I've got a Quran next to me. I find it useful to lookup stuff when people say something wrong about it. Took me a while to find a decent English translation though.
One thing that is pretty obvious from reading the Quran is that the race of the people who follow it matters more than the religion. Kind of like how black Christians in Africa aren't necessarily better than a bunch of White atheists.
Because people are doing largely the same shit they were before Islam, like Bacha Bazi and khat and Saudi drinking. To say that people pick and choose parts of the Koran they like is not to validate the text. I always figured they need the Hadith because the Koran is insufficiently prescriptive -- but I've never read it.
Because people are doing largely the same shit they were before Islam, like Bacha Bazi
Props for knowing that this is pre-Islamic rather than "Islam mandates fucking boys" as some ill-informed people say.
But of course, this is only partly true. The inhabitants of western Asia Minor aren't engaged in philosophy and the sciences like they were before the Islamic occupation of their lands, but then again, neither do the Greeks in Greece proper who managed to liberate themselves from the Islamic yoke after 400 years.
I mean it narrowly with respect to sex they are doing the same things they used to. Male and female genital mutilation. Women as property. And slavery. Almost all those customs that I've ever tracked down are colored by pre-Islamic practices. Islam allows these practices.
I think you're mistaken about one thing: those practices existed before Islam, so they're not original to Islam, but unlike Bacha Bazi - they have an actual basis in the religion and are not just allowed, but either mandated or encouraged.
There was no male or female genital mutilation in Persia, Asia Minor, North Africa before Islam.
People flock to the religion that best matches their inherent (and I believe partially genetic) moral code. The geography of religious uptake is the chicken from the egg of the people's inherent character.
Are you generally kind and self sacrificing? Boom, Christian nation
Are you generally violent and rapey? Boom, islamic caliphate
Are you generally dishonest and greedy? Boom, chosen people of Israel.
Are you a strict heirarchist and a little autistic? Boom, Buddhism
Are you a little schizo and prone to hero worship? Boom, Hinduism
I agree but also, I think races of people conglomor around certain means for their behavioral qualities and if many people of the same race become X religion, they change the religion to suit their "inherent" (nature), which is why ultimately race means more than religion.
Religion/Culture is downstream of race. Race creates culture.
People flock to the religion that best matches their inherent (and I believe partially genetic) moral code.
So how come the inhabitants of Asia Minor were universally Christian in the past, and have become Islamic since the year 1000? Did their genetic moral code change?
Are you generally dishonest and greedy? Boom, chosen people of Israel.
Did I miss the entire world converting to the religion of Israel?
So how come the inhabitants of Asia Minor were universally Christian in the past, and have become Islamic since the year 1000? Did their genetic moral code change?
Well they'd have a difficult time being islamic before islam existed, just like they'd have a tough time being "universally Christian" before 0AD. And that's not to mention the numerous wars and mass migrations sweeping through the area that can indeed have ensuing genetic changes.
The point isn't that it's preordained that they get the religion that fits them best on first try, it's that the one that truly resonates with their character is the one that sticks around. Italy wasn't always Christian either, but they didn't suddenly flock to Islam the second their evangelists arrived. In fact they had some pretty choice words for them.
Did I miss the entire world converting to the religion of Israel?
No need to be misanthropic, there's plenty of good people out there still even if the trend is downward from its peak. But also yes, the religion of Israel did spread around the world, being a diaspora torn from their home is one of their more defining historical myths actually.
Well they'd have a difficult time being islamic before islam existed, just like they'd have a tough time being "universally Christian" before 0AD. And that's not to mention the numerous wars and mass migrations sweeping through the area that can indeed have ensuing genetic changes.
It is my understanding that the genetic changes have been very limited. Much too limited to make a fundamental change in the fundamental character of the people. As it has pointed out, Turks look much more like Greeks than like Mongolians from the steppes.
Now, what's the likelihood that the fundamental character of people in Asia Minor changed from being benevolent to being violent? Also, what's the likelihood that the fundamental character of people just happens to coincide, with exceptions, with the reach of Islam's armies?
Italy wasn't always Christian either, but they didn't suddenly flock to Islam the second their evangelists arrived. In fact they had some pretty choice words for them.
Because the Islamic occupation of Italy was very fleeting. What seems to have more of an effect is how long the occupying armies stick around. It takes centuries for lands to become majority Muslim.
No need to be misanthropic, there's plenty of good people out there still even if the trend is downward from its peak. But also yes, the religion of Israel did spread around the world, being a diaspora torn from their home is one of their more defining historical myths actually.
