Research on Belief in God

Page 100 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: God and Religion

Thats the first time I write something in this thread so its possible that everything I write here has already been written and discussed. However:
1.) I think the main question you have to ask yourself is why you believe in god (if you believe). Do you believe because your parents taught you there is a god or do you believe in god because you figured out on your own that you think there is a god. I think it doesn't make any sense to say I am a Christian simply because someone else told me to do so.
2.) Seriously, how likely is it that you choose the right religion. There have been hundreds of religions in the history of humanity and all of them have any prophets who say they talked with an angel or anything like that which should prove their religion is the right one.
3.) Many religions had been invented because the humans tried to explain something to themselves thy didn't understand. Now we live in a modern time when many things of different religions are proved to be false. Its impossible that mary was a virgin and we know that the earth wasn't made in seven days, thats a fact. So when we all know that most things written in the bible which are also already explored by scientists are false why should we believe everything else which hasn't been explored yet.
4.) If there is a god why should everything in the world be so unpredictable. It doesn't make any sense why there was an earthquake in nepal this year and why there was the big tsunami in 2004. If there would be someone above us who handles the whole universe such things could be explained logical and moreover (and thats something I just read in this thread and I absolutely have to agree) why on earth should a warm hearted god let people all over the world suffer?
 
Aug 4, 2011
2,644
0
0
Re: God and Religion

Gigs_98 said:
Thats the first time I write something in this thread so its possible that everything I write here has already been written and discussed. However:
1.) I think the main question you have to ask yourself is why you believe in god (if you believe). Do you believe because your parents taught you there is a god or do you believe in god because you figured out on your own that you think there is a god. I think it doesn't make any sense to say I am a Christian simply because someone else told me to do so.
2.) Seriously, how likely is it that you choose the right religion. There have been hundreds of religions in the history of humanity and all of them have any prophets who say they talked with an angel or anything like that which should prove their religion is the right one.
3.) Many religions had been invented because the humans tried to explain something to themselves thy didn't understand. Now we live in a modern time when many things of different religions are proved to be false. Its impossible that mary was a virgin and we know that the earth wasn't made in seven days, thats a fact. So when we all know that most things written in the bible which are also already explored by scientists are false why should we believe everything else which hasn't been explored yet.
4.) If there is a god why should everything in the world be so unpredictable. It doesn't make any sense why there was an earthquake in nepal this year and why there was the big tsunami in 2004. If there would be someone above us who handles the whole universe such things could be explained logical and moreover (and thats something I just read in this thread and I absolutely have to agree) why on earth should a warm hearted god let people all over the world suffer?
You could take that even further. What about the chaos of the universe. Why have such chaos so far away in time and space?
Then we could go to a sub atomic level, talk about Higgs Boson.
It just does not fit in with the idea of a supreme creator......Letting people die in the most evil ways yet sophisticated enough to go beyond our understanding of the universe ,,,,so far
 
Re:

Netserk said:
I just don't get why someone who is almighty and all-knowing would create the world as it is. Just doesn't make sense to me.
sinner....

Of course it makes no sense to sane people, we have the power to reason, so we look to reasonable things, not fantasy. It's called 'blind faith' for a reason.
 
Feb 23, 2014
6,543
1
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Jspear said:
Netserk said:
Could you elaborate on that?
I'll let him elaborate as to what exactly he meant. IMO I think he meant illness is a result of sin not a punishment for sinning.
Though when was a result of sin, not a corrosponding punishment?

When lethal disease is involved to boot, if it is the result of sin (even if a priori - like when involving infants - and thus commited by an ancestral cause), how can that in any way not be construed as its "just" punishment. In other words, how can we separate the cause from its effects in your guys rational way of seeing things? Unless, as someone else inquired, if horrible illness is indeed caused by (original?) sin then how should we regard the onerous outcome, a prize? Though as per my original inquiry, when has sin ever been awarded with a prize according to the Word?

I'll let you guys elaborate as to what you guys exactly mean.

Of course this doesn't exactly square with an all loving deity.
If you want to look at it in this way then understand it is a punishment that you have brought upon yourself. You have only yourself to blame for the horrible sickness of your child - because you are the one that sinned. This can't even be discussed without first fully understanding the holiness of God and the seriousness of sin. The bible teaches that God has always been. He can't change His nature - He can't take away His own glory. It just is. He was and is and will always be God and He will always be perfectly holy. The word holy means sanctified - set apart. He is apart from the world. When God made the world He made it without sin. The ability to sin was there but He didn't make us sin. That was a choice Adam made and by default a choice that we make. This separates us from God. Perfect holiness and sin can't mingle together. An unregenerate heart will never understand the seriousness of their sin. They will never understand that God has to justly punish sin. When we sinned, that brought a curse upon the entire world. It didn't just curse mankind, it cursed the universe. One of the byproducts of our sin is sickness. A child that gets sick gets sick because sin is in our nature. Now when one gets saved (repents from their sins and turns to God in faith believing that He only is our Savior) he/she will still have problems because we are still connected to our sinful body and we are still in this sinful world. But God promises to give us a new body and promises that we will live in a new heavens and a new earth with Him forever. Just because you experience pain doesn't mean someone doesn't exist. Just because someone justly allows pain doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because we think someone is mean, arrogant, a bully, ect. doesn't mean they don't exist. It really doesn't make sense for anyone to say "well I can't believe in a God that would let a child get cancer." Well, maybe you can't believe in a God like that, but that God still exists; what we think doesn't really change reality. He has still made a way for that child and you to be reconciled to Himself.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
rhubroma said:
Jspear said:
Netserk said:
Could you elaborate on that?
I'll let him elaborate as to what exactly he meant. IMO I think he meant illness is a result of sin not a punishment for sinning.
Though when was a result of sin, not a corrosponding punishment?

