Dune is becoming a reality

[melkorjl 0]

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX you said that the koran said in 4:73

Quote[/b] ]

73. Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them

but in my copy of the coran i read:

Quote[/b] ]

4.73] And if grace from Allah come to you, he would certainly cry out, as if there had not been any friendship between you and him: Would that I had been with them, then I should have attained a mighty good fortune.

nothing about killing anybody.

them you said that in 4:74 the koran said

Quote[/b] ]

74.If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant

but my copy said

Quote[/b] ]

[4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward

again nothing about killing. but this is a problematic point. it said that you have to fight. but the question is how do they have to fight. there are more ways of fighting than killing look at greenpeace or Gandhi. Or look all the christians martyrs and saints.

them you said taht 2:24

Quote[/b] ]

24. Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom

and i read

Quote[/b] ]

[2.24] But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers.

nothing about retaliations or killings only said that if you dont belive you go to hell. this point is similar to the first law of moises. so nothing new or bad about that point.

them you said that in 2:25 the koran said:

Quote[/b] ]

25. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers

but i read

Quote[/b] ]

[2.25] And convey good news to those who believe and do good deeds, that they shall have gardens in which rivers flow; whenever they shall be given a portion of the fruit thereof, they shall say: This is what was given to us before; and they shall be given the like of it, and they shall have pure mates in them, and in them, they shall abide

again nothing about killing.

so what? in first place your copy of the koran is a really bad one or you havent read it very well. next point the koran like many other religions books is very open and can lead to differents interpretacion. not to forget that bad interpretations of other books had leads to others wars.

and about the similaritudes of the books and reality, yes there are alot of similaritudes but not to forget that all books are based on reality and there are hundreds of history periods or chapters that can fit with the books.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX you said that the koran said in 4:73

but in my copy of the coran i read:

Quote[/b] ]

4.73] And if grace from Allah come to you, he would certainly cry out, as if there had not been any friendship between you and him: Would that I had been with them, then I should have attained a mighty good fortune.

nothing about killing anybody.

Different versions. Different translations, different layout even in some cases. The version I have does say that. Ever considered different versions?

them you said that in 4:74 the koran said

Quote[/b] ]

74.If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant

but my copy said

Quote[/b] ]

[4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward

again nothing about killing.

WHAT? Are you blind? That IS about killing.

Quote[/b] ]

but this is a problematic point. it said that you have to fight. but the question is how do they have to fight. there are more ways of fighting than killing look at greenpeace or Gandhi. Or look all the christians martyrs and saints.

fortunately your quote refers explicitly to SLAYING AND LOSING LIFE.

Quote[/b] ]

them you said taht 2:24

24. Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom

and i read

Quote[/b] ]

[2.24] But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers.

nothing about retaliations or killings only

AGAIN, ARE YOU BLIND? ITS TALKING ABOUT BURNING PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE.

Quote[/b] ]

said that if you dont belive you go to hell. this point is similar to the first law of moises. so nothing new or bad about that point.

You think burning innocents isn't bad? What kind of creature are you?

Quote[/b] ]

so what? in first place your copy of the koran is a really bad one or you havent read it very well.

Alternatively, YOUR version is very bad or YOU haven't read it very well. Thats another possibility, isn't it. Given that the bible was 'sanitised' on many seperate occasions, I'm betting that's what you've got - a nice, clean, re-interpretation of the Quran - strange that a book supposedly dictated by a god would ever need that.....

Quote[/b] ]

next point the koran like many other religions books is very open and can lead to differents interpretacion. not to forget that bad interpretations of other books had leads to others wars.

Of course, YOUR interpretation is the only correct one??? HA! Your interpretation is no more (or less) valid than the fucktards who think it justifies* murder and oppression.

Quote[/b] ]

and about the similaritudes of the books and reality, yes there are alot of similaritudes but not to forget that all books are based on reality and there are hundreds of history periods or chapters that can fit with the books

Ballocks. Some of the events in these books never, ever happened. Not all books are based on reality - especially religious ones.

*it does PREACH murder and oppression, obviously, but that doesn't make it justified

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ] I use the word "secular" loosely.

And wrongly

I operationalized how I used the word secular. That should be enough. I'm not here to argue semantics. If you do not agree with how I use the term then I'm sorry you can't get past that.

