It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Social programming + the collapse of religion and values.

page: 33
30
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant
 


or Hitler's Germany

Sigh.

Hitler believed he was doing god's work. He was religious. It's right there in his Mein Kampf. The Nazis wore belts inscribed with 'God Is With Us'.

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
— Adolf Hitler

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
— Adolf Hitler

"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."
— Adolf Hitler


Hitler was a nominal Catholic and probably said what he said for ulterior motives. You are making the same 'mistake' as Dawkins in failing to make the distinction between nominal religious and religious people with conviction. There is a great difference. Hitler was not a Catholic in any real sense because he did not live by its moral teaching.




posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   

@Krazysh0t...prove that homosexuality or anything else you consider "degenerate" is truly degenerate WITHOUT a religious text.
First show me the exact post where I called homosexuals ''degenerates''. Answer - I DID NOT. You put words in my mouth. And you are misrepresenting...so I need not play your games.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by frazzle
 


But when it comes to a book written by man that details good life ways, you just about can't do better than the Qur'an whether you're Muslim or not, but that's just me.

Unless you're a woman.



If you haven't found better than you haven't read many books.


Books are there to be misquoted, apparently. The Qur'an I'm looking at right now ~ Sura 4, 34, says:

"Men are the protectors of women, because Allah has given one more foresight than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them .... " (which is clarified as "beating them lightly", whatever that means.) But the Sura in question doesn't say what you quoted, which is what I was talking about. Change a word here or there to make it read differently. "Spend their wealth"? Like they were all sheiks or sultans, lol. American men used to support their women with their means, too. Now its quite often the other way around and NOW look who's wearing the pants. Unseen parts? ROTFL.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Krazysh0tJust like you can point out evil secular societies, I can point out evil non-secular societies. So try again there buddy.


Which shows that the debate cannot turn on tit-for-tat cherry picking. If not what level should it proceed on? When I speak about spirituality or religion I am speaking about true spirituality, not the way religion has been abused for evil. Every mind is alive. God is the life of the mind (life is not just molecules fizzing in the brain). The quality of the life of the mind depends on, at least some, human beings practicing true religion, true spirituality. What exists in one mind can, in principle, exist in all minds. If there are not at least some people listening to God, humanity's connection with God will end and naive humanism will be no defence against evil.
edit on 18-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 


First prove to me that spirituality is even a real concept then maybe you'd have a point. Until then you might as well be talking about unicorns and pixies.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


You know it's funny how you produced an alternate translation of the Qur'an passage that was shown and it STILL talks about abusing women. You even admitted to it:



As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them .... " (which is clarified as "beating them lightly", whatever that means.)


FYI, it means exactly what it sounds like. If you fear your woman stepping out of line, beat her.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
According to the bible and Jesus we are all degenerates. Get off your high horses.

edit on 18-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


(post by Lucid Lunacy removed for a manners violation)

posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 

I actually read about 5 different translations of that passage. They all varied a little bit but most were closer to the one I posted then the one you did. Honestly.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by frazzle
 


You know it's funny how you produced an alternate translation of the Qur'an passage that was shown and it STILL talks about abusing women. You even admitted to it:



As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them .... " (which is clarified as "beating them lightly", whatever that means.)


FYI, it means exactly what it sounds like. If you fear your woman stepping out of line, beat her.


Alternate because I got it from the actual book and not off the internet? Of course I admitted it, its there, just not like you copy pasted.

And are you telling me non believing men don't abuse women? They don't even necessarily have to be their "own" women and they don't have to be breaking some religious taboo? Maybe he's just drunk and feeling mean. I think (some) men are almost like a pride of lions smacking their lady love in the chops if she looks at a hunkier specimen. But its true that men, particularly of the big three Abrahamic religions are terrified of women. Its in the old testament, less in the new but still there and its in the Qur'an.

I don't know, maybe the whole reason men turn to men is because of their innate fear of women. Born scared, IOW. At least its as good a theory as any other.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   

frazzle

Krazysh0t
reply to post by frazzle
 


You know it's funny how you produced an alternate translation of the Qur'an passage that was shown and it STILL talks about abusing women. You even admitted to it:



As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them .... " (which is clarified as "beating them lightly", whatever that means.)