When lethal disease is involved to boot, if it is the result of sin (even if a priori - like when involving infants - and thus commited by an ancestral cause), how can that in any way not be construed as its "just" punishment. In other words, how can we separate the cause from its effects in your guys rational way of seeing things? Unless, as someone else inquired, if horrible illness is indeed caused by (original?) sin then how should we regard the onerous outcome, a prize? Though as per my original inquiry, when has sin ever been awarded with a prize according to the Word?

I'll let you guys elaborate as to what you guys exactly mean.

Of course this doesn't exactly square with an all loving deity.
If you want to look at it in this way then understand it is a punishment that you have brought upon yourself. You have only yourself to blame for the horrible sickness of your child - because you are the one that sinned. This can't even be discussed without first fully understanding the holiness of God and the seriousness of sin. The bible teaches that God has always been. He can't change His nature - He can't take away His own glory. It just is. He was and is and will always be God and He will always be perfectly holy. The word holy means sanctified - set apart. He is apart from the world. When God made the world He made it without sin. The ability to sin was there but He didn't make us sin. That was a choice Adam made and by default a choice that we make. This separates us from God. Perfect holiness and sin can't mingle together. An unregenerate heart will never understand the seriousness of their sin. They will never understand that God has to justly punish sin. When we sinned, that brought a curse upon the entire world. It didn't just curse mankind, it cursed the universe. One of the byproducts of our sin is sickness. A child that gets sick gets sick because sin is in our nature. Now when one gets saved (repents from their sins and turns to God in faith believing that He only is our Savior) he/she will still have problems because we are still connected to our sinful body and we are still in this sinful world. But God promises to give us a new body and promises that we will live in a new heavens and a new earth with Him forever. Just because you experience pain doesn't mean someone doesn't exist. Just because someone justly allows pain doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because we think someone is mean, arrogant, a bully, ect. doesn't mean they don't exist. It really doesn't make sense for anyone to say "well I can't believe in a God that would let a child get cancer." Well, maybe you can't believe in a God like that, but that God still exists; what we think doesn't really change reality. He has still made a way for that child and you to be reconciled to Himself.
Oh please I have long since been immune to such states of opinion, which are far worse than atheism, in so far they only cater to man's worst anxieties and fears over death at the expense of more virile philosophies.

I will say this per yours, though. The Christian church can do untold harm to a child's mind if the parents are Christian and adhere more or less automatically to the Christian religion. Christianity is the supreme annihilator of the child's soul, the supreme inspirer of terror, the supreme inflicter of guilt and thus the supreme destroyer of character. Furthermore thanks to its upbringing, which was purely a process of destruction, untold millions were turned into mindless creatures who've forgotten how to think for themselves and betrayed independence of thought to the Christian religion.

It will no doubt take centuries to put order back into the mental chaos and confussion that has been created.
 
Feb 23, 2014
6,543
1
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Jspear said:
rhubroma said:
Jspear said:
Netserk said:
Could you elaborate on that?
I'll let him elaborate as to what exactly he meant. IMO I think he meant illness is a result of sin not a punishment for sinning.
Though when was a result of sin, not a corrosponding punishment?

When lethal disease is involved to boot, if it is the result of sin (even if a priori - like when involving infants - and thus commited by an ancestral cause), how can that in any way not be construed as its "just" punishment. In other words, how can we separate the cause from its effects in your guys rational way of seeing things? Unless, as someone else inquired, if horrible illness is indeed caused by (original?) sin then how should we regard the onerous outcome, a prize? Though as per my original inquiry, when has sin ever been awarded with a prize according to the Word?

I'll let you guys elaborate as to what you guys exactly mean.

Of course this doesn't exactly square with an all loving deity.
If you want to look at it in this way then understand it is a punishment that you have brought upon yourself. You have only yourself to blame for the horrible sickness of your child - because you are the one that sinned. This can't even be discussed without first fully understanding the holiness of God and the seriousness of sin. The bible teaches that God has always been. He can't change His nature - He can't take away His own glory. It just is. He was and is and will always be God and He will always be perfectly holy. The word holy means sanctified - set apart. He is apart from the world. When God made the world He made it without sin. The ability to sin was there but He didn't make us sin. That was a choice Adam made and by default a choice that we make. This separates us from God. Perfect holiness and sin can't mingle together. An unregenerate heart will never understand the seriousness of their sin. They will never understand that God has to justly punish sin. When we sinned, that brought a curse upon the entire world. It didn't just curse mankind, it cursed the universe. One of the byproducts of our sin is sickness. A child that gets sick gets sick because sin is in our nature. Now when one gets saved (repents from their sins and turns to God in faith believing that He only is our Savior) he/she will still have problems because we are still connected to our sinful body and we are still in this sinful world. But God promises to give us a new body and promises that we will live in a new heavens and a new earth with Him forever. Just because you experience pain doesn't mean someone doesn't exist. Just because someone justly allows pain doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because we think someone is mean, arrogant, a bully, ect. doesn't mean they don't exist. It really doesn't make sense for anyone to say "well I can't believe in a God that would let a child get cancer." Well, maybe you can't believe in a God like that, but that God still exists; what we think doesn't really change reality. He has still made a way for that child and you to be reconciled to Himself.
Oh please I have long since been immune to such states of opinion, which are far worse than atheism, in so far they only cater to man's worst anxieties and fears over death at the expense of more virile philosophies.

I will say this per yours, though. The Christian church can do untold harm to a child's mind if the parents are Christian and adhere more or less automatically to the Christian religion. Christianity is the supreme annihilator of the child's soul, the supreme inspirer of terror, the supreme inflicter of guilt and thus the supreme destroyer of character. Furthermore thanks to its upbringing, which was purely a process of destruction, untold millions were turned into mindless creatures who've forgotten how to think for themselves and betrayed independence of thought to the Christian religion.

It will no doubt take centuries to put order back into the mental chaos and confussion that has been created.
Gods Word and His church aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Sorry to disappoint you. :)
 
Re:

TheGreenMonkey said:
Death is the punishment for sin
Illness is the result of sin

Netserk, God did not create the world exactly as it is, that is a result of sin.
No, but given that he is all-knowing, he knew how it would end up (at this stage) the way he created it (and us).
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
The scary thing is that you guys actually believe this crap about sinning and death. That a child's illness is in any way related to the sins of a parent - wow that is just sick in itself.
 
