam is different - there is not a huge declining Muslim population in the west simply because there never was to start with. Most Muslim countries are in the 'developing' category and have increasing population numbers. That is not debatable, it is a simple fact. If you look at the largest Muslim countries - Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Sudan, Algeria and so on -you will see that they have annual population increases of between 1% and 3%. It follows that the current growth rate in Islam (2.9%) is MOSTLY down to population increase. |
I do agree with you that it's mostly down to population reproduction. But that's how population grows. You don't expect populations to be made up of 20% converts (just a theoretical example). My original point was simply that a significant number are converts. I say significant, but it's not that large in comparision to the total number of Muslims.
Anyway, so i hope people found the statistics i quoted, interesting.
Peace.
| loyal wrote: |
| Anyway, so i hope people found the statistics i quoted, interesting.Peace. |
| Quote: |
| The difficulty of gathering data
Statistics on religious adherence are difficult to gather and often contradictory; statistics for the change of religious adherence are even more so, requiring multiple surveys separated by many years using the same data gathering rules. This has only been achieved in rare cases, and then only for a particular country, such as the American Religious Identification Survey[1] in the USA, or census data from Australia[2] (which has included a voluntary religious question since 1911). Worldwide data is more difficult to gather than data on a particular country. Statistics for rates of conversion are the most difficult to gather and the least reliable: they are often distorted by social taboos such as the ban on apostasy in Islam, or the reporting of commitments where the individual does not persist. This means that a lot of the data on growth of religions is derived from birth and immigration rates. There are a large number of people who self-identify themselves as associated to a specific religion, but who are not religiously active. If, for example, asked to choose between Christianity and other religions they would say they were Christians; if asked to choose between Christianity, other religions and "Not religious", they would say "Not religious". This may make categorization difficult. In countries with mandatory religions, official statistics will only reflect the official position of the government. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest_growing_religion
| deanhills wrote: |
| It's obvious the Bible was written by human beings and as a reference book it has so much against it in terms of having been translated so many times and little bits and pieced added and subtracted here and there. I'm still blown away when it is seriously quoted in debate by both non-believers and believers. |
That's my point. The obviousness of the bible being written and edited by humans is overwhelming. Which makes me wonder why people see it as the infallable word of god, when it so plainly is not.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Anyone realize this discussion was sparked by a spambot? |
| Arnie wrote: | ||
|
I usually wait for someone else to make the first comment, as I'm not always sure whether it is really spam. This one turned into a really good discussion though.| loyal wrote: | ||
I do agree with you that it's mostly down to population reproduction. But that's how population grows. You don't expect populations to be made up of 20% converts (just a theoretical example). My original point was simply that a significant number are converts. I say significant, but it's not that large in comparision to the total number of Muslims. |
| Arnie wrote: | ||
|
Do you even know what trolling is? It seems like everytime anyone posts something you accuse them of trolling. Ah shit! You're going to accuse me now...
| Quote: |
| Do you even know what trolling is? |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Do you even know what trolling is? |
| Arnie wrote: | ||
|
I thought he would like this cute story, equally creative:"The Rise of the Trolls"
http://www.geocities.com/jemascola/ssotstory.htm
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | ||
|
Yes. That can be one form of trolling. Another form can be doing what Arnie does where you purposely piss people off (as he has done by constantly accusing every person - including me on several occasions - he/she comes across of trolling), creating a post that's completely off topic to encourage rage and emotional responses, or creating an off topic post to disrupt normal conversation.
This topic did none of that. Arnie does plenty of that by constantly accusing people of trolling even when they're clearly not trolling. That's why I asked him/her if he/she knew the definition of trolling... Anyways, here what wiki has to say on the subject of trolling:
| wikipedia wrote: |
| In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion. |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Yes. That can be one form of trolling. |
Your mothers' a ******.
Just kidding, but a good example nonetheless, eh?
So can we consider Arnie a success, as this thread has now been turned into a discussion on trolling, inspired by an alleged troll?
| Arnie wrote: |
| More like a trollbot, and a succesful one at that. |
Gotta love his avatar though.
| tinkagol wrote: |
| Gotta love his avatar though. |
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | ||
So can we consider Arnie a success, as this thread has now been turned into a discussion on trolling, inspired by an alleged troll?
|
So what the hell is his avatar?
