patrick.net

I'd say accurate on all three!

Consituencies of the Three Religions

I think you mean, "Caricatures of the Three Abrahamic Religions."

[Updated - see below] Islam hasn't usually singled out Judaism for intense hatred. Islam seeks to eliminate all other religions equally, which can tend to produce hateful conflicts with whoever lives nearby (e.g. Hindus, and remember the Taliban destruction of Buddhist statues, and ISIL belatedly destroying a temple of Baal). Khomeini singled out America as "the great Satan" primarily due to American culture, secondarily American support for Israel (and Zionism isn't the same thing as Judaism). Khomeini wrote similarly of American culture to the way P N Dr Lo R and "Christian conservatives" write, i.e. that western cultural liberty threatens religious indoctrination of youth.

curious2 says

Islam hasn't usually singled out Judaism for intense hatred. Islam seeks to eliminate all other religions equally

No, Islam definitely has a special hatred for Judasim, and this hatred dates right from the beginning of Islam:

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

And Mohammed did slaughter the local Jews:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Genocide_of_Banu_Qurayza

I think it's partly due to the similarity of Judaism and Islam. Islam is a simplified and universalized form of Judaism. Every business hates the competition.

I hadn't read that before. I read further, and found this from The Jew Is Not My Enemy: Unveiling the Myths That Fuel Muslim Anti-Semitism. The author writes about contradictions between the Koran and Hadiths. Apparently, the Koran says, "To You Your Religion and To Me Mine" (Qur'an 109:1-6). He claims the Hadiths aren't 'true Islam' (TM) because they contradict the Koran.

So, like many religions, it says enough contradictory things that people can quote whatever they want to use as "justification" for whatever they want to do. 'It's peaceful, let millions of believers into Europe' and then 'it commands believers to kill!"

BTW, regarding the other neighborhood rival, it also says, "Praise be to Allah, who begets no son, and has no partner in (His) dominion: Nor (needs) He any to protect Him from humiliation: yea, magnify Him for His greatness and glory!" Humiliation seems to be a particular obsession with Muslim men, who pray into each others' butts a lot, "no girlz allowed":

Patrick says:"Hopefully I've now offended everyone equally."

Well,you finally made it onto the Patnet Asshole List. rotflmao

Christianity is based on two principles, love thy neighbor, and forgive.

Can't comment on other two, not a member.

FortWayne says

Christianity is based on two principles, love thy neighbor, and forgive.

Can't comment on other two, not a member.

Unless they are atheists, infidels and gays.
Anyone can talk about love, but how many actually practice it?

Islam is the religion of angry young men. It's about two kinds of booty: money, and, well, booty. It decorates the landscape with erect phallic structures. It's about invading and conquering, and its intense hatred of Judaism reflects the eternal division between the striving young and the conservative old.

And Christianity. The Islam angry young man says, "Love one another?" Never - and only with my permission!

curious2 says

Khomeini singled out America as "the great Satan" primarily due to American culture, secondarily American support for Israel (and Zionism isn't the same thing as Judaism).

And the American funding of the Shah, whose SAVAK torture chambers were infamous. The US created the mechanism for Imams to participate in Politics, when Kermit used Shi'a clerics to destabilize the "Atheist" Mossadegh.

I would say Christianity has evolved. The witch trials of Europe, the Catholic Protestant wars and many , many other brutal acts were carried out in the name of Christianity.

My hope is the Islamists will evolve too. But I suspect the violence and strife is because all the wealthy/old farts take 4 wives and multiple concubines in their harems and so the frustrated young men are encouraged to fight/jihad/kill themselves in the hope of finally getting their own harem in the afterlife?

lostand confused says

My hope is the Islamists will evolve too.

I'm hoping they just go extinct.

They are before your eyes...in realtime.
Just not the way the other religions did...

lostand confused says

My hope is the Islamists will evolve too.

chamberlain hoped hitler would just go extinct.
history shows 'hoping' just doesn't cut it.
In life, you don't get what you deserve, you get what you sacrifice for...

Strategist says

lostand confused says

My hope is the Islamists will evolve too.

I'm hoping they just go extinct.

Strategist says

Unless they are atheists, infidels and gays.

Anyone can talk about love, but how many actually practice it?

Strategiest you don't know what love is. Many liberals generally speaking conflate love with apathy, that's not love, that's childishness.

thunderlips11 says

And Christianity. The Islam angry young man says, "Love one another?" Never - and only with my permission!

Love and "f***" are completely two different things. Did you guys go through puberty and calm down with that hormonal imbalance yet?