Re: Re:

Gods Word and His church aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Sorry to disappoint you. :)
Yes, but it's only a matter of time (unless, of course, humans don't extinguish themselves first).

Religions are evolutionary phenomena. In the immortal words of Flaubert: "The melancoly of the antique world seems to me more profound than that of the moderns, all of whom more or less imply that beyond the dark void lies immortality. But for the ancients that "black hole" is infinity itself; their dreams loom and vanish against a background of immutable ebony. No crying out - nothing but the fixity of a pensive gaze. Just when the gods had ceased to be and the Christ had not yet come, there was a unique moment in history, between Cicero and Marcus Aurelius, when man stood alone. Nowhere else do I find that particular grandeur."
 
Mar 13, 2009
5,068
0
0
Re:

TheGreenMonkey said:
Netserk, God did not create the world exactly as it is, that is a result of sin.
Yes, God created humankind as sinners and ordered us to be well again... by not following His orders we have failed Him, and it is we who are responsible for the state of the world, not Him...
 
Feb 23, 2014
6,543
1
0
Re:

frenchfry said:
The scary thing is that you guys actually believe this crap about sinning and death. That a child's illness is in any way related to the sins of a parent - wow that is just sick in itself.
Do you believe that there is no sin in the world? A child isn't ill because of the parents sin in the sense which I think you are implying. It is ill in the sense of - because the parents were sinners (and everyone before them), the child is a sinner and hence capable of getting sick. You kinda are construing it the wrong way.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
frenchfry said:
The scary thing is that you guys actually believe this crap about sinning and death. That a child's illness is in any way related to the sins of a parent - wow that is just sick in itself.
Do you believe that there is no sin in the world? A child isn't ill because of the parents sin in the sense which I think you are implying. It is ill in the sense of - because the parents were sinners (and everyone before them), the child is a sinner and hence capable of getting sick. You kinda are construing it the wrong way.
Once we get over a concept of "original sin" and "sin" in general, and superstition, then we can begin to take account for our own existence, however painful or joyous it may have been, and thus begin to take responsibility for what we actually did and how we actually behaved in this world; with no other reward than the edifying dignity it gives us in our relationship with society and nature.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
frenchfry said:
The scary thing is that you guys actually believe this crap about sinning and death. That a child's illness is in any way related to the sins of a parent - wow that is just sick in itself.
Do you believe that there is no sin in the world? A child isn't ill because of the parents sin in the sense which I think you are implying. It is ill in the sense of - because the parents were sinners (and everyone before them), the child is a sinner and hence capable of getting sick. You kinda are construing it the wrong way.
So God makes people suffer because of things others did which they had no control over?
 
Feb 23, 2014
6,543
1
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Jspear said:
frenchfry said:
The scary thing is that you guys actually believe this crap about sinning and death. That a child's illness is in any way related to the sins of a parent - wow that is just sick in itself.
Do you believe that there is no sin in the world? A child isn't ill because of the parents sin in the sense which I think you are implying. It is ill in the sense of - because the parents were sinners (and everyone before them), the child is a sinner and hence capable of getting sick. You kinda are construing it the wrong way.
So God makes people suffer because of things others did which they had no control over?
As I already said just a couple posts back; No you are responsible for them suffering.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
King Boonen said:
Jspear said:
frenchfry said:
The scary thing is that you guys actually believe this crap about sinning and death. That a child's illness is in any way related to the sins of a parent - wow that is just sick in itself.
Do you believe that there is no sin in the world? A child isn't ill because of the parents sin in the sense which I think you are implying. It is ill in the sense of - because the parents were sinners (and everyone before them), the child is a sinner and hence capable of getting sick. You kinda are construing it the wrong way.
So God makes people suffer because of things others did which they had no control over?
As I already said just a couple posts back; No you are responsible for them suffering.
I don't see the difference. God is responsible for both suffering and joy. Children are ill because of their parents (any others?) sins. So God makes people suffer because of things other people do. Correct? I don't see any other way to interpret it.
 
Feb 23, 2014
6,543
1
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Jspear said:
King Boonen said:
Jspear said:
frenchfry said:
The scary thing is that you guys actually believe this crap about sinning and death. That a child's illness is in any way related to the sins of a parent - wow that is just sick in itself.
Do you believe that there is no sin in the world? A child isn't ill because of the parents sin in the sense which I think you are implying. It is ill in the sense of - because the parents were sinners (and everyone before them), the child is a sinner and hence capable of getting sick. You kinda are construing it the wrong way.
So God makes people suffer because of things others did which they had no control over?
As I already said just a couple posts back; No you are responsible for them suffering.
I don't see the difference. God is responsible for both suffering and joy. Children are ill because of their parents (any others?) sins. So God makes people suffer because of things other people do. Correct? I don't see any other way to interpret it.
Suffering is a result of OUR sin. HUMANS sin. Its OUR problem. A child would be sick because of the sin nature which HE/SHE also has. It's not just their parents problem. Its THEIR problem.
 
How can it be their problem? A child who has no concept of sin suffers greatly through hunger, disease, abuse etc. and it is somehow their problem. I can't understand how any rational person could either a) believe that or b) want to have anything to do with a being that does that.

And why is the suffering not spread across the world? Why do populations with a higher percentage or religious people seem to suffer more? We, the unbelievers, sin and ignore God so he makes people who can't possibly influence our actions suffer for it?

Sorry, that's indefensible.
 
Re: Re:

Suffering is a result of OUR sin. HUMANS sin. Its OUR problem. A child would be sick because of the sin nature which HE/SHE also has. It's not just their parents problem. Its THEIR problem.
THEIR problem? Well, then, you provide a new take on the gods smile upon those who die young.
 