Quote[/b] ]

Most of the Middle East governments do call their poltiical parties "Islamic" something or other. But for the most part, most of their governments do not base their laws upon Shariat law or if they do its based upon bits and pieces of it.

...which is then NOT secular.

That's like saying then that because most of the structure of their government is not directly upon Islamic teachings and often modelled more off of monarchies or Western or Soviet type governments (or mixtures of them) then they are not Islamic.

If you want a true Islamic government then they would have to go back the system used in some of the earliest Islamic empires. Right now there is no Calipha to give any Islamic government any legitimacy. If you knew more about Islam you would know these things but you are too busy trying to attack the religion.

Quote[/b] ]

Saddam Hussein and Syria's Baath Party is an example. The majority of these countries are simple dictatorships. Examples include Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan, UAE, Yemen, ect... ect...

What has their being dictatorships to do with their being allegedly 'secular'? Are you claiming that secular governments are dictatorships? That no dictatorship could not be secular?

Because they generally supress Islamic movements that want a more thoroughly Islamic based government and not one mixed with Western laws or laws that contradict Islamic law.

Some of these dictatorships were also artificially created by colonialist powers and later supported and propped up by either Western or Eastern-bloc governments. Many of them in efforts to become more "modern" tried to supress the influence of Islamic clerics on their government.

Again, they can not be all lumped together. All of the countries I mentioned are influenced to different degrees by Islam. If you want to call them Islamic, fine thats cool. Hell in some contexts I might even call them Islamic if I am speaking of these countries as nations in which the majority of the population are Muslims.

So no, I am not saying that that secular governments are dictatorships. If you need me to clarify any further I can, but it really has little to do with the main points I was trying to make.

Quote[/b] ]

If you read carefully what I said, I ended it with, "...Muslims can't even agree upon what is a "TRUE" Islamic government."

You are just repeating what I said.

No, you said that they aren't Islamic governments because some people disagree with their interpretation of 'Islamic', which is total nonsense. They are Islamic governments if they are based on someone's interpretation of Islam. Which is not what you said.

(sigh)... I don't think I ever defined why they aren't Islamic governments. What I basically meant is that most are simply hybrids...with mixtures of influences and to different degrees.

My main point was that these governments tend to suppress Islamic movements (both peaceful and militant) that which for a form of government that is more in accordance with Shariat Law.

More often then not these governments (which are often monarchys and dicatorships) are supported by Western governments and very often are highly corrupt with massive human rights abuses especially against the Islamic groups that are challenging their power.

These groups in turn see the support that their oppressive governments get from the West and so they blame the West for their problems.

But that is a very simplistic basic explanation. It is far more complex then just that as many different groups dislike some Western countries more then others, have different agendas, are more militant then others, ect..ect...

Each country must be taken in its own context so generalizations are dangerous to latch on to.

Quote[/b] ]

It is statements like yours that precisely fuel hatred towards the West in the Islamic world. They are disrespectful and fail to analyze the many ways in which these passages are interpreted nor do you bother to look at the historical context.

The historical context of slaughtering innocent 'infidels'? WHAT PART OF THAT DESERVES RESPECT? It's well-meaning but idiotic people who think people's beliefs deserve respects 'because they are beliefs' - no matter the evil and hatred that comes from them - that cause the problems.

I never said that particular militant Islamic beliefs deserve respect. I am saying that you should be respectful when talking to people of any religion about their religion if you are interested in establishing a dialog with them and trying to understand where they are coming from.

With Islamic militant groups, you do not have to respect their beliefs in your own mind, but if you wish to establish dialog to try and understand them you do have to behave respectfully towards them and vice versa. Otherwise there is no use in even attempting to understand them if all you do is attack their beliefs disrespectfully. It requires people with very well developed diplomatic skills to accomplish this. Something you are not equipped to do and which most people are really not trained to do or have the gift for.

If everyone was skilled in diplomacy we'd have a hell of alot less wars in this world.

Again this goes back to the lessons of Heretics of Dune in which the Bashar Miles Teg won most of his battles using diplomacy and with little or no bloodshed.

Quote[/b] ]

Hypocrite. "nothing in the Qu'ran justifies killing innocent women and children as far as I have found." Liar. The book condones and justifies killing innocent women and children. There is no historical context that will change that fact. Get used to it.