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Your mothers' a ******. |
Not quite... Nice try. That's flaming. It's just being insulting. Trolling is more along the line of pissing people off without insulting them.... Like if there's a conversation going on about football (soccer) and I came along and said, "Soccer sucks. American football is way better." then that would be trolling...
This discussion has now gone so far off the original point that I am tempted to close the thread. If there is no meaningful contribution to the OP in the next few posts then I will do so.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | ||
That's my point. The obviousness of the bible being written and edited by humans is overwhelming. Which makes me wonder why people see it as the infallable word of god, when it so plainly is not. |
People who see the Bible as the infallible word of God believe that the authors were "divinely inspired" which makes it as good as being written by God himself. It's similar to the "free-will" argument (in my opinion). If God "divinely inspired" you and had you write precisely what he wanted, can you really claim authorship? Just like if God knows if you're going to Hell before you're born, is it your choice? Do you have free-will? Did the authors of the Bible have free will to write what they wanted? Does that give them the right to claim authorship or does that right belong to God alone?
People who view the Bible as the infallible word of God will make up things (well actually, a lot of times they won't make up these facts but they'll make them sound impressive when they aren't) that make the Bible sound credible. One thing that people in the church I grew up going to (unfortunately) wou;d say went something like this: The Bible was written on four continents by over forty different authors, in six different languages, over a span of 2000 years*, yet the Bible still remains completely consistent (LoL), fulfills prophecies (oh yeah... it's real impressive to write a fictional story that just happens to fulfill another fictional prophecy), and never contradicts itself (*dying from laughter*)!
*I just made up those statistics right here because I couldn't remember the actual amount of authors, continents, languages, and years (I didn't care enough to research any of it) but the point remains the same.
Well, though I might agree with much that you say, I think that making up 'stats' is undesirable. If you want to seriously criticise a point of view then you should prepare. The trouble with hyperbole is that opponents will fasten-onto such 'claims' and use it as a weapon to beat you with. Partial, inaccurate, and downright made-up quotes and statistics are a staple of certain religiously inspired proponents.*
I would wish for claims/assertions to have some supportable basis, whichever side they come from.
* This is not an unsupported claim and I will be happy to provide exemplars if required - I just tend to assume that it is a given.
I would wish for claims/assertions to have some supportable basis, whichever side they come from.
* This is not an unsupported claim and I will be happy to provide exemplars if required - I just tend to assume that it is a given.
While I agree that making up statistics isn't right, I do not believe that it really applies here. The point of my post wasn't to argue against a viewpoint or argue for my viewpoint. If I was trying to argue that Christianity is the greatest religion because 100,000 people a day, a number pulled right out of my ass, convert - then that would be dishonest and despicable.
That wasn't the point of my post, though. The first point of my post was to simply say why people willingly endorse a holy book that was undeniably written by man. I then went to simply explain the viewpoint of many Christians by giving an example of what I have heard Christians say. I am actually pretty sure about the four continents and over forty authors. I wasn't sure about the time line and languages.
But be honest... Would my point or argument had changed any at all if I had gone and done the research? I don't think so... Finding out about information I really don't care about would have done nothing to strengthen my point and would have just taken my time... Therefore, I just used an example and then warned people that the stats may be off so that they do not quote me... I think that it's the same as me using X and Y to replace the stats (which I often do if I'm trying to make a point where the actual numbers do not matter and I do not know them off the top of my head)... It's essentially the same.
So to sum that up... I do not think that I was being dishonest by guessing at the stats... I just think that the actual numbers didn't matter for my point so I was replacing them with guesses...
That wasn't the point of my post, though. The first point of my post was to simply say why people willingly endorse a holy book that was undeniably written by man. I then went to simply explain the viewpoint of many Christians by giving an example of what I have heard Christians say. I am actually pretty sure about the four continents and over forty authors. I wasn't sure about the time line and languages.
But be honest... Would my point or argument had changed any at all if I had gone and done the research? I don't think so... Finding out about information I really don't care about would have done nothing to strengthen my point and would have just taken my time... Therefore, I just used an example and then warned people that the stats may be off so that they do not quote me... I think that it's the same as me using X and Y to replace the stats (which I often do if I'm trying to make a point where the actual numbers do not matter and I do not know them off the top of my head)... It's essentially the same.
So to sum that up... I do not think that I was being dishonest by guessing at the stats... I just think that the actual numbers didn't matter for my point so I was replacing them with guesses...