Re:

King Boonen said:
How can it be their problem? A child who has no concept of sin suffers greatly through hunger, disease, abuse etc. and it is somehow their problem. I can't understand how any rational person could either a) believe that or b) want to have anything to do with a being that does that.

And why is the suffering not spread across the world? Why do populations with a higher percentage or religious people seem to suffer more? We, the unbelievers, sin and ignore God so he makes people who can't possibly influence our actions suffer for it?

Sorry, that's indefensible.
Well, it's logically indefensible. That's not the argument however.

The Christian theological view of suffering is just another way of humans coping with that which is horrible and over which we have no control. You suffer because you are human is what it boils down to, which is true. To make sense of it, as we humans tend to want to do, we have attributed it to a power which we can pray to, adding a sense of control over the horror.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
Jspear said:
King Boonen said:
Jspear said:
frenchfry said:
The scary thing is that you guys actually believe this crap about sinning and death. That a child's illness is in any way related to the sins of a parent - wow that is just sick in itself.
Do you believe that there is no sin in the world? A child isn't ill because of the parents sin in the sense which I think you are implying. It is ill in the sense of - because the parents were sinners (and everyone before them), the child is a sinner and hence capable of getting sick. You kinda are construing it the wrong way.
So God makes people suffer because of things others did which they had no control over?
As I already said just a couple posts back; No you are responsible for them suffering.
Suffering is a result of OUR sin. HUMANS sin. Its OUR problem. A child would be sick because of the sin nature which HE/SHE also has. It's not just their parents problem. Its THEIR problem.
That is twisted and creepy. Also goes to show just how gullible man can be.
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,557
0
0
Re: God and Religion

Gigs_98 said:
1.) I think the main question you have to ask yourself is why you believe in god (if you believe). Do you believe because your parents taught you there is a god or do you believe in god because you figured out on your own that you think there is a god. I think it doesn't make any sense to say I am a Christian simply because someone else told me to do so.
For me I believe that I can honestly say it is something of my own. Of course it would be naive to deny the influence of ones upbringing and social environment, but I've exposed my faith to rational criticism as objectively as I could, and rational arguments have never posed a threat to my faith to be honest. I've had a lot of doubts in my early teens and throughout the years sometimes some lingering doubt would rear its head, but such doubt was more existential in nature than rational. I can't remember I've ever heard some rational argument against Christianity that really made me doubt my faith and I've heard many that have strengthened it. Now, of course I don't mean to say that I've always been able to answer all criticism easily, but whenever I came across a problem I just sat down, thought about it, listened to people from opposing sides of the argument and eventually I found a more or less satisfactory answer.

Actually, through the years I've only become more orthodox in my faith. I've been raised in a pretty liberal Protestant household and throughout my youth most of my friends were irreligious, so for me it actually feels like making my own choice, thinking for myself and not going with the flow, when I committed myself to a more orthodox form of Christianity. :)

Gigs_98 said:
2.) Seriously, how likely is it that you choose the right religion. There have been hundreds of religions in the history of humanity and all of them have any prophets who say they talked with an angel or anything like that which should prove their religion is the right one.
This one has never bothered me in the least to be honest. There have been hundreds of different views about just about anything in the history of humanity and all of these views have their arguments to support them, doesn't mean you shouldn't think your views are correct.

Also, sometimes I wonder what the term religion even means. Why is Christianity put in the same group as ancient Greek paganism and Hinduism in the religion group, whereas (neo-)Platonism is considered a philosophy, despite having clear beliefs about the metaphysical and having some religious tendencies? Ancient Christian thinkers when they tried to reach the classical world appealed to philosophy not to the religions of that day, feeling much more affinity with Plato, Aristotle and especially Stoic philosophers, than with paganism. They called their beliefs the 'true philosophy' not so much the 'true religion'. Throughout its history Christianity has always sought to engage itself with contemporary philosophies, not so much with other religions. I'm not saying Christianity is not a religion or that Platonism is not a philosophy, I'm just wondering why Christianity is considered just another one of the hundreds of religions, while its beliefs are really completely different in nature from all those hundreds of pagan beliefs out there? And you know, I'm not just trying to arbitrarily create a distance between Christianity and all those pagan religions out there, you can ask the same for other 'religions'. Why, for instance, is Buddhism generally considered a religion despite not having any gods?

Gigs_98 said:
3.) Many religions had been invented because the humans tried to explain something to themselves thy didn't understand. Now we live in a modern time when many things of different religions are proved to be false. Its impossible that mary was a virgin and we know that the earth wasn't made in seven days, thats a fact. So when we all know that most things written in the bible which are also already explored by scientists are false why should we believe everything else which hasn't been explored yet.
How do we even know that religion came about in that way? I mean, in some myths it's pretty obvious they're trying to explain something, but it's not like we ever found some ancient document saying 'hey today I invented religion such and so in order that this and that might be explained'.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the virgin birth isn't so much your problem, but miracles in general. Unless there is something that puts the virgin birth apart from other miracles as being extra problematic rationally, but I don't see that there is any. And I don't see a rational problem with miracles. If God exists and if He has created the world, it doesn't seem improbable to me that He might intervene somehow in this world if He wants to. Science describes the world as if it were a closed system. That's absolutely fine and it should, for methodological reasons. But science, as far as I know, doesn't claim and certainly doesn't prove somehow that the universe that we know is in fact a closed system. Thus for me there is plenty of room rationally to accept science and to accept at least the possibility that an entity from outside of this universe (such as God) can influence something in this universe and thus cause something that would appear miraculous to us.