In your interpretation perhaps. But you can say that about many religions depending on how you interpret them and how they are currently practiced.

You are also being disrespectful to me calling me a hypocrit and a liar. I know you are trying to get me angry but fortunately I'm not in a angry mood and I really don't feel like getting into a pissing match or responding to your trolling.

However your words would almost certainly provoke a very angry response from most Muslims... and then you would feel very self-righteous about how violent these Muslims are.

It's just pure and simple self-fulfilling prophecy. The most dangerous self-fullfilling prophecies however are those that a person doesn't realize he or she is doing.

However back to the original topic I was speaking about very intentionally and carefully crafting self-fullfilling prophecies to create peace in the Middle East at least between the United States and Muslims in the Middle East.

You on the other hand just seem so full of anger and hate towards all things religious that you are just interested in fighting about how evil religion is and pissing people off.

It is unproductive and will get you nowhere.

Quote[/b] ]Of coarse many Muslims are guilty of not knowing the history and context of the Qu'ran as well. I am not defending every aspect of the Qu'ran, but if you give exact quotes from where you got those interpretations above, I can go into a much deeper discussion about each of those subject matters.

Read it yourself. Every couple of passages has references to Allah's displeasure towards unbelievers, and many have directions as to what believers should do to unbelievers. Read the bloody thing before claiming nonsense.

Yes I have but I have not found the same messages you seem to have found in your detailed study of Islam and the Qu'ran. So I'd luck to discuss with you which passages you are talking about. But if your mind is closed and made up then that is your right to be stubborn.

Quote[/b] ]

Sadly you seem so bent on trying to convince people that their religion is crap and useless, that you fail to accept the fundamental nature of religion and what it means to people.

Sadly you seem so bent on defending religion that you cannot see the huge problems it creates. You think that beliefs automatically deserve respect. They don't. You think that thousand year old lies are somehow better than 5 minute old lies. They aren't.

Wow you are bitter about religion. In other threads I would say yes, I am defending religion, but in this particular thread I am not even doing that. I am simply saying that you must try to understand the way other people who are different from ourselves, view reality. There is not one set reality. Your reality is quite obviouisly not my reality and vice versa.

Once you understand that it becomes quite easy to grasp the concept of dialog with enemies.

It is very difficult, but it is possible for some people to begin to understand the main factors that go into making an Al-Qaeda type terrorist.

It also is important to understand terrorists in order to distinguish one group from another and to prioritize their threat levels and decide how to deal with each group most appropriately.

Quote[/b] ]

IIt is necessary to understand why people believe such utter nonsense, yes. It is not necessary to give it any credence whatsoever in the process.

I did not say that you have to believe anything that they believe. But you DO have to show some respect when dealing with them directly otherwise you will get NOWHERE and learn NOTHING about them except justifying to yourself what you had already decided they were about.

If your mind is made up about them and that all Muslims are animals, then you will never understand them. Period.

You will only grow to hate them and they will grow to hate you.

However... here's the twist. There are many Islamic militants who have a very similar mentality that you have. They see things in black and white and thing that people like yourself are stupid barbaric atheist infidels who are just too stupid to see the truth in the Qu'ran as presented by God and that you are just in denial and a slave to Satan...and a threat to Islam.

Some of the more extreme groups would probably not want to hear one damn word I say, and would just be interested in killing me because I was American with absolutely no interest at all in dialog or even the slightest curiosity of what I'm about.

So in a nutshell there are many shades of grey.

Quote[/b] ]

I'm sorry, but I STRONGLY disagree on that as I've spent a lot of time around many different types of Muslims from many different cultures. You can not lump them all together. You are implying that they are evil backwards people who are not decent humans.

Do some homework, genius. Abrahamic religions = religions of the children of Abraham = Christianity, Judaism and Islam = those religions incorporating the Old Testament (in various incarnations.)

The religions themselves; the books themselves, are full of hatred, examples of violence condoned and done 'in the name of god,' intolerance and cruelty. That most people who claim to follow these religions are actually nice people is because they don't listen to these parts, they listen to their own empathy for others instead of their book's hate. I certainly was not saying all persons of X religion are evil, backwards people- only the ones who really listen to what the book says, not ignoring the bad parts. I have several Muslim friends. Although, of course, they are not hardcore muslims, because if they followed the direction of the Quran they would not make friends with unbelievers.