Yeah, it doesn't matter here because everyone still in this thread now happily agrees with eachother anyway. The one* 'opponent' you may have had doesn't have time to keep replying to three or four* people who write huge posts. That's how to take care of forum discussions.
*I just made up those statistics right here because I couldn't remember the actual amount of 'opponents' and normal, rational people in this thread (I didn't care enough to research any of it) but the point remains the same.
I'm also totally convinced that Afaceinthematrix would be very understanding towards a believer or some other person he doesn't agree with, who uses falsified statistics just to prove a point that "everyone knows is right anyway". There is no reason to assume he would rant to them about scientifical correctness, religious deception and the like. Because that's how consistent he is.
*I just made up those statistics right here because I couldn't remember the actual amount of 'opponents' and normal, rational people in this thread (I didn't care enough to research any of it) but the point remains the same.
I'm also totally convinced that Afaceinthematrix would be very understanding towards a believer or some other person he doesn't agree with, who uses falsified statistics just to prove a point that "everyone knows is right anyway". There is no reason to assume he would rant to them about scientifical correctness, religious deception and the like. Because that's how consistent he is.
| Arnie wrote: |
| I'm also totally convinced that Afaceinthematrix would be very understanding towards a believer or some other person he doesn't agree with, who uses falsified statistics just to prove a point that "everyone knows is right anyway". There is no reason to assume he would rant to them about scientifical correctness, religious deception and the like. Because that's how consistent he is. |
Did you even read my last post? Of course I would be mad if someone falsified data to prove a point. That's dishonest. What you're failing to understand is that I did not falsify data to prove a point. There's a difference between some Creationist trying to prove that the Earth is young and so he/she lies and says that data shows that if you reverse the amount of salt going into the ocean every year the ocean would have been freshwater about 4500 years ago when God flooded the Earth and then someone else just talking about how the Bible is composed of many books and so saying that there are 70 books in the Bible when there's only 66. One is purposely manipulating and falsifying data in order to push their agenda while the other is simply making a point about how the Bible is composed of many books while not knowing the exact number.
People do things like this all the time. How many times do you hear that Jesus was born 2000 years ago? Even if he did exist, he probably wasn't born exactly 2000 years ago.
That's pretty much what I was doing. I wasn't pushing any agenda at all. I was just telling someone what people at the church I used to go to said. I couldn't remember the exact details so I guessed at them and then let people know that they may be wrong but that they used the correct values at church. The truth value of the numbers matters ZERO. I could easily have said "the Bible was written on X continents..." but I decided to guess four because I think that that's the correct number and then let you guys know that it may be off...
You mean there's a difference between "some Creationist" who is obviously wrong by default and you, who are obviously right by default. Because correct quotation doesn't matter when you're crusading against "some Creationist". However, when a person fails to quote the entirety of a huge TL;DR post made by you - then you feel compelled to write another huge TL;DR post about it, even though the context of the quote is obviously accessible to anyone with one mouseclick, as if you're in a conversation and it was said 2 minutes ago. In contrast to this church person, who we hardly have any context about, but he's a Christian so the strict correctness you previously demanded from others doesn't apply to you here.
| Arnie wrote: |
| You mean there's a difference between "some Creationist" who is obviously wrong by default and you, who are obviously right by default. Because correct quotation doesn't matter when you're crusading against "some Creationist". However, when a person fails to quote the entirety of a huge TL;DR post made by you - then you feel compelled to write another huge TL;DR post about it, even though the context of the quote is obviously accessible to anyone with one mouseclick, as if you're in a conversation and it was said 2 minutes ago. In contrast to this church person, who we hardly have any context about, but he's a Christian so the strict correctness you previously demanded from others doesn't apply to you here. |
| Arnie wrote: |
| You mean there's a difference between "some Creationist" who is obviously wrong by default and you, who are obviously right by default. Because correct quotation doesn't matter when you're crusading against "some Creationist". However, when a person fails to quote the entirety of a huge TL;DR post made by you - then you feel compelled to write another huge TL;DR post about it, even though the context of the quote is obviously accessible to anyone with one mouseclick, as if you're in a conversation and it was said 2 minutes ago. In contrast to this church person, who we hardly have any context about, but he's a Christian so the strict correctness you previously demanded from others doesn't apply to you here. |
What is your problem? The post you made a reference to was about you being a deceitful little liar by quote mining me. This post has absolutely nothing to do with being wrong or right. I am trying to tell you that making up stats to push your agenda is wrong. I am not doing that. I had absolutely no agenda in this. I didn't even express a damn opinion. All I was doing was recounting a story in which I could not remember all of the details. I was filling in the details with guesses that are pretty accurate and then warning people that they may be off...