Gigs_98 said:
4.) If there is a god why should everything in the world be so unpredictable. It doesn't make any sense why there was an earthquake in nepal this year and why there was the big tsunami in 2004. If there would be someone above us who handles the whole universe such things could be explained logical and moreover (and thats something I just read in this thread and I absolutely have to agree) why on earth should a warm hearted god let people all over the world suffer?
I agree that the occurrence of such things will probably have a logical explanation if God exists. I don't see why it should necessarily be the case that we would know this logical reason however. To be honest, that's about all I have to say about this. The Bible provides a lot of instances where some kind of suffering and evil is explained somehow, but it doesn't give any great absolute general answer to 'the problem of evil', in fact, it doesn't even ask the question. There are instances where suffering is indeed explained as a punishment for sin or the result of sin, there are instances where it is some kind of test, or the work of the devil, or it's the suffering that humans inflict upon each other in their free will, or something else still. Often more than one of those elements play a role. But all of these are clearly particular and not meant to be some sort of grand universal explanation for suffering in general. Really, as far as I'm concerned, the world is far too complex and diverse for those types of easy answers.
It's clear that the problem of evil isn't a kind of logical proof that God doesn't exist in my opinion. I repeat myself; it's clear that there is a logical possibility that a omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God has a good reason for creating the world the way He created it. But it isn't very clear that we should somehow know that good reason. When we are confronted with suffering however, we do want an answer. And such answers as are available to us are usually particular, not universal. I don't see that there should necessarily even be one big sweeping universal answer to all the suffering under the sun. Different instances of suffering have different explanations as far as I can see and I don't think it's awfully realistic to expect anybody except God to know the explanations for each particular case of suffering.
 
Re: God and Religion

Those atheists!!! :eek: Holy Moses, how can they be so hypocritical, cynical and demagogic. I can't believe this!. They really dare to :eek: :rolleyes: I mean, they are responsible for all the sufferings in the world and then play good Human right activists. They really make me wanna puke.
 
Re: God and Religion

I bother to translate highlights of another show on Metatv.org. An interview of Anis Al-Fayda about Orientalism from last January. I thought it really was interesting. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg9lgzNMB-A

What we shall try to do on this show is trying to define Orientalism, what are its true roots, its aims and in what way it has influences and consequences till date. It’s the root of much disinformation in the current news about the Orient in broader sense but in particular when we are referring to Orientalism, we’re talking about Islam as civilization more than just the Islamic religion. It’s the one that is the object of all passions and lust. “Orient is the oldest Western phantasm” is a quote whose author I can’t remember. Since Ancient times the West has always fancied creating a fantasised, phantasmagorical Orient, which does not fit or very partially fit with the reality. And if it seeks to give a certain image of the Orient, it’s for the pursuit of much less admittable ends. A lot of great Western figures became famous because of the contact with the Orient: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, … The Orientalist movement as we know it today started with Bonaparte’s Egyptian campaign by the end of the 18th century, the 19th and the 20th century being the heydays of Orientalism and it has consequences until today.
[…]
Fact is that some Western elites have started their dream of grandeur when they set foot in the Orient. Under the Roman Empire, generals and province governors saw as prestige and social advancement a job in the Orient: in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, etc. Egypt was the cherry on the cake. Already at that time, a lot of commonplaces are conveyed about the Orient. It’s the object of 1001 desires, phantasms and passions.

Orientalism is an intellectual, cultural and artistic movement. It’s about some Western elite’s will to press a fantasised, phantasmagorical view against Orient in order to get involved into the Oriental business and in order to impose their worldview on the Oriental people to the extent of making them look at their own history the view that Westerners will convey about them, which means that Orientalism brings Western people to make the people of Orient look at the Orient the way they see it.

So Islam’s expansion started after Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632, who also was the object of a lot of passion those last few days, with just what happened. I will during this interview how far Orientalism still has consequences today, when Muslims are forced to desecrate the Prophet’s face, when they are told “you got to distantiate”, “it’s freedom of speech”, etc.

Between the Christian West and Islam, it hasn’t always been a clash of civilizations. Harun al-Rashid – the Abbasid Caliph of Bagdad; the famous Caliph of the 1001 nights – made an alliance, exchanged embassies with Charles the Great because at that time, the Byzantine Empire was Charles’ rival and Harun’s rival were the Umayyads who reigned in Damas and whom he chased away a little before. One branch of that family went to Spain. Charles the Great however was the first to arrogate the role of protecting the Christians in the Orient and which has consequences till today, even though they are now being massacred, that’s true. We are know in a secular country, that is the funny part of it but this role gets back to Charles the Great.

I brought a few books to give food for thought. One person with a very relevant approach to all this is a German historian called Sigrid Hunke in “Allah's Sun over the Occident: Our Arabic Heritage". Yes, it’s an intrusion of religiosity into the public sphere’s neutrality, surely, if I may use the present-day Newspeak. Sigrid Hunke shows how far the Islamic powers are leading in terms of technique, art & culture but also on the economy (the Provence was a Arabic protectorate until the 11th century) but the premises of the Arabic decline was the decline of trade with the West and they let the Italians do it because they were fighting against each other. A lot of great civilizations declined because civil wars.

20.54: I have more respect for the Mongols than for the Rangers and the GI’s (referring to the destruction of Bagdad by the Mongols in 1258, comparing with the current situation in Iraq).

28.25: Roger II of Sicily was very tolerant towards Muslims. He was a Norman and took Sicily back from the Muslims. He had a Maghrebin/Moroccan geographer called al-Idrîsî who made a very famous world map.
29.28: Small digression with the news, some are bragging about being lay/secular. The lay man is the one that is vulgar, ignorant. The cleric on the other hand has the knowledge. So when people tell me that they are secular, I respond: “yes so you are vulgar then, you are ignorant. Then if you are proud of it, it’s your problem.”

30.04: We also easily forget about that, Vasco de Gama was able to finish the end of his journey thanks to Arabic merchants who were on the coast of Tanzania/Zanzibar. Tanzania is black Africa and yet what is its capital city? Dar-Es-Salaam, House of Peace in Arabic. What do you call the language of an ethnic – there’s been multiculturalism of Arabic and Blacks over centuries and centuries – on the East Coast of Africa? Swahili. It comes from the Arabic word “sahel” which means the coast. So it’s no surprise that Vasco de Gama could finish his journey with the help of Arabic and Muslim navigators.