FortWayne says

Love and "f***" are completely two different things

Absolutely. Once can love animals, parents, relatives, friends , children, plants, frogs, parrots, fish-love is very different. now if they are two consenting adults then why can't that love be recognized?? Considering half the marriages in heterosexual marriages end in divorce.

lostand confused says

Absolutely. Once can love animals, parents, relatives, friends , children, plants, frogs, parrots, fish-love is very different. now if they are two consenting adults then why can't that love be recognized?? Considering half the marriages in heterosexual marriages end in divorce.

I love all animals too, I don't go around screaming that if I don't marry a horse it's an assault on my rights. Come on you should know better than that. There are standards and society lives up to them. One can be as much as pervert as they want to be, society however does not recognize that as something that society should support. Those things only distress society and raise the costs.

FortWayne says

Strategist says

Unless they are atheists, infidels and gays.


Anyone can talk about love, but how many actually practice it?

Strategiest you don't know what love is. Many liberals generally speaking conflate love with apathy, that's not love, that's childishness.

The opposite of love is hate. I see that in you when it comes to gays.
I see hate in the God of the Bible when he says I will be tortured for eternity for not believing in him.
I see that hate in most religions, which is why we have never ending religious conflicts.

FortWayne says

I love all animals too, I don't go around screaming that if I don't marry a horse it's an assault on my rights.

You ignored the rest of my sentence. Love between two consenting adults. The gubmtn should be out of it completely and lets adults decide who they want to marry and who they don't.

Animals are different than humans-though the animal rights crowd does not get it.

Strategist says

The opposite of love is hate.

actually, the opposite of love is indifference.

hate is rather close to love, being a strong emotion deeply concerned with the person in question.

lostand confused says

You ignored the rest of my sentence. Love between two consenting adults. The gubmtn should be out of it completely and lets adults decide who they want to marry and who they don't.

The gubmtn is out of it. It's religion that refuses to get out.

lostand confused says

Animals are different than humans-though the animal rights crowd does not get it.

Animals are better than humans. They don't let religion screw up their lives.

Strategist says

The gubmtn is out of it.

nah, marriage is still very much regulated by the state (both literal state and federal gov't):

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

Strategist says

The gubmtn is out of it.

nah, marriage is still very much regulated by the state (both literal state and federal gov't):

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges.

Wow. Even the Bible does not go that far. One by one those provisions will fall - like dominoes.
I see a future world without religion, racism, or human rights abuse. And a government that minds it's own business.

lostand confused says

Love between two consenting adults.

What is so special about calling it "two consenting adults" that makes it right? An 80 year old man and an 18 year old boy or girl are two consenting adults too, but it would be wrong just like gay marriage.

One can love their grandma and grandpa too, you don't got to marry him/her. I'm just using that as an example of showing that two consenting adults can still be wrong, I'm not trying to imply anything else about anyone.

Never heard of him. Just looked it up on wikipedia, sounds like he was a terrible person.

FortWayne says

Love and "f***" are completely two different things. Did you guys go through puberty and calm down with that hormonal imbalance yet?

It's a joke dude, a play on "Christianity is a woman."

thunderlips11 says

It's a joke dude, a play on "Christianity is a woman."

You got me than.

Call it KKKrazy says

Instead you go around screaming that if you don't get to control human freedom it's an assault on your rights. If two gay people marry you suffer a loss of power over them, the power all religion craves. It's why you're so unhappy

i don't think opposition to gay marriage has anything to do with a feeling of loss of power.

it reminds me of the feminist explanation that men are not attracted to dominant women because it threatens men's feeling of power. it's a plausible but incorrect explanation. the un-PC truth is that dominance is male archetype, so dominant women are simply unattractive to most men because such women seem masculine. (straight) men are attracted to feminine women. men just can't help what they are attracted to, no matter how much feminists try to shame them for it. it's like being told you don't like chocolate cake, when you really really do. gender archetypes are encoded in our brains, and in the brains of all animals that have genders, right down to roosters and hens.

i think gay marriage hits a "disgust" nerve in the brains of lots of people, and that it's just part of their brains, not learned. gayness violates these inborn archtypes which people are comfortable with, and all religions reflect these archtypes because religions reflect the deepest emotions of people. this is kind of jungian psychology. so i'd say people opposed to gay marriage are unhappy with being told they must accept something they find disgusting, and is against a religion which gives them comfort.