FYI, it means exactly what it sounds like. If you fear your woman stepping out of line, beat her.


Alternate because I got it from the actual book and not off the internet? Of course I admitted it, its there, just not like you copy pasted.


I didn't copy and paste anything of the sort. Go back and look at the original poster's sn.


And are you telling me non believing men don't abuse women? They don't even necessarily have to be their "own" women and they don't have to be breaking some religious taboo? Maybe he's just drunk and feeling mean. I think (some) men are almost like a pride of lions smacking their lady love in the chops if she looks at a hunkier specimen. But its true that men, particularly of the big three Abrahamic religions are terrified of women. Its in the old testament, less in the new but still there and its in the Qur'an.


I never suggested this either. YOU are the one who is on about the great messages in the Qur'an, but it was just shown to you as well as admitted by you that the Qur'an promotes spousal abuse. What a GREAT message there right?


I don't know, maybe the whole reason men turn to men is because of their innate fear of women. Born scared, IOW. At least its as good a theory as any other.


Who knows? I certainly never suggested that men beating women doesn't happen.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 




Who knows? I certainly never suggested that men beating women doesn't happen.


No, that would be pretty crazy, but you obviously went to some trouble to single out one particular instance of it. And how was your quote not "borrowed" (copy pasted) from another source unless its your own translation?

Or did you just happen to have that version of that Sura sitting around waiting to be posted on a moment's notice? Hmmm.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

frazzle
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 




Who knows? I certainly never suggested that men beating women doesn't happen.


No, that would be pretty crazy, but you obviously went to some trouble to single out one particular instance of it. And how was your quote not "borrowed" (copy pasted) from another source unless its your own translation?

Or did you just happen to have that version of that Sura sitting around waiting to be posted on a moment's notice? Hmmm.


Click this link and read the screen name of the poster:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


And are you telling me non believing men don't abuse women?

What the hell does that matter? Physically abusing a woman because she is not 'obedient enough' is horribly wrong on many levels. You said this book was the best to be found on being good.

You seem to be dodging this and shifting the focus as to defend the passage. I find that unsettling…

You all really need to drop your religious books and pick up some philosophy books on ethics & morality. Hey you can go back to the holy books afterwards, just give a few a try. Maybe even compare them.
edit on 18-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Ah, so I was right on at least one guess.

So what do you think of my theory?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


I guess it's possible. I'm sure there are a whole slew of reasons for the abuse occurring. Inadequacy, jealousy, redirection of anger from somewhere else, religious proclamation, fear, control, dominance, misguided superiority.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by frazzle
 


And are you telling me non believing men don't abuse women?

What the hell does that matter? Physically abusing your wife because she is not 'obedient enough' is horribly wrong on many levels. You said this book was the best to be found on being good.

You seem to be dodging this and shifting the focus as to defend the passage. I find that unsettling…

You all really need to drop your religious books and pick up some philosophy books on ethics & morality. Hey you can go back to the holy books afterwards, just give a few a try. Maybe even compare them.


As always, take a paragraph out of an entire book and think you know everything there is to know about it. Try that with Plato.

The focus in this little side bar is that abusing women (or children ~ or anyone) is wrong. Period. I didn't "defend" that passage ~ I posted it for crying out loud. Abuse is abuse. But women OR men abusing children, even TO DEATH is even more horrific and it is rampant in this "civilized' and "secular" nation. All the laws on the books doesn't stop it. Churches and individuals are powerless to stop it and government can't or won't.

Here's a little ditty about ethics and morality from one of our own founders .... read the whole thing this time.


Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams www.beliefnet.com...

Welcome to other.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by frazzle
 


I guess it's possible. I'm sure there are a whole slew of reasons for the abuse occurring. Inadequacy, jealousy, redirection of anger from somewhere else, religious proclamation, fear, control, dominance, misguided superiority.


What? Now I'm confused. My theory is that maybe the whole reason men turn to men is because of their innate fear of women. Born scared, IOW. At least its as good a theory as any other.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join