38.36: In the 16th century France is encircled by the Habsburg with Charles V and France’s geopolitical situation is very fragile. So King François I feared to be sandwiched by the Habsburgs and made a rear alliance with Suleiman the Magnificent, the Great Turk, which surprised everybody at that time. He gave the Sultan permission to have his fleet anchor in Nice and Toulon because the Sultan tried to kick the Spaniard out of Northern Africa: Tunis, Oran, … So they are both allies.
In 1530, François founded the “College de France”, and very soon language professorships are created: Greek, Latin, Hebrew and … Arabic professorships are created since the Turkish Empire is a protected partner and though the Ottoman elite is Turkish, Arabic is still dominant in Islamic lands.

Vid #2 3.30: Josée Balagna-Coustou showed in her “Arabe et humanisme dans la France des derniers Valois” (Arabic and Humanism in the France of the Last Valois) [very rare book] how Arabic evolved from a theological interest in the Middle-Age to an object of diplomatic and commercial studies. There must permanently be French diplomatic representation at the Sublime Porte and the French commercial exchanges with the Arabic merchants had to be facilitated.

4.20: Against a common belief, Muslims have always tolerated the “ahl al-kitâb”, the people of the Book that they called ‘dhimmis’, the protected people. No, the dhimmis weren’t submissive, they have sealed a pact with the Muslim authorities and they have a protected status. Well it’s true that they didn’t have the same status, they had no right to have weapons, to get in the army and all but they weren’t neither caused injury to their properties nor to their lives etc. So who gave this idea of submissive dhimmis? Well some “identitarists” [far right skinhead movement in France] and some websites like “Riposte laïque” [secularist/Zionist movement], this kind of garbage talking about the situation of French Muslims living in the suburbs. So they say if you don’t criticize Islam, you are submissive? But everybody dares to criticize Islam. Everybody’s lining up to criticize. Take Michel Houellebecq again who is a star and who has never been such a star than now, even if sometimes they can say right thing to very specific topics, it’s not what I mean, I don’t refuse criticism of Islam but delirium about Islam, no!
22.03: Voltaire attacked the Church. He talked about crushing the Infamous thing. So in his tragedy “Muhammad or the Fanaticism”, he thought he would attack Islam in order not to fear retaliation from the Church but the Church was not fooled, there were attacks against the Christianism through Islam. So in his tragedy, you still have this fantasized Orient, a lot of inaccuracies about Islam. […] In his Candid, the hero finds himself in Morocco. Here it’s the same, Muslims are Barbarians, they are just fighting all the time … In Europe, when there are dynasty changes, there are civil wars because the declining dynasty is at war with the upcoming dynasty, but you won’t have that depiction. You won’t say they are all savages, Barbarians, etc. […] When you read Voltaire’s Candid the way he describes Morocco is they have barbarism in their blood, in their genes. […] Zadig is an Oriental name, you have to face it. Zadig is a guy who is waiting for things to come, he does not act. This is one of the characteristics of Orientalism, claiming that Muslims are passive, they don’t act, “here in the West we say: God helps only those who help themselves [which isn’t in the Bible], Muslims are lazy bones, they are smoking hookah, they drink black coffee, women are lascivious and sensual and are just waiting for the Euros to come & get them out of their boredom in which their husbands confined them… in the harems…”Always the usual codswallops.

26.39: In Europe, a despot can be “enlightened”, “The Enlightenment”. Who are the sovereigns who have the Philosophers’ favours: Frederic II of Prussia, who was a good friend of Voltaire’s though it ended up badly between them, Catherine II of Russia and Maria-Theresa of Austria. So in the West, the despot is ‘enlightened’. In the Orient, it’s “Oriental despotism.” It’s a special one. It’s above the others. Even worse than in Europe. It’s nonsensical. It does not fit with the concrete reality. Powers in Europe are doing what they can like the French “absolute” monarchy. Unlike many think, the monarchy was not absolute. There were corporations, there were ‘pays d’élection’ [A pays d'élection was one of the three types of généralité, or fiscal and financial region, in France under the Ancien Régime. The representative of the royal government, the intendant, split up the impôts in each region with the aid of the élus, who were for a long time elected by the States General, hence the name of their office and of the pays d'élection; wiki], there were ‘pays d’états’ [Under the Ancien Régime, a pays d'états was a type of généralité, or fiscal and financial region where, in contrast to the pays d'election, an estates provincial or representative assembly of the three orders had retained its traditional role of negotiating the raising of taxes with the royal commissaires or intendants, dividing the tax burden bydiocese and parish, and controlling tax collection. The estates also held onto part of the funds thus raised to repair and develop the roads in its province], there were regional parliaments, the King of France respected the regional entities a lot. It all changed with Jacobinism during the French Revolution. The Wars of the Vendée weren’t Louis XV nor Louis XVI but the Terror.

So from the 18th century on, you have this essentialization of the Orient. […] The Orient keeps on interesting & fascinating the Westerners. You have Mozart’s Turkish March. […] In 1795 the National Institute of Oriental Languages and Civilizations (Inalco) was created. In Europe the elites have manifested a constancy in their objectives and their interest for the Orient in a continuous way, for imperialist aims, which has always fascinated me, we should acknowledged qualities in our opponents. Even though the French and the Brits are fighting against each other, they always keep an eye on the Orient and sooner or later you have to get there back.
Now we reach the Golden age of Orientalism with Bonaparte’s expedition to Egypt, in 1798. Napoleon got a huge prestige with the Italian campaigns but he really made a name for himself with his Egyptian campaign. It clashes with the traditional French policy which rather was allied with the Ottomans. But he does not make his campaign with the army only. That’s modern Orientalism. He’s backed with scientists who had studied for very long the languages of the people where they would go, geographers, cartographers, that’s where Egyptology was born. The first to decipher hieroglyphs – Champollion – was part of that expedition. […] So here orientalist interest becomes scientific. […]

I remember when I was at school I was the only Muslim in my class. The teacher asked me if I did my prayers. I said yes, everything. Can you do the Adhan, the call to worship? I said yes. So she asked me to do it in front of the class. […] Then she said “cool, for once I hear other things in Arabic than swearwords.” So that was an intrusion of religiosity into the public sphere (laughing). It’s true with those people who claim to be Muslim but are riffraff – “Austro-Hungarians” as Adrien Abauzit calls them – you always get to hear swearwords.