P.S. Why do you keep bringing up the length of my posts? That has nothing to do with the argument. You're simply looking for things to attack.
Sorry if I made you feel offended, that was really not my intention. Congratulations on your first short post by the way.
So basically you're saying that the story in your story-telling post had no agenda, no opinion, no message behind it or any other value or reason for you to share it other than that you enjoy sharing stories?
So basically you're saying that the story in your story-telling post had no agenda, no opinion, no message behind it or any other value or reason for you to share it other than that you enjoy sharing stories?
| Arnie wrote: |
| Sorry if I made you feel offended, that was really not my intention. Congratulations on your first short post by the way.
So basically you're saying that the story in your story-telling post had no agenda, no opinion, no message behind it or any other value or reason for you to share it other than that you enjoy sharing stories? |
What the Hell? Just because I don't have an agenda doesn't mean that I do not have a point. Somebody asked a question. I was merely answering their question and providing an example to make the answer more clear.
Actually, all you were doing was "recounting a story". You "didn't even express a damn opinion".
Or if you were making a point: is it wrong to make up stats to prove a point?
Or if you were making a point: is it wrong to make up stats to prove a point?
| Whong wrote: | ||
The mass media only reports what happens to muslims and displays the US and Israel as the ones causing trouble. Israel has for long tried to be peaceful, even at her own expence, but that never gets reported. They only say, Israel did this again and so and so many people died. Israel has the right to the land of Gaza which God gave to them as an everlasting inheritance as the Bible clearly states. The Bible was written much before the Koran, and anyway the Koran has taken various Biblical stories and twisted them to fit Mohammed's ideology. Btw, Mohammed was a Christian who then turned away from it and founded his own religion, today known as Islam. Israel has suffered much more from the palestines than vice versa. And the president of Iran has said many times that he wants to wipe out Israel from the world. No one says anything to that sort of a comment, but when Israel says or does something everybody reacts to it. Antisemitism is rising once again and will probably rise for the last time in this millenium. Something more worse than Hitler is ahead... LORD, have mercy on your people Israel. |
Firstly, the American media (which happens to be the world media: CNN, CBS, ABC, Faux News, NY Times) is biased towards the american people, in the same way arab media (al jazeera, al quds) would biased towards the arab people. Most, if not all American media are biased in favour of Israel. See [url="Rememberthesechildren.org"]Remember these children[/url] for examples.
Israel has NO RIGHT TO Gaza for Israel has NO RIGHT TO EXIST!!! FACT! PERIOD! Israel was created out of anti-semitism and pro-zionism that existed in the West, in order to rid the Jews from Europe and establish them in a far away land (may have even been uganda). But in doing so, it violated the balfour agreement, and led to the holocaust of the Palestinian people who have been FORCED out of homes they lived for hundreds of years. The United Nations, an international body, acted AGAINST international law but in the interests of Uncle Sam, John Bull and the Zionists ( not the jews - certainly not the jews of Jersualem in 1947 for instance) in creating Israel. On this reason, Israel has no right to exist - and I challenge anyone who states Israel has a right to exist on Palestinian land.
Regarding God *supposedly* gave land to Jews or whatever - who cares? I can write Israel belongs to me, but does it mean anything? hell no, in this world nothing is given on a plate. Israel is probably the only nation in the world that was.
And FYI: The Bible condemned Jews into exile. They were FORBIDDEN in having a state.
And Jews living under Muslim rule in Palestine have been the best treatment Jews have had than any other place in the world in them 1000 years.
Muhammad was not a Christian. He belonged to teh Quraysh tribe, or which are pagans but no evidence whatsoever suggests that Muhammad participated in this activieies as is with the case of Hadrat Umar ibn Khattab for instance.
And wasen't Jesus a Jew?
You also said:"And the president of Iran has said many times that he wants to wipe out Israel from the world. "
^^ that is the biggest propoganda the West have produced to lead us into another ILLEGAL and UNJUST war.
