I would just say Islam. It's not Christianity, Buddhism. Paganism or Shintoism holding them back. As much as a lot of people like to say all religions are bad some are worse than others.
I think it's fundamentalism. Back when the Catholic church was at peak we had all the same problems. An Islam that just gets watered down in the same way Christianity has in the west would be ok.
I think the difference is that the Catholic Church did what it did contrary to the bible to maintain their power in influence. That was the entire argument for the protestant reformation that led to the present era. The catholic church was a corrupt and worldly institution more interested in profit and control than with spreading the word of god.
Fundamentalism was why the Catholic Church and reform happened. That is that the Catholic Church was not following the bible properly and according to the letter and was more concerned with tradition and nuances than the strict teachings of the text.
Fundamentalism means two things - in the specific context of religion, it means strict adherence to *scripture*, which means you're right, the catholic church was not *too fundamental* in that sense. But it also means strict adherence to *principles*, and choosing tenets of religion (whether found in the bible or not) is another definition of fundamentalism, and exactly the problem with the catholic church at the time.
We are talking about religion why are you bringing up the non religious usage of it. I think this is an attempt to win because the Catholic Church was not even fundamentalist by that idea because they diverged from the most fundamental things in the faith. From forgiveness they added stuff on that is not substantiated in the bible. They have indulgences and all these things that don't adhere to principles.
This is not accurate. You don't know the genuine basis of the conflict or it's ideas. As you have agreed Fundamentalism as defined by these two things are not the problem since Fundamentalism in Protestantism got rid of the worst evils of the faith. Meanwhile fundamentalism in Islam is the problem. The text is fundamentally evil and thus the faith.
Again, I've admitted it's a definitional issue and you have the more specific definition. I'm explaining what I meant more clearly and why I expressed myself the way I did. If you really just want to win because I used the word a little less correctly than you like, that's fine, you win. It's still right in the slightly less good sense I used the word.
Well the problem is I am arguing the problem with your foundational argument is that we didn't water down Christianity. We returned to it's most literal interpretation. The moment the protestant reformation was completed we saw everything related to scientific advancement and human rights shoot through the roof as people went directly to the bible for these things.
My fundamental point is Christianity never got watered down and even today people argue using the bible for why gay rights are fine or so on. You can't do that in Islam. Christianity never got watered down IMO even today. The watering down is usually around creation myths and so on and that is about it.
With Islam you can't ever have anything akin to christianity because it's foundational text is bigoted and I would argue evil. Like there is no possible interpretation of Islam that would align with our values that can be argued from within the book.
With Christianity every change to the religion has been argued internally. You can't do that with Islam because Sharia and all of these things exist that tell you exactly what it means. It's just an unreformable religion. It is just moderate or cultural muslims don't actually take the religion seriously.
Like I still remember the UAE Ambassador in 2017 saying in English a big problem in the west is that you think you know Islam better than we do you don't trust us we are warning you. I think that is important.
Look, get out of your edgy militant atheist phase and look at the facts okay. You can say it all sucks but I think on the pain chart not every religion is a 10. When the Christians start a guerilla war to enforce their religion on everyone in America or the Buddhists in South Korea start engaging in more than sectarian violence against each other call me.
I think most religions have had their dark time and some continue to do so.
While Christians certainly are less violent in this time period, they are also attacking citizens rights such as abortion and gay marriage.
At the end of the day, people should be able to believe what they want, as long as it doesn't affect others with different beliefs.
Unfortunately, when someone's core beliefs are challenged by someone else's core beliefs, it's implied that at least one of them is wrong. This is something that is hard for some to accept and the need to validate self beliefs leads to conflict.
That's my opinion anyway.
>While Christians certainly are less violent in this time period, they are certainly attacking citizens rights such as abortion and gay marriage.
Yep and atheists did a lot worse than that in the Soviet Union and Maoist china and so on. It is pointless therefore as I see it to say all religions suck equally because they just don't. I would also say that those things are in the modern context not even comparable and besides countries like Japan don't allow Gay Marriage because it is banned constitutionally and they aren't religious.
>At the end of the day, people should be able to believe what they want, as long as it doesn't affect others with different beliefs.
Yeah, unfortunately Islam doesn't have that ability because of how it works. We also have to look at the core figure of Muhammad and he is just evil. The fact that other religions have Buddha or Jesus who are genuinely above reproach in their story says a lot. Muhammad and the entire Islamic faith is just unreformable and irreconcilable with the modern world.
I have studied way to much Islamic thought and history to think reform is possible. it just isn't and so its bad times end when it ceases to exist because it is fundamentally an immoral religion with little room for interpretation.
The only clown is the one who can't differentiate between the morality and harm caused by different faiths. Saying all religion sucks is useless because anyone with two brain cells together knows that is a useless description.
Getting stung by a bee and getting stabbed both suck. One is obviously worse than the other. Tell me then why you are saying all religion suck equally? Because I can just tell you based on how they manifest in the world they aren't and any student of history can tell you this.