OK. If they are practicing Muslims, please ask them if they do not believe any section of the Qu'ran. I have yet to meet a practicing Muslim who did not fully accept the entire Qu'ran as the word of God.

At any rate I'm glad at least that you seem to know some Muslims and can see that they're not all terrorists.

Quote[/b] ]

It is talk like that which inspires hatred and violence on both sides. Would you prefer to kill them all? Because you can not force people to become atheists any more then you can force an atheist to accept religion.

No. I'd prefer to let them make up their own minds, instead of listening to bullshit others have indoctrinated them with. Deal with them as we do with brainwashed cultists; it's not their fault, but they are misled.

De-programming only works when done by people of similar culture backgrounds. It also requires very skilled psychologists who specialize in that field. Those who treat cult members would not have much success with Muslims as their cultural backgrounds are vastly different unless the psychologist was Muslim themselves and from the same country as the subject.

The Cult members that are successfully deprogrammed are generally those who were indoctrinated as adults. Those who grew up in the cults are MUCH more difficult to deprogram.

So while that method certainly could be developed and experimented with (like with captured Al-Qaeda members for example) it is not the solution to everything and it does not address the underlying issues of what factors cause certain Muslims to become attracted to extreme Islamic ideologies like Al-Qaeda.

Quote[/b] ]

Did I say we shouldn't understand them? I did agree with some of your post, or were you too busy frantically trying to weasel out of your erroneous statements?

Look this thread is NOT about relgion. If you want to continue this, do it by PM'ing me (unless you just like negative attention).

In the past I tried to continue a discussion on religion via PM and you sent me some extremely rude responses basically telling me to go to hell but in a not so nice way.

Did you have a change of heart? If so then lets please continue this via PM or on a new thread if you wish to showcase your vast knowledge of religion before anyone who bothers to read these long boring debates.

This thread is about the relationship between Dune, and current events....and not about whether religion is good or bad.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

PS- Yes this response is likely full of typos...some probably serious but I've already killed way too much in this response then I should have so my apologies at all the typos and missing or duplicated words.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I wonder if the shade of sand is the same on Arakis as on the arabian peninsula. Any comments?

-*This has been IsthatyouJohnWaynes very subtle attempt to keep the thread diverted from religious argument*-

[Longinius 1]

Out of pure interest, how about you guys telling us who translated your versions of that scripture, when it was done and who printed it? I am quite sure that has some relevance in the translation...

[miles teg 1]

Its is always dangerous to rely on one English translation.

Personally I use this site which has 8 translations side by side.  With this it is easy to see which interpretatons are the most common and which are more off-center.

I know the author of this site (Clay Smith) and he's a very serious American Muslim who is somewhat of a scholar and linguist.  He's a great guy.   Anyways, his site is at:

http://www.clay.smith.name/Parallel_Quran.htm

Also generally the Qu'ran is not to be studied the way Christians tend to study the bible, which is just by sitting down and reading it and talking about it.  Generally the Qu'ran is best studied by reading different scholarly writings about the Qu'ran.   I would highly recommend the writings of the Kurdish scholar, Said Nursi.   Also the modern scholar Fetullah Gulen has written some excellent books on Islam and the Qu'ran as well.  Those are good authors for Westerners to begin to learn about the Qu'ran along with studying with help from knowledgable Muslims (or if possible a good Imam) to help give the studies some context and to answer tough questions.

But back to Dune, remember the Bene Gesseritt understood the inner workings of the religion on Arrakis and in doing so, were able to influence many of those who followed the religion of the Divided God.  (Although Dune ultimately got turned into a big piece of charcoal by the Honoured Matres).   They also were able to create an alliance with the dispised Thilaxiu (sp?) based upon their understandings of ancient Zensunni teachings and customs.  

Another intriguing aspect of Dune is the concept of the Mentat.   He (or she) is one with the gift of being able to split their minds in two very different paths of analysis in order to achieve a logical conclusion based on existing data.

The most powerful mentats were the warrior mentats who could do this while in battle or during delicate diplomatic negotiations.  

It is not far off from how the great warrior-philosophers of human history operated and in fact how any good military leader must operate by being able to rapidly assess and analyze a situation and then to formulate strategies and tactics to deal with a threat.