Can you cite the original farsi statement made by Ahmedinejad regarding this.
I will give it. He said:
"The imam [khomeini] said that the regime occupying jerusalem must vanish with the page of time."
Regarding the above statement, I couldn't agree more for Nelson Mandela said, "Our freedoms are incpomplete without the freedoms of the Palestinian people" - and the regime occupying Israel is as much (or worse) apertheid that that which occupied South Africa in 1990s.
| Arnie wrote: |
| Actually, all you were doing was "recounting a story". You "didn't even express a damn opinion".
Or if you were making a point: is it wrong to make up stats to prove a point? |
Not necessarily. It's wrong to make up stats to push your agenda (as I keep saying). But it's not necessarily wrong to make up stats it prove a point. If a child asks how old the Earth is and you're unsure of the current estimate of 4.55 billion years and you don't have quick access to sources and you just answer "5 billion years," then I do not believe that it is wrong. You're still getting the point across to the child that the Earth is old and a child won't care about the .45 billion years difference.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Firstly, the American media (which happens to be the world media: CNN, CBS, ABC, Faux News, NY Times) is biased towards the american people, in the same way arab media (al jazeera, al quds) would biased towards the arab people. Most, if not all American media are biased in favour of Israel. See [url="Rememberthesechildren.org"]Remember these children[/url] for examples. |
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
You are comparing two different things here.
In my statement, I compared another nation over its home nation.
The media in the US will be supportive of the US against another nation, in the same way a media in the arab world would be supportive of the arab nations over other nations.
Yes the media in the US is critical of their govt on a domestic scale. But I am talking about when you compare your nation, to another nation. SIgns of nationalism within all media are obvious.
For instance,, if 100 Americans died in Iraq tomorrow, and 100 Arabs died in Iraq, whose blood has more value in the eyes of American media?
If 100 Israelis died in Israel, and 100 Palestinians died in Palestine, whose blood has more value in the American media?
If you cannot find an answer to this: here is one. After 911, 3000 Innocent Americans laid dead. It got headline pictures in almost all Western media and in our schools we had a minute silence for the Americans that died - despite living thousands of miles away. Now get this: 3000 innocent Afghans died as a direct result of American aggression 3 months after the American bombardment of their country.. Let alone of shedding tears and holding even a second silence, did it ever once receive a headline news with its own picture and caption on the front of any single major western newspaper?
This is the bias that I speak about - that the death of Israelis or Americans carry more weight than the deaths of Palestinians or Arabs.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| This is the bias that I speak about - that the death of Israelis or Americans carry more weight than the deaths of Palestinians or Arabs. |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | ||
Not necessarily. It's wrong to make up stats to push your agenda (as I keep saying). But it's not necessarily wrong to make up stats it prove a point. If a child asks how old the Earth is and you're unsure of the current estimate of 4.55 billion years and you don't have quick access to sources and you just answer "5 billion years," then I do not believe that it is wrong. You're still getting the point across to the child that the Earth is old and a child won't care about the .45 billion years difference. |
Of course there is a way to denote uncertainties. Didn't I do that? Didn't I specifically say that I wasn't certain about the stats but that they were probably accurate? So I do not know what your problem is.
I'm probably accurate (not sure), but <insert anything convenient here>.
| Arnie wrote: |
| I'm probably accurate (not sure), but <insert anything convenient here>. |
I like your new avatar. Expression on the guy's face is precious!| Arnie wrote: |
| I'm probably accurate (not sure), but <insert anything convenient here>. |
Quit being such a d****! I didn't insert "anything convenient here" and you know it. You're just trying to cause trouble. I'm just going not going to respond to you anymore because you're being an ****** and you know it. I didn't insert "anything convenient here" because I inserted relatively accurate data because THE NUMBERS DO NOT MATTER! That had absolutely nothing to do with the point at all.
Maybe because of all this anti Islam that is slapped across the media, more people that are willing to believe in a God are finding out more about Islam as they want to know more about this "evil" religion.
With the hate, it must have sparked alot of interest too. That and Christianity has seen lots of secularization in the recent decades which Islam hasn't seen so far. Thus meaning it is still gathering numbers in force as Christianity is slowing down.