but i also believe some people really are born gay, with the "wrong" archetype in their brain. the proof is that there are at least some gay people in all cultures. and people fall on a spectrum this way, mostly straight, but a few toward the margins are not. it's also biological, though i can't come up with any explanation for gayness which fits with evolution, since it's a dead end for the genes of that person. some cultures come up with a niche in society for gays, typically in entertainment or some kind of priesthood (like berdaches among american indians).

hits a "disgust" nerve in the brains of lots of people,

The same could be said of elderly marriage, or even when current Americans think of their own parents having sex. (It's amazing to contrast modern Americans' taboo about that with the views of other cultures where whole families live in small shelters, and other species nearly related to us that live in the open air.) That "disgust" (etymology from French, "distaste") doesn't cause them to demand that the government refuse to recognize the marriages of their parents or grandparents.

i can't come up with any explanation for gayness which fits with evolution....

That's because most "nature" programs on TV depend on government funding and have been deliberately censored to avoid controversy; if you read instead of watch, you can see a lot more. One clue that might help you figure it out: around the world, the most consistent predictor of male homosexuality is birth order; for every son a woman has, the probability of the next son being gay increases by 1/3. It may have the effect of moderating Malthusian boom-and-bust cycles in population, as well as reducing the risk of violent conflict over scarce resources (in this instance, attractive females). Also consider the stereotypical childless uncles and godparents who give gifts: in the modern era of plenty, these gifts are merely surplus, but back when humans were barely surviving, they could mean the difference between life and death. If you limit your view of evolution to "the next generation," then you are putting blinders on that nature does not; evolutionary time scales work at the level of the "nth generation," i.e. the grandchildrens' grandchildren and later generations yet unborn. A species with too short a strategy would never have got this far, which is consistent with the fact that all the species nearly related to us (and even quite distant relatives like penguins) include homosexuality.

In America though, we tend to see closet cases like Larry Craig, Jerry Sandusky, Dennis Hastert, Florida Rep. Foley, Ted Haggard, George Rekers, and Forthood (see his comments above in this thread, and spewed everywhere on PatNet) and their scared wives, for whom everything depends on maintaining the stigma and taboo. Forthood flagellates himself publicly on PatNet for his sinful thoughts, which return to him every day.

Dan said once that closet cases are half the Republican party, and I think if you include the scared wives that's accurate. That's enough to drive a primary nominating process, which is how Michelle Hucksterbee got to be a governor and continues a very profitable career. It's also enough to scare PBS into censoring its "nature" programming, to conform to Hucksterbee's religious narrative, just as ISIL destroys evidence of other religions in order to present Islam as the only one. No matter how good or logical a computer programmer you might be, you will probably never match the riches or influence of Michelle Hucksterbee, exploiting the fears of Mr. & Mrs. Forthood, whose marriage is otherwise held together only by their shared enthusiasm for flatulence.

Call it KKKrazy says

If two gay people marry you suffer a loss of power over them, the power all religion craves.

There is no loss or gain of power over anyone. Gays shouldn't marry just like a 40 year old man shouldn't marry a 15 year girl or you shouldn't marry your grand ma.

Marriage is NOT an individual right, it is a social policy of what society wants to promote (normal family with children). Society does not want to promote homosexuality or other deviances. We want less of such behavior, not more.

it reminds me of the feminist explanation that men are not attracted to dominant women because it threatens men's feeling of power. it's a plausible but incorrect explanation. the un-PC truth is that dominance is male archetype, so dominant women are simply unattractive to most men because such women seem masculine. (straight) men are attracted to feminine women. men just can't help what they are attracted to, no matter how much feminists try to shame them for it. it's like being told you don't like chocolate cake, when you really really do. gender archetypes are encoded in our brains, and in the brains of pretty much all animals that have genders, right down to roosters and hens.

Yes, feminists believe it is our society with prejudices influences what types we are attracted to.
I am not at all attracted to dominant women, because I like to be the dominant one. I prefer the very pretty, innocent "Cinderella" types. Feminists will have a problem with that.
I do think society and culture can also have an influence of preferences. A college acquaintance of mine from Kenya, who literally grew up hunting with spears, told me they prefer "fat women, because they can carry more water"

Strategiest, in America all these feminist, homosexuals, etc... groups. All of them, they don't fit it, they are sociatal rejects (for very good reasons), who constantly want social policy changed to make them appear acceptable. That's all it comes down to. And they'll never get their way, at least nothing in a long run. Because ultimately they have to become normal, everyone else isn't going to become abnormal for them.

FortWayne says

Marriage is NOT an individual right

Why is free speech or the right to bear arms a right? Most people didn't enjoy these over much of human history.