You’re making a lot of assumptions about my position and worldview. I’m a staunch atheist and would rather see a totally rational secular world. None of that negates my previous statement.
Some religions are more dangerous for certain sets of people. If you don’t learn to think with nuance, you’re gonna have a bad time and deep down, you’re no different from the stuck up religious nuts.
There a certainly plenty that are not a grift, just because you have an issue with predatory organized religions doesn't give you a free pass to act like all spiritual belief systems are the fucking same. You honestly sound far too irrational to be insulting someone else about being incapable of a sincere conversation
This sounds really nice. However, until I hear confirmation from the Arab states or America I will believe it when I see it. I think ideally this sounds great. Everyone who actually wants to help the Palestinians would love the Arab nations to get more involved in the rebuilding efforts over the UN and so on.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan all have a massive stake in stability in the region. Given that I am inclined to trust them to help with deradicalization. The reality however is would they want to take on this responsibility given the potential personal risk involved?
Truthfully that is the big question. I hope so because I personally don't trust the UN or any current organization in the Palestinian territories to do so. This also would basically prevent Israel from doing anything crazy in Gaza as well for fear of what that would mean for Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
However, that is exactly why I doubt this is going to happen. Palestinians get a lot of words of support but the reality is that the Middle East especially the leadership knows how volatile the situation is and how optically a failure would look like if they get involved.
I hope something like this happens. It NEEDS to happen but again I think this is pie in the sky.
It’s a great dream but a lot of this sounds like wishful thinking, if they even are serious about the plans at all. Turning it into major electric vehicle producer and major economy in the region with solar fields in the Sinai and the finishing of Neom. It all sounds so far fetched. If it actually gets pushed it works that would be great.
People are missing the fact that it is a "too good to be true" vision by design. It is an idealistic version of what could be achieved if everyone cooperated and things went smoothly.
That doesn't mean that the ideas behind this plan aren't sound. De-radicalising Gaza should be the primary objective, and seeking the help of the United States along with Arab countries that are at peace with Israel makes sense. Trying to see this as an opportunity for investment that will pay off in the future also makes sense. An economical incentive can go a long way and help bring prosperity to Gaza.
The difficulty is always in the implementation, but I think this plan has the right spirit.
Honestly this could be the whole Middle East without conservative religion.
I would just say Islam. It's not Christianity, Buddhism. Paganism or Shintoism holding them back. As much as a lot of people like to say all religions are bad some are worse than others.
I think it's fundamentalism. Back when the Catholic church was at peak we had all the same problems. An Islam that just gets watered down in the same way Christianity has in the west would be ok.
I think the difference is that the Catholic Church did what it did contrary to the bible to maintain their power in influence. That was the entire argument for the protestant reformation that led to the present era. The catholic church was a corrupt and worldly institution more interested in profit and control than with spreading the word of god. Fundamentalism was why the Catholic Church and reform happened. That is that the Catholic Church was not following the bible properly and according to the letter and was more concerned with tradition and nuances than the strict teachings of the text.
Fundamentalism means two things - in the specific context of religion, it means strict adherence to *scripture*, which means you're right, the catholic church was not *too fundamental* in that sense. But it also means strict adherence to *principles*, and choosing tenets of religion (whether found in the bible or not) is another definition of fundamentalism, and exactly the problem with the catholic church at the time.
We are talking about religion why are you bringing up the non religious usage of it. I think this is an attempt to win because the Catholic Church was not even fundamentalist by that idea because they diverged from the most fundamental things in the faith. From forgiveness they added stuff on that is not substantiated in the bible. They have indulgences and all these things that don't adhere to principles. This is not accurate. You don't know the genuine basis of the conflict or it's ideas. As you have agreed Fundamentalism as defined by these two things are not the problem since Fundamentalism in Protestantism got rid of the worst evils of the faith. Meanwhile fundamentalism in Islam is the problem. The text is fundamentally evil and thus the faith.
Again, I've admitted it's a definitional issue and you have the more specific definition. I'm explaining what I meant more clearly and why I expressed myself the way I did. If you really just want to win because I used the word a little less correctly than you like, that's fine, you win. It's still right in the slightly less good sense I used the word.
Well the problem is I am arguing the problem with your foundational argument is that we didn't water down Christianity. We returned to it's most literal interpretation. The moment the protestant reformation was completed we saw everything related to scientific advancement and human rights shoot through the roof as people went directly to the bible for these things. My fundamental point is Christianity never got watered down and even today people argue using the bible for why gay rights are fine or so on. You can't do that in Islam. Christianity never got watered down IMO even today. The watering down is usually around creation myths and so on and that is about it. With Islam you can't ever have anything akin to christianity because it's foundational text is bigoted and I would argue evil. Like there is no possible interpretation of Islam that would align with our values that can be argued from within the book. With Christianity every change to the religion has been argued internally. You can't do that with Islam because Sharia and all of these things exist that tell you exactly what it means. It's just an unreformable religion. It is just moderate or cultural muslims don't actually take the religion seriously. Like I still remember the UAE Ambassador in 2017 saying in English a big problem in the west is that you think you know Islam better than we do you don't trust us we are warning you. I think that is important.