So after the Egyptian campaign, Orientalism took a new face and here we will have to talk about an author that impressed me a lot: Edward Said and his famous book: “Orientalism: The Orient created by the Occident” (1978). He wrote a sequel from it in 1993 following the Gulf War and which is called “Culture & Imperialism”. I’m really and hotly encouraging you to read this book. He’s a Christian Palestinian who then turned American. This book does not look a day older. It started what we called “post colonial studies” (in English in the text), which is almost non-existent in France.

In 1830, the Conquest of Algiers was made thanks to a spy that Napoleon sent there in 1808. Napoleon already considered taking Algiers. […] From then on, the conquests are prepared in advance by the political powers who base their plans on their scholars from the Orientalist institutes such as the Inalco in France for the description that they have on the peoples, they have interpreters that had been trained at the Inalco, such as Antoine Isaac, Baron Silvestre de Sacy whom Edward Said greatly taunt in his book (It does not mean to say that if you are going to the Inalco, you’ll end up becoming an Orientalist, that’s not what I mean) ; all of that in order to favor the penetration of Euros in Islamic land. […] “Muslim land is the desert. The men don’t do anything. They are waiting for things to come. Women are lascivious and quartered in their harems and wishing to have a little bit of action.” That’s Orientalism. You also have this kind of essentialization in the Black woman, the Asian woman, the Amerindian woman, etc but the Muslim woman has always been at stake in the struggle between the West and Islam. The White man is going to liberate the Muslim woman, a bit like John Smith & Pocahontas in order to draw an analogy with America. So we always have to liberate until today with the veil issue. If a woman wants to wear a veil, she does it. She does what she wants. Modernity does not pass by g-string or bikini, you should calm down a bit. This stance takes its roots there [in Orientalism]. “We have to liberate the Arabic woman from the harem in which she’s quartered by the bad Muslim men who keep them under a ruthless, theocratic yoke that is not being called one”.

So from Bonaparte on, Orientalism has become a cultural, economic, scientific and intellectual undertaking. It’s the same for the Brits when they are going to India, to Egypt by the end of the 19th century. Expeditions prepared in advance by scholars from the Royal Geographical Society and other universities ! Very often you have along with these conquests, the plunder of architectural treasures and remnants of Islamic lands. […] When as a teenager I started to read some atlases, each time I saw a beautiful relics from a Muslim country: a saber or some pottery, what did I read below: Bibliothèque nationale de France, Richelieu or British Museum or National Gallery, Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg, Kunsthistorische Museum in Vienna or in the Met in N-Y. So in the end are there any relics or cultural pieces in Muslim countries? Of course there are objects that had been bought/acquired by Euro merchants when they came back from the Orient but a lot had been plundered during the colonization, you have to call a spade a spade. Vae victis! […] The Obelisk on the place de la Concorde was offered by Muhammad Ali of Egypt to King Louis-Philip. Muhammad Ali was the viceroy of Egypt at that time. Egypt was becoming a slightly autonomous power from the Ottoman Empire at that time and was allied to France and offered it as a show of friendship. You can still wait before a Western leader offers a monument to an Oriental country for a political alliance. But that’s it. The Orientals are very magnanimous and warm-hearted sometimes. When you think of it, the Obelisk was offered. It’s a well-established monument in Paris, nowadays!

6.40: I’m going to read an excerpt from the 4th cover of the book by Edward Said [French version]:
"From Aeschylus to Kissinger, from Marx to Barrès, the Occident has always spoken out about the Orient but since the “Orient” does not exist, where does this discourse come from and how can we explain its astonishing stability throughout the ages and ideologies? The “Orient” is a creation of the Occident, its double, its opposite, the incarnation of its fears and of its sense of superiority all the same, the flesh of a body which it would only like to be the spirit of.

Studying orientalism, which is present in politics and literature, in travel stories and in science, you learn little about the Orient but a lot about the Occident. […]”

Actually what we see in this fantasized and phantasmagorical Orient, we get to learn more and more about the Western sense of superiority. Because during the 19th century, literature keeps on setting foot in Orientalism: Victor Hugo with his famous poems about the djinns, Flaubert with Salammbo thought only nasty things about Muslims, Gérard de Nerval too with his famous “Voyage to the Orient”, Pierre Loti also with his travel to the Orient and his novel called Aziyadé telling the story of a Turkish princess, always sex, the Oriental woman who is essentialized, sensualised and capable of 1001 sexual prowess that no Western woman are capable of. So throughout the 19th century, it goes on and on and on and it paves the way for the colonial conquests which also go on.

