Originally posted by Stigma
These are some very good points and I share (to a degree) your postion. 👆In the light of your post, the argument I've heard a numer of times and I think is very reasonable and is that while Christianity had its Reformation a few centuries ago that purrified it of the most radical aspects (kinda like catharsis after 16th and 17th century religious wars in Europe, Lutheranism, etc.), Islam remains in a dire need of reformation nowadays.
Originally posted by Surtur
Islam isn't evil, but a lot of evil done in the world today is done in the name of Islam. Is that a fair thing to say?
All evil is done in the name of something. Rather than attacking the name, let's just single out the evil and attack that. Hell, the Refugee Ban essentially means those refugees get slaughtered by ISIS, so that's evil done in the name of national security. Like I said, let's just attack the evil directly.
Originally posted by Kurk
ex-Muslim here who believes all religions are flawed in some way or another and honestly have no purpose in the 21st century other than give insecure people an excuse to be moral. How many people are there alive who worship the Aztec or Mesopotamian Sun gods? Not many; why? Because it's unreasonable to rip out a persons heart to save them. More and more with Christianity, Islam, etc. people are picking and choosing which parts of their traditional teachings to ignore based on what they think is reasonable. So in the end, it is subjective to other environmental conditions not just what is written in a thousand year old book. By definition all interpretations are valid, however some are more reasonable than others. The cultural and environmental factors determine what is reasonable. Stoning women to death might be unthinkable in a developed western country while it is completely acceptable in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Female genital mutilation is widespread through parts of Africa; both Christian and Muslim countries alike. There are many other factors to account for.
Not all religions. Gathic Zoroastrianism is essentially the perfect monotheistic religion (and the oldest). It is very heavily focused on human rights and doesn't advocate any kind of intolerance or ignorance. Shame it got replaced by Islam.
Originally posted by Lestov16
All evil is done in the name of something. Rather than attacking the name, let's just single out the evil and attack that. Hell, the Refugee Ban essentially means those refugees get slaughtered by ISIS, so that's evil done in the name of national security. Like I said, let's just attack the evil directly.
For example, I've seen articles claiming that up to 80 per cent of migrants are not even refugees, because they come from countries that have no war, or even ISIS.
Sure, they may come from some (PC MODE OFF) sh1tholes but that does not mean Europe is obligated to host them.
On the other hand, ISIS claims, and even some European officials confirm, (all in the European Migration thread) that ISIS puts terrorists within the masses that come to Europe.
On the other, other hand, some genuine refugees are in danger of getting killed when they go back or even getting recruited and brainwashed by ISIS.
Like I said, it's a tough call.
It's like Western countries are a guy that has to decide if he get his hand chopped off or his two legs cut off. Both options suck, but we all know what we'd choose if we were in such a position.
Originally posted by Stigma
TBH the problem is that the situation is far too complicated now and the solution seems to be more of a lose-lose rather than win-win scenario.For example, I've seen articles claiming that up to 80 per cent of migrants are not even refugees, because they come from countries that have no war, or even ISIS.
Well that really sucks then, because Trump said he was only banning migrants from terrorist states, so those 80% are going to get let in.
However, as I've stated before, the U.S. refugee vetting process is leagues above any in Europe, so we don't have to worry like they do.
And they can't be recruited by ISIS. The entire reason they left is because they are Shiites, which to ISIS is like Tutsis to a Hutu.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Well that really sucks then, because Trump said he was only banning migrants from terrorist states, so those 80% are going to get let in.
Originally posted by Lestov16
However, as I've stated before, the U.S. refugee vetting process is leagues above any in Europe, so we don't have to worry like they do.
Funny thing. When I was applying for the US visa one of the questions was "are you a terrorist?" That is some tight security control. 🙄
Originally posted by Lestov16
And they can't be recruited by ISIS. The entire reason they left is because they are Shiites, which to ISIS is like Tutsis to a Hutu.
Well I can only speak about the refugees as far as they pertain to the U.S.. I have no idea how to solve the clusterphuck that is the Euporean Refugee Crisis.
Like I said, the U.S. has a vetting system that is far better than Europe's, so we don't have attacks from terrorists posed as refugees like European countries do. That's why we in the US shouldn't be trying to ban them.
Originally posted by Kurk
No it's not. Zoroastrianism was the first religion to differentiate between a "good" and "bad" entity. Some consider it to be the roots of monotheistic religion
Can you provide a link that puts Zoroastrianism before Judaism because from the very few articles that exist, they put Judaism before Zoroastrianism, which originated during the destruction of the First Temple (I'm Jewish so I'm fairly certain but who knows).
thumb up at the ownage
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Can you provide a link that puts Zoroastrianism before Judaism?Funny how everytime you get owned, I'm on ignore. But when there's the slightest possibility of a mistake, you see everything 😂
I got a 5 on the AP World History Exam. You can trust me 🙂
Originally posted by Kurk
http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htmI got a 5 on the AP World History Exam. You can trust me 🙂
The religion was founded by Zarathushtra in Persia -- modern-day Iran. It may have been the world's first monotheistic faith
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15283-zoroastrianism
All investigators, however, are agreed that his teachings were generally in force throughout Iran before the time of the Jewish Captivity.
Originally posted by Kurk
Don't you think information from jewishencylopedia might be a little biased? Anyway, that is what it says in my textbook; it's what my prof said too. Some historians might disagree but I'll leave the argument making to them.
I quoted exactly what it said. It conceded that Zoroastrianism existed probably before Jewish captivity in Persia but doesn't specify. Every other link says the same thing as far as Persian captivity. I'm not sure what your textbook says or how it can possibly claim that but textbooks are allowed to be wrong or incomplete. I remember when Pluto was still a planet.
Here's another one:
http://www.pyracantha.com/Z/zjc3.html
The earliest mention is pretty much the 6th century BC, which is much later than the existence of Judaism. It's not my intention to paint Judaism as the first religion, I'm just going by what I see, and shutting brainless dolts like Lestov up (again) is merely an extra prize.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-spirituality/2365913-came-first-judaism-zoroastrianism.html
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-637979.html
Since Zoroastrianism wasn't monotheistic (ahura mazda and ahiriman are the principle deities) and ancient judaism was henotheistic.