However the Dune series shows specific methods of thinking that have not been well explored in modern applied cognitive psychology.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Placebo 28]

Do some homework, genius.

I don't know why you cannot discuss certain topics without becoming rude, arrogant, aggressive and argumentative, but it seems you cannot.

I won't list all the comments you made in the last couple of posts in this thread that are either flaming or flame baiting, instead I'll simply pluck out the one that is blatantly obvious.

As this is almost identical to behaviour that has gone on in the past consider yourself lucky I'm not deciding to act more harshly, you are PR'd for 72 hours and have a WL+

As you have used the current amnesty to remove a prior warning level you cannot do so again.

When you return I strongly urge you to learn to restrain yourself when discussing topics such as this.

[Frisbee 0]

Another intriguing aspect of Dune is the concept of the Mentat.

I always saw them as 'living computers' ( i believe they were presented as such in the book as well) in the sense that they'd calculate the succes rate of every possibility and then proceed to take the safest one/ the one with the most desireable outcome. Kind of like an AI does I think.

The Bene Gesserit manipulating people was very fun to read, IIRC Lady Jesica (sp?) used this to move about the Fremen when she hid among them with Paul.

This is a great example of how 'simple' knowledge about other beliefs and religions can greatly benefit in politics or warfare.

Something the South Korean army has somehow understood, while the US (governement of course *dodges flames*) has largely failed to in their blind fanaticism.

[Skewballzz 0]

I also believe that the Bene Gesserit sent out missionaries thousands of years ago to remote planets to set up myths a fables that could be used by stranded sisters...

[miles teg 1]

Yeah I forgot about how the Bene Gessert seeded myths. Of coarse they have that nifty "other memory" which sure would be nice to have these days. LOL!

Gholas kinda have something like that as well.

Too bad most countries have banned human cloning. It would be interesting to see if clones hold any of the previous memories of the person they were cloned from.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ] miles Teg

I operationalized how I used the word secular. That should be enough. I'm not here to argue semantics. If you do not agree with how I use the term then I'm sorry you can't get past that.

If you don't know what the word means, don't use it, please.

I'll discuss political stuff in this reply but not general religion as far as possible.

Quote[/b] ]

That's like saying then that because most of the structure of their government is not directly upon Islamic teachings and often modelled more off of monarchies or Western or Soviet type governments (or mixtures of them) then they are not Islamic.

No, it's like saying since its NOT SECULAR, and it IS based, partly or fully, on Islam, then it is a type of Islamic government. This seems like a fairly straightforward concept.

Quote[/b] ]

If you want a true Islamic government then they would have to go back the system used in some of the earliest Islamic empires.

And now you appoint yourself arbiter of what is and is not 'truly Islamic' despite your lack of knowledge about the Quran. No. To have an Islamic government, the laws, statutes etc would be based partly on Islam and have Muslim leaders. That is all that is required to meet the definition 'Islamic Government.' That doesn't mean it is a government that all Muslims like, or agree with. It IS, however, an Islamic government.

Quote[/b] ]

Because they generally supress Islamic movements that want a more thoroughly Islamic based government and not one mixed with Western laws or laws that contradict Islamic law.

So that makes them Secular? Because two or more Islamic factions disagree on their interpretations??? Where are you getting these incredible definitions?? They are NOT secular.

Quote[/b] ]

Some of these dictatorships were also artificially created by colonialist powers and later supported and propped up by either Western or Eastern-bloc governments. Many of them in efforts to become more "modern" tried to supress the influence of Islamic clerics on their government.

The influence of Islamic clerics that disagree with them. Clerics they agree with are not suppressed. Different interpretations. How can you claim to know anything about this topic yet completely ignore the idea of different factions having different interpretations? They are not secular governments; they are governments using different interpretations of Islamic law (for the most part).

Quote[/b] ]

Again, they can not be all lumped together.

Why are you insisting that they can be lumped together into secular or Islamic governments then?

Quote[/b] ]

All of the countries I mentioned are influenced to different degrees by Islam. If you want to call them Islamic, fine thats cool. Hell in some contexts I might even call them Islamic if I am speaking of these countries as nations in which the majority of the population are Muslims.