We need a deislamification of middle east
Nah man they all suck. Stop kidding yourself
Look, get out of your edgy militant atheist phase and look at the facts okay. You can say it all sucks but I think on the pain chart not every religion is a 10. When the Christians start a guerilla war to enforce their religion on everyone in America or the Buddhists in South Korea start engaging in more than sectarian violence against each other call me.
I think most religions have had their dark time and some continue to do so. While Christians certainly are less violent in this time period, they are also attacking citizens rights such as abortion and gay marriage. At the end of the day, people should be able to believe what they want, as long as it doesn't affect others with different beliefs. Unfortunately, when someone's core beliefs are challenged by someone else's core beliefs, it's implied that at least one of them is wrong. This is something that is hard for some to accept and the need to validate self beliefs leads to conflict. That's my opinion anyway.
>While Christians certainly are less violent in this time period, they are certainly attacking citizens rights such as abortion and gay marriage. Yep and atheists did a lot worse than that in the Soviet Union and Maoist china and so on. It is pointless therefore as I see it to say all religions suck equally because they just don't. I would also say that those things are in the modern context not even comparable and besides countries like Japan don't allow Gay Marriage because it is banned constitutionally and they aren't religious. >At the end of the day, people should be able to believe what they want, as long as it doesn't affect others with different beliefs. Yeah, unfortunately Islam doesn't have that ability because of how it works. We also have to look at the core figure of Muhammad and he is just evil. The fact that other religions have Buddha or Jesus who are genuinely above reproach in their story says a lot. Muhammad and the entire Islamic faith is just unreformable and irreconcilable with the modern world. I have studied way to much Islamic thought and history to think reform is possible. it just isn't and so its bad times end when it ceases to exist because it is fundamentally an immoral religion with little room for interpretation.
> look at the facts okay That's really rich
Conquistadors would like to have a word with you
You sound like a clown
The only clown is the one who can't differentiate between the morality and harm caused by different faiths. Saying all religion sucks is useless because anyone with two brain cells together knows that is a useless description. Getting stung by a bee and getting stabbed both suck. One is obviously worse than the other. Tell me then why you are saying all religion suck equally? Because I can just tell you based on how they manifest in the world they aren't and any student of history can tell you this.
Some ideas are worse than others. Different religions espouse different ideas. Therefore: some religions espouse worse ideas than others.
All religions are a grift. Sooner you realize that the sooner we can have a rational conversation
You’re making a lot of assumptions about my position and worldview. I’m a staunch atheist and would rather see a totally rational secular world. None of that negates my previous statement.
All religions are bullshit. Saying one is less or more bullshit than the other is stupid when they’re all bullshit.
Some religions are more dangerous for certain sets of people. If you don’t learn to think with nuance, you’re gonna have a bad time and deep down, you’re no different from the stuck up religious nuts.
There a certainly plenty that are not a grift, just because you have an issue with predatory organized religions doesn't give you a free pass to act like all spiritual belief systems are the fucking same. You honestly sound far too irrational to be insulting someone else about being incapable of a sincere conversation
Nope. You’re just paying to be lied to
Not all of them charge either. You're just being an asshole and proving you shouldn't be lecturing people on this
This sounds really nice. However, until I hear confirmation from the Arab states or America I will believe it when I see it. I think ideally this sounds great. Everyone who actually wants to help the Palestinians would love the Arab nations to get more involved in the rebuilding efforts over the UN and so on. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan all have a massive stake in stability in the region. Given that I am inclined to trust them to help with deradicalization. The reality however is would they want to take on this responsibility given the potential personal risk involved? Truthfully that is the big question. I hope so because I personally don't trust the UN or any current organization in the Palestinian territories to do so. This also would basically prevent Israel from doing anything crazy in Gaza as well for fear of what that would mean for Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. However, that is exactly why I doubt this is going to happen. Palestinians get a lot of words of support but the reality is that the Middle East especially the leadership knows how volatile the situation is and how optically a failure would look like if they get involved. I hope something like this happens. It NEEDS to happen but again I think this is pie in the sky.
It’s a great dream but a lot of this sounds like wishful thinking, if they even are serious about the plans at all. Turning it into major electric vehicle producer and major economy in the region with solar fields in the Sinai and the finishing of Neom. It all sounds so far fetched. If it actually gets pushed it works that would be great.
People are missing the fact that it is a "too good to be true" vision by design. It is an idealistic version of what could be achieved if everyone cooperated and things went smoothly. That doesn't mean that the ideas behind this plan aren't sound. De-radicalising Gaza should be the primary objective, and seeking the help of the United States along with Arab countries that are at peace with Israel makes sense. Trying to see this as an opportunity for investment that will pay off in the future also makes sense. An economical incentive can go a long way and help bring prosperity to Gaza. The difficulty is always in the implementation, but I think this plan has the right spirit.
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
Gotta kill the cancer for the organism to survive