With the hate, it must have sparked alot of interest too. That and Christianity has seen lots of secularization in the recent decades which Islam hasn't seen so far. Thus meaning it is still gathering numbers in force as Christianity is slowing down.
| Moshkin_Khan wrote: |
| Maybe because of all this anti Islam that is slapped across the media, more people that are willing to believe in a God are finding out more about Islam as they want to know more about this "evil" religion.
With the hate, it must have sparked alot of interest too. That and Christianity has seen lots of secularization in the recent decades which Islam hasn't seen so far. Thus meaning it is still gathering numbers in force as Christianity is slowing down. |
I think it is also important to remember that in the muslim world where Christianity is totally banned muslims are coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Even very religious muslims and imamies are having revelations of Jesus and come to faith. The news media never reports about these things because it can't risk offending the Arabs and muslims since they hold the oil industry.
| Whong wrote: |
| I think it is also important to remember that in the muslim world where Christianity is totally banned muslims are coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Even very religious muslims and imamies are having revelations of Jesus and come to faith. The news media never reports about these things because it can't risk offending the Arabs and muslims since they hold the oil industry. |
Another thing; "Muslims" don't "hold the oil industry", governments do. The control of oil based wealth transcends any religion. It is, in fact, it's own religion of monetarism. If it really was about religion, they wouldn't be selling oil to "heathen" countries, they would be holding it hostage and selling it only to other Islamic nations. Money and the control of resources is the name of the game.
| Whong wrote: |
| I think it is also important to remember that in the muslim world where Christianity is totally banned muslims are coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Even very religious muslims and imamies are having revelations of Jesus and come to faith. The news media never reports about these things because it can't risk offending the Arabs and muslims since they hold the oil industry. |
| Whong wrote: |
| I think it is also important to remember that in the muslim world where Christianity is totally banned muslims are coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Even very religious muslims and imamies are having revelations of Jesus and come to faith. The news media never reports about these things because it can't risk offending the Arabs and muslims since they hold the oil industry. |
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
are you surprised that Christianity is banned in Muslim countries (that's true some Muslim nations have a strict no other religion rules especially when you convert) or are you surprised about something else....like someone converting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_converted_to_Christianity
| Bannik wrote: | ||||
are you surprised that Christianity is banned in Muslim countries (that's true some Muslim nations have a strict no other religion rules especially when you convert) or are you surprised about something else....like someone converting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_converted_to_Christianity |
Peace. I haven't checked this thread/topic for a while. I just thought I'd respond to whong's post.
???
Allow me to correct you.
Christianity is not "totally banned" in the Middle East (or "muslim world" as you have named it). In-fact, there are about 25 million or more Arab Christians living in the West who are descended from centuries of Christians (which is a slap in the face to the idea that the Muslims went around forcing them to convert with their swords, since otherwise their forefathers wouldn't be Christian). These Christians live perfectly well in some countries, and less well in others. From my visit to Jordan in 2007, I got the impression the Christians and Muslims got on fine and left each other alone. There were plenty of churches (which were far more beautiful than the few churches i've seen in England). Until the war (in which everyone is fighting each other), Christians lived fine in Iraq.
Some Arab countries have banned proselytizing away from Islam (proselytizing means converting, right?). Saudi Arabia is an obvious example. Although I've heard faint rumours they mistreat anyone who disagrees with their intolerant and violent teachings, so even some Muslims don't get fairly treated there.
There aren't alot of Muslims converting to Christianity. I've yet hear through the internet or in real life of a practicing and knowledgeable Muslim converting away from Islam to Christianity; I've heard of a total of three non-practicing and ignorant Muslims converting to Christianity. (Although there are quite a few Muslims becoming non-practicing, and as some of these move to the West many of their children loose their religion entirely).
Have a nice day.
| Whong wrote: |
| I think it is also important to remember that in the muslim world where Christianity is totally banned muslims are coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Even very religious muslims and imamies are having revelations of Jesus and come to faith. The news media never reports about these things because it can't risk offending the Arabs and muslims since they hold the oil industry. |
???
Allow me to correct you.
Christianity is not "totally banned" in the Middle East (or "muslim world" as you have named it). In-fact, there are about 25 million or more Arab Christians living in the West who are descended from centuries of Christians (which is a slap in the face to the idea that the Muslims went around forcing them to convert with their swords, since otherwise their forefathers wouldn't be Christian). These Christians live perfectly well in some countries, and less well in others. From my visit to Jordan in 2007, I got the impression the Christians and Muslims got on fine and left each other alone. There were plenty of churches (which were far more beautiful than the few churches i've seen in England). Until the war (in which everyone is fighting each other), Christians lived fine in Iraq.