And nations under Islamic law. So they are Islamic. Not secular. You do understand, apparently you are just using 'secular' to confuse the issue.

Quote[/b] ]

(sigh)... I don't think I ever defined why they aren't Islamic governments. What I basically meant is that most are simply hybrids...with mixtures of influences and to different degrees.

And not, therefore, secular.

Quote[/b] ]

My main point was that these governments tend to suppress Islamic movements (both peaceful and militant) that which for a form of government that is more in accordance with Shariat Law.

Human rights activists also try to suppress movements which wish for more accordance with Shariat law. Stoning people to death for not wearing hoods is not generally accepted. In the UK there are some problems with 'Hardcore' muslims who try to enforce Shariat law on their own families, but who then break UK laws. So forgive me if I don't see that as a bad thing.

Quote[/b] ]

More often then not these governments (which are often monarchys and dicatorships) are supported by Western governments and very often are highly corrupt with massive human rights abuses especially against the Islamic groups that are challenging their power.

Yes, and that is wrong. That doesn't make (one of) the other alternatives 'right.'

Quote[/b] ]baron

The historical context of slaughtering innocent 'infidels'? WHAT PART OF THAT DESERVES RESPECT? It's well-meaning but idiotic people who think people's beliefs deserve respects 'because they are beliefs' - no matter the evil and hatred that comes from them - that cause the problems.

[/baron]

I never said that particular militant Islamic beliefs deserve respect. I am saying that you should be respectful when talking to people of any religion about their religion if you are interested in establishing a dialog with them and trying to understand where they are coming from.

And I told you that religion does not deserve respect just because it is religion. You seem to think that 'militant Islamic beliefs' do not deserve respect, but 'moderate Islamic beliefs' do. How about a little consistency, not hypocrisy? Why is one half-assed interpretation better than another? They are both equally 'valid'. Don't confuse respect for with tolerance. We gracefully tolerate others beliefs, unless they cause problems (Jim Jones, Rev Moon, David Koresh, etc) in the West. We do not have to respect them. I do not respect those who believe all infidels must be annihilated. I do not respect those who believe martyrdom in a suicide bomb is the quickest way to paradise. I do not respect those who believe the world is flat and orbited by the sun. But as long as people's beliefs are not causing harm, we tolerate them - sometimes even when they do (Catholic Priests+ alter boys, Creationists, etc)

Quote[/b] ]

With Islamic militant groups, you do not have to respect their beliefs in your own mind, but if you wish to establish dialog to try and understand them you do have to behave respectfully towards them and vice versa.

Exactly. Except that you don't have to respect ANY of their beliefs- that's just hypocritical to respect one interpretation but not another - you just have to behave tolerantly.

Quote[/b] ]

Otherwise there is no use in even attempting to understand them if all you do is attack their beliefs disrespectfully.

That is pretty obvious, is it not? We should attempt to understand them the same way we attempt to understand victims of brainwashing; because that is what they are. We don't respect the brainwashing material; we shouldn't respect their insane beliefs.

Quote[/b] ]

It requires people with very well developed diplomatic

Psychological

Quote[/b] ] skills to accomplish this. Something you are not equipped to do and which most people are really not trained to do or have the gift for.

If everyone was skilled in diplomacy we'd have a hell of alot less wars in this world.

In your interpretation perhaps.

NO, NOT IN MY INTERPRETATION, IN THE BOOK. Read the links you gave. All the passages I referenced are in there. Please read it.

Quote[/b] ]

But you can say that about many religions depending on how you interpret them and how they are currently practiced.

Did you miss the part where I said that about Abrahamic religions?

Quote[/b] ]

You are also being disrespectful to me calling me a hypocrit and a liar.

No, I'm being truthful; you ARE a hypocrite, in that you claim tolerance and respect, but do not tolerate and respect some interpretations, and seem to be a liar, in that you claim that there are no passages in the Quran justifying violence, and even that you claim to have read it.

Quote[/b] ]

I know you are trying to get me angry but fortunately I'm not in a angry mood and I really don't feel like getting into a pissing match or responding to your trolling.

No, I'm trying to make you think a little about some of the BS you posted.

Quote[/b] ]

However your words would almost certainly provoke a very angry response from most Muslims... and then you would feel very self-righteous about how violent these Muslims are.