I mean spread around the world among the people. Let's be real, most if not all people are thoroughly wicked and selfish, and even the supposedly good deeds that people do, they do for their own selfish reasons. The great strength of Christianity is that it recognizes this reality, what G.K. Chesterton called the only empirically verifiable religious doctrine.
I've got a Quran next to me. I find it useful to lookup stuff when people say something wrong about it. Took me a while to find a decent English translation though.
One thing that is pretty obvious from reading the Quran is that the race of the people who follow it matters more than the religion. Kind of like how black Christians in Africa aren't necessarily better than a bunch of White atheists.
Because people are doing largely the same shit they were before Islam, like Bacha Bazi and khat and Saudi drinking. To say that people pick and choose parts of the Koran they like is not to validate the text. I always figured they need the Hadith because the Koran is insufficiently prescriptive -- but I've never read it.
Props for knowing that this is pre-Islamic rather than "Islam mandates fucking boys" as some ill-informed people say.
But of course, this is only partly true. The inhabitants of western Asia Minor aren't engaged in philosophy and the sciences like they were before the Islamic occupation of their lands, but then again, neither do the Greeks in Greece proper who managed to liberate themselves from the Islamic yoke after 400 years.
I mean it narrowly with respect to sex they are doing the same things they used to. Male and female genital mutilation. Women as property. And slavery. Almost all those customs that I've ever tracked down are colored by pre-Islamic practices. Islam allows these practices.
I think you're mistaken about one thing: those practices existed before Islam, so they're not original to Islam, but unlike Bacha Bazi - they have an actual basis in the religion and are not just allowed, but either mandated or encouraged.
There was no male or female genital mutilation in Persia, Asia Minor, North Africa before Islam.
People flock to the religion that best matches their inherent (and I believe partially genetic) moral code. The geography of religious uptake is the chicken from the egg of the people's inherent character.
Are you generally kind and self sacrificing? Boom, Christian nation
Are you generally violent and rapey? Boom, islamic caliphate
Are you generally dishonest and greedy? Boom, chosen people of Israel.
Are you a strict heirarchist and a little autistic? Boom, Buddhism
Are you a little schizo and prone to hero worship? Boom, Hinduism
Et cetera.
I agree but also, I think races of people conglomor around certain means for their behavioral qualities and if many people of the same race become X religion, they change the religion to suit their "inherent" (nature), which is why ultimately race means more than religion.
Religion/Culture is downstream of race. Race creates culture.
So how come the inhabitants of Asia Minor were universally Christian in the past, and have become Islamic since the year 1000? Did their genetic moral code change?
Did I miss the entire world converting to the religion of Israel?
Well they'd have a difficult time being islamic before islam existed, just like they'd have a tough time being "universally Christian" before 0AD. And that's not to mention the numerous wars and mass migrations sweeping through the area that can indeed have ensuing genetic changes.
The point isn't that it's preordained that they get the religion that fits them best on first try, it's that the one that truly resonates with their character is the one that sticks around. Italy wasn't always Christian either, but they didn't suddenly flock to Islam the second their evangelists arrived. In fact they had some pretty choice words for them.
No need to be misanthropic, there's plenty of good people out there still even if the trend is downward from its peak. But also yes, the religion of Israel did spread around the world, being a diaspora torn from their home is one of their more defining historical myths actually.
It is my understanding that the genetic changes have been very limited. Much too limited to make a fundamental change in the fundamental character of the people. As it has pointed out, Turks look much more like Greeks than like Mongolians from the steppes.
Now, what's the likelihood that the fundamental character of people in Asia Minor changed from being benevolent to being violent? Also, what's the likelihood that the fundamental character of people just happens to coincide, with exceptions, with the reach of Islam's armies?
Because the Islamic occupation of Italy was very fleeting. What seems to have more of an effect is how long the occupying armies stick around. It takes centuries for lands to become majority Muslim.
I mean spread around the world among the people. Let's be real, most if not all people are thoroughly wicked and selfish, and even the supposedly good deeds that people do, they do for their own selfish reasons. The great strength of Christianity is that it recognizes this reality, what G.K. Chesterton called the only empirically verifiable religious doctrine.
IK one of my Pagan frens has a bible and a communist manifesto near him for the same reason.
How many terrorist attacks have Arab Christians committed?
There's also like 10m Arab Christians in the whole world.
How many terrorist attacks have White Muslims committed?
I'm pretty sure there are more Arab Christians than [w]hite Muslims.
This is part of alt-right ideology that is craziest.
Nature not having a large impact on behavior is the craziest part of liberalism