Some Arab countries have banned proselytizing away from Islam (proselytizing means converting, right?). Saudi Arabia is an obvious example. Although I've heard faint rumours they mistreat anyone who disagrees with their intolerant and violent teachings, so even some Muslims don't get fairly treated there.
There aren't alot of Muslims converting to Christianity. I've yet hear through the internet or in real life of a practicing and knowledgeable Muslim converting away from Islam to Christianity; I've heard of a total of three non-practicing and ignorant Muslims converting to Christianity. (Although there are quite a few Muslims becoming non-practicing, and as some of these move to the West many of their children loose their religion entirely).
Have a nice day.
| loyal wrote: |
| I've heard of a total of three non-practicing and ignorant Muslims converting to Christianity. (Although there are quite a few Muslims becoming non-practicing, and as some of these move to the West many of their children loose their religion entirely) |
Why are they ignorant? Because they believe in the contents of a non-credible book twice in a row (making the same mistake twice)? Or because they've stopped believing in the non-credible book that you believe in?
| Quote: |
| Why? Because A? Or because B? |
| Hogwarts wrote: |
| Why are they ignorant? |
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | ||
|
has been done before by many other cultures....
| Arnie wrote: | ||
|
| loyal wrote: |
| I've heard of a total of three non-practicing and ignorant Muslims converting to Christianity. (Although there are quite a few Muslims becoming non-practicing, and as some of these move to the West many of their children loose their religion entirely) |
| Bannik wrote: |
| has been done before by many other cultures.... |
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | ||
|
| deanhills wrote: |
| "Absurd" is a matter of opinion. "Absurd" is usually in the eye of the beholder. |
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | ||
|
| deanhills wrote: |
| I like that definition. Changes it for me, probably a good one to use in this context. |
IMDB sums up "Brazil" like this: "A bureaucrat in a retro-future world tries to correct an administrative error and himself becomes an enemy of the state." But if you only focus on weird crap that goes on; all the flying people, dream sequences, stretched faces, and an odd appearance from Robert DeNiro... then you miss the love story.
Same goes for religion. We can argue about the absurdity of a worldwide deluge or God burning two cities or a woman being turned into a pillar of salt... it all sounds ridiculous, and we can debate whether or not it really happened.
But then we just end up missing the love story.
| Hogwarts wrote: | ||
Why are they ignorant? Because they believe in the contents of a non-credible book twice in a row (making the same mistake twice)? Or because they've stopped believing in the non-credible book that you believe in? |
? No. That's not the meaning of ignorant I meant.
I meant the meaning of ignorant as "knowing little or nothing". I meant that these three Muslims can very loosely be called Muslims. Simply because they knew very little about their religion, and they practiced very little of their religion (and they practiced that little more out of cultural than out of belief).
As deanhills explained:
| deanhills wrote: |
|
I have a feeling however that the "ignorant" was used more along the lines of Muslims that were not really that serious about their religion, along the lines of praying 5 times a day, and following strict Muslim principles. They were easy going non-devout Muslims, not knowing that much about their religion. |
Thanks, that's what I meant.
Peace.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | ||
IMDB sums up "Brazil" like this: "A bureaucrat in a retro-future world tries to correct an administrative error and himself becomes an enemy of the state." But if you only focus on weird crap that goes on; all the flying people, dream sequences, stretched faces, and an odd appearance from Robert DeNiro... then you miss the love story. Same goes for religion. We can argue about the absurdity of a worldwide deluge or God burning two cities or a woman being turned into a pillar of salt... it all sounds ridiculous, and we can debate whether or not it really happened. But then we just end up missing the love story. |
But yes, you are right, sometimes we get so carried away with the arguments, we miss the point completely. I'm a complete pushover for nice stories. Particularly history, which in effect really is a collection of stories.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Well said! I like the story about the pillar of salt. I'm terrible for always turning around and looking behind me ... |
| deanhills wrote: |
| But yes, you are right, sometimes we get so carried away with the arguments, we miss the point completely. I'm a complete pushover for nice stories. Particularly history, which in effect really is a collection of stories. |
Related topics
 |