Their book is myth, made up (possibly by well meaning persons, but made up nonetheless) hundreds of years ago, as is the Bible, as is the Torah. They need to accept this fact. That they get angry when the vaguest hint of truth concerning their books is brought up is their problem, not mine, and one of the main driving forces of religious hatred and violence.

Quote[/b] ]

You on the other hand just seem so full of anger and hate towards all things religious that you are just interested in fighting about how evil religion is and pissing people off.

It is unproductive and will get you nowhere.

You on the other hand seem to think that thousand year old lies are worth more than 5 minute old lies and that in that time these lies have somehow become worthwhile. They haven't. You seem totally unable to see anything negative about religion, even when the evidence is right in front of you. No matter how many times I ask you just to read the hate filled, violence inducing bullshit in these books, you simply ignore it.

Quote[/b] ]

Yes I have but I have not found the same messages you seem to have found in your detailed study of Islam and the Qu'ran.

The same passages are in the links you just posted. Maybe your in depth study wasn't that in depth. Please remember that I only posted VERY few of the hundreds of such passages that are in the book, a detailled reading of almost any chapter will yeild similar results.

Quote[/b] ]

So I'd luck to discuss with you which passages you are talking about. But if your mind is closed and made up then that is your right to be stubborn.

You are the one with the closed mind.

Quote[/b] ]

Wow you are bitter about religion. In other threads I would say yes, I am defending religion, but in this particular thread I am not even doing that.

Yes you are. And I'm not bitter about religion; I just don't like it. I don't like insane beliefs that make people want to cause violence and hatred. That includes religion, Nazism, Racism, etc.

Quote[/b] ]

I am simply saying that you must try to understand the way other people who are different from ourselves, view reality. There is not one set reality.

YES, there is. There is only ONE reality. What nonsense. No matter what delusions people have, they do NOT change basic facts about reality. That is utter, utter, bullshit. I'm really not trying to disparage you or annoy you, but really, that is just so profoundly, utterly antithetical to reality I must express that somehow.

Quote[/b] ]

Your reality is quite obviouisly not my reality and vice versa.

yes, it is. You apparently percieve it through rose-tinted glasses, but it is exactly the same reality.

Quote[/b] ]

Once you understand that it becomes quite easy to grasp the concept of dialog with enemies.

Once you delude yourself with this bullshit you will believe anything. There is no such thing as subjective truth. Beliefs are subjective, truth is not.

Quote[/b] ]

It is very difficult, but it is possible for some people to begin to understand the main factors that go into making an Al-Qaeda type terrorist.

They think they are getting an infinite reward, and they are brainwashed, sometimes from birth. Religion.

Quote[/b] ]

I did not say that you have to believe anything that they believe. But you DO have to show some respect when dealing with them directly otherwise you will get NOWHERE and learn NOTHING about them except justifying to yourself what you had already decided they were about.

Confusing respect and tolerance again. Wrong.

Quote[/b] ]

OK. If they are practicing Muslims, please ask them if they do not believe any section of the Qu'ran. I have yet to meet a practicing Muslim who did not fully accept the entire Qu'ran as the word of God.

Yes, they do. They just don't follow every part of it. Obviously. The same way Christians don't follow every part of the bible, otherwise you'd never see any priests with more than one shirt. The fact is, by the tenants of the Quran, they should not be friends with ANY non-believers, in fact they should really be waging Jihad on them.

Quote[/b] ]

De-programming only works when done by people of similar culture backgrounds. It also requires very skilled psychologists who specialize in that field. Those who treat cult members would not have much success with Muslims as their cultural backgrounds are vastly different unless the psychologist was Muslim themselves and from the same country as the subject.

.....which would be.... treating them the same way we treat cult members.... with people who they can empathise with.

Must you repeat everything I say?

Quote[/b] ]

The Cult members that are successfully deprogrammed are generally those who were indoctrinated as adults. Those who grew up in the cults are MUCH more difficult to deprogram.

yes. And? Do we just ignore them?

Quote[/b] ]

Look this thread is NOT about relgion. If you want to continue this, do it by PM'ing me (unless you just like negative attention).

Good. Then cease talking about religion. Cease calling Islamic governments 'secular,' and stop discussing how the Quran has no parts justifying evil, because it does. Talk about the thread, and stop talking (wrongly) about religion.