Rights are created by man, not some natural order.

thunderlips11 says

Why is free speech or the right to bear arms a right? Most people didn't enjoy these over much of human history.

Rights are created by man, not some natural order.

Yes it's made by men. However, it is created for the benefit of society, not it's destruction. All our rights keep us free from big government, while allowing us as society still function as a single unit and create government that responds to our needs.

Gay's are a problem, it's something we are supposed to try to fix, not promote.

FortWayne says

Gay's are a problem, it's something we are supposed to try to fix, not promote.

Why are Gays a problem? Are we living in a dangerously underpopulated world?

OK maybe you could phrase it as his feeling powerless in the face of changes which make him deeply uncomfortable. But that's not quite the same as desiring power.

his feeling powerless in the face of changes which make him deeply uncomfortable. But that's not quite the same as desiring power.

I think there is at least 80% overlap, as the linked video in Dan's epiphany thread explained. If you look at the exit polls on Prop H8, religion was by far the biggest predictor of voting patterns: more than 80% of Evangelicals voted to amend the state constitution to stop same-sex couples from getting married, while more than 80% of agnostics and atheists voted to allow same-sex marriages to continue.

Call it KKKrazy says

FortWayne ... (I'm paraphrasing, but it's nearly a perfect verbatim): my kids

I haven't noticed Forthood using the phrase "my kids," though he may have. Mr. & Mrs. Larry Craig have kids from her prior marriage, Mr. & Mrs. Jerry Sandusky have adopted kids. I don't assume any biological connection between Forthood and the kids of Mr. & Mrs. Forthood. Forthood is old but wrote that the kids are very small, so I suspect a younger woman who was divorced and couldn't find a husband settled for Forthood. John Birger's book Date-onomics goes into detail about the difficulties religious women are having in finding religious husbands:
1) women are about twice as likely as men to stay within the religion of their childhoods, i.e. 2/3 vs 1/3, and they want their kids to share that religion;
2) women tend to want to marry men who are older than they are, and men tend to want women who are younger than they are;
3) the millenials outnumber gen-x, and single millenials vastly outnumber single boomers.
So, a religious woman with kids has a difficult time finding a religious husband who can provide for them, and ends up settling for the semi-literate Forthood. So long as the proprieties are observed, Forthood (like Larry Craig) feels that he has a highly valued "normal" family united in holy matrimony, and is thus less depressed about his tearoom trade. Also, he can blame his homosexuality on having once seen a same-sex couple somewhere, "monkey see monkey do," so it isn't his fault, he's done everything possible to be "normal", and he can count on Mrs. Forthood's nearly canine loyalty to accept that story.

Forthood's fear of black people may relate to that image, too. If Mrs. Forthood has kids with somebody who looks like him, that's ok, maybe even advantageous, but if she has kids with a black guy, then the image would be destroyed and Forthood would be humiliated.

BTW, notice also Kim Davis, the most famous county clerk in America. She got married to three different men but had kids with only one of them (and he was not her husband at the time). So, with 2/3 of her husbands, she had no kids, even though she's obviously fertile. If the photos and videos are any indication, she's not exactly the prize pig at the fair, so who are those guys getting married to her? Forthood. And to the surprise of no one, she and her current husband (who is not the father of her kids) are registering as Republicans, specifically so they can have the power to impose their religious strictures on others through force of law.

Jews are bitter because they rejected Christ. Islam teaches peace, the extremist sects who want to kill everyone are more akin to cults than branches of Islam. Does Jonestown represent the majority of protestant believers? I believe the word Christianity is almost meaningless, but those who believe in Christ are best defined by the word grace...

NuttBoxer says

Jews are bitter because they rejected Christ.

The pharisees (the at the time elites) did, mostly the other jews followed to prove their tribal loyalty.

NuttBoxer says

Islam teaches peace, the extremist sects who want to kill everyone are more akin to cults than branches of Islam

The believe that the word of god is supreme and if aspects of democratic society contradict the islamic faith they are very likely to identify with islam because in their view the God's law makes Man's law illegitimate if there's a conflict. That leads to a very dangerous situation because on average they are more devoted so to speak compared to other Abrahamaic faiths in today's day and age.

dublin hillz says

The believe that the word of god is supreme and if aspects of democratic society contradict the islamic faith they are very likely to identify with islam because in their view the God's law makes Man's law illegitimate if there's a conflict. That leads to a very dangerous situation because on average they are more devoted so to speak compared to other Abrahamaic faiths in today's day and age.

That's true of any religion. If you don't believe in a god or leader who knows more than your government, you definitely got the short end of the religion stick. Or maybe your god is government...