13.10: The other famous book by Gustave Le Bon is “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind” (1896), which can explain a lot about what happened after the “Je suis Charlie” demonstrations. Read Edward Bernays’ Propaganda and “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind” by Gustave Le Bon and you understand it all. So then in the 20th century, when the Ottoman Empire is dismantled, the Brits complicated the Orient a lot with the famous Picot-Sykes Agreements, negotiated by a British diplomat Mark Sykes and a French diplomat Georges Picot who shared the rest of the Ottoman Empire together, which means the artificial borders that we see today. […] Jordan has always been a good butler for the West. Lebanon was detached from Syria by force because that is aware you got most Christians while before it was the land of Sham (Bilad al-Sham): Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan was only one country. Now, the Arabs say Sūrīyah for Syria while they formerly said Sham. Those borders are totally artificial. And then you see another big crook that was Lawrence of Arabia who was no more, no less a British spy. His book “The Seven Pillars of Wisdom” stinks Orientalism from A to Z. He was gay, he had a Bedouin lover, he adored Bedouins (laughs). I also loved the film [me too, my favourite actually] with Peter O’Toole, Omar Sharif, Anthony Quinn and many others [let’s not forget Alec Guinness] but yes Lawrence of Arabia served British interests. I wrote in my book that we should stop calling him Lawrence of Arabia. He should be called Lawrence of Wales. The Order of Garter says “honni soit qui mal y pense” (“shame on him who thinks evil of it"). I’d say “shame on him who thinks good of him”. Yes he served British interests. Stop pretending he was a lover of the Arab cause or whatever. It’s a bit like in Morocco, Lyautey is said to have respected traditions, unlike Bugeaud in Algeria who crushed everything, no Lyautey used arms force. It was called pacification. It’s nothing more or less than a conquest war. It’s part of Orientalism. It was different from Algeria. Lyautey was a monarchist but only for France but Morocco and Tunisia weren’t the same as Algeria since they were protectorates but he too was a conqueror. He served the colonial French interest [so the Republic’s interest, that means]. If you are in love with the country, don’t conquer it. You can love it without invading it. But Muslims are sometimes very naïve, I mean there’s a rumour that Bonaparte had converted to Islam, I mean, he destroyed Egypt !!

So Orientalism in the 20th century paved the way for the Sykes-Picot agreement, the creation of Israel – not directly but there had been stages – and a certain Bernard Lewis who coined the phrase/concept: “Clash of Civilizations.” It’s not Samuel Huntington who only covered it. Bernard Lewis is made of iron, he was born in 1916 and he’s still alive. A Britton, who also have the American citizenship and … Israeli. These are just the fact, I’m sorry. I’m not saying … I’m a Semite, so I cannot be an anti-Semite [famous etymologism: Arabs are also Semitic people]. These are also the forerunners of what we now call Islamologists. These are the last avatars of Orientalism. The Orientalists want to force Muslims to have the view on Islam that the Westerners have. That’s why we talk about moderate Muslims, etc. So an author that I don’t like a lot Malek Chébel once wrote a “Manifesto for an Enlightened Islam.” Well you’ll do that on your own, dear boy. What’s that an “Enlightened Islam”? The Enlightenment is European, just keep it. That’s not for Muslims. You have people like Abdennour Bidar: “Booh fanaticism, you have to modernize, …” You got to force Muslims to modernize a bit in the Attaturk way.

Attaturk led Turkey after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. To his credit, he made sure that Turkey was not under European control but he made sure that the Turkish state was mentally occupied by the West. You should put yourself in the context of the time. If you wore the fez, the traditional Turkish hat, it was liable to death penalty. There are pictures of people hanged with the fez, just because he wore it. You had to wear the Western derby hat. He imposed the Latin alphabet by force! In one year! We in May/June, next school year hup Latin alphabet. It’s an unheard-of shock for the Turkish population. What is “Enlightened Islam”? It’s Attaturk. He destroyed the spiritual and cultural Turkish heritage. He imposed Turkish prayer while normally Muslims prayed in Arabic. He made a Western calendar. Each time an Islamic party came to power after that, the army made a coup. Do you know how many coups there had many after Attaturk’s death? In 1980 they made a frightening coup d’etat! Westerners say that Muslims are barbarians because there’s no vote there. Yes but when they vote they always vote Islamic. You got to know what you want? You can’t judge our vote. You can link that with what is happening in Greece today. Have you seen the comments on the Syriza vote? Whatever you think of this party. But the European condescendence towards the Greek is amazing. Why do they vote for them? But do we ask you questions?
[Interviewer] It’s a bit like what happened in Gaza. The UN say “we make elections!” Everybody thinks it’s going to be fine and they vote for Hamas and they aren’t happy.

[Al Fayda] In 1991 in Algeria, the Islamic Salvation Front – you may like this party or not – they legally won the elections, period! The army cancels out and coup d’etat. In Egypt, coup d’etat with Sissi, there are people being killed every day now. It’s now because it’s not talked about on TV that it does not happen. There are demonstration every Friday, the day of the great prayer. So when the Muslims don’t vote, they are barbarians and when they vote they don’t vote for the right parties, QED, quod erat democratum. Either we send the army to bomb them or else the West seconds the dictatorial regimes that are in office. That is how Orientalism has influenced until today.

You always have this idea of modernizing Islam, making it more malleable, more in tune with the modern spirit, notably on the level of opinion democracy and market democracy because despite the imperfection and the weaknesses of Muslim countries, they still resist the modern spirit a little bit. Even though they are largely won to the modernist gangrene, make no mistake: consumerism and a lot of other things.

26.59: I’d like to quote a passage from the Crisis of the Modern World by René Guénon from 1928 [actually 1927]. I don’t iconize René Guénon but it feels good to read René Guénon. This passage tells how Westerners got surprised by the reaction of the Orient. “We attack them and they don’t let it go.”

So it goes:

“It is true that, when certain passions come into play, the same things can be appreciated in a very different, and even quite contrary, sense according to the circumstances: so, for instance, when a Western people resists a foreign invasion, this is called 'patriotism' and merits the highest praise, but when an Eastern people does so it is called 'fanaticism' or 'xenophobia', and merits hatred and contempt.”

Because yeah, when the Westerners saw resistance to their penetration in Arabland, it went “they are fanatics, they are barbarians, they have magic powers, it’s sorcery. It’s close to being mysterious.

“Moreover, is it not in the name of 'Right', and 'Liberty', of 'Justice' and 'Civilization', that the Europeans claim to impose their dominion over all others, and to forbid anyone to live and think otherwise than they do themselves? It cannot be denied that moralism is a truly remarkable thing, unless one prefers to conclude, as we do, that, save for exceptions as honorable as they are rare, there remain in the West really only two kinds of people, neither of them very interesting: the gullible, who take these big words at their face value, and believe in their 'civilizing mission', completely unaware of the materialist barbarism in which they are sunk, and the guileful, who exploit this state of mind to gratify their instincts of violence and cupidity. In any case, one thing is certain, and that is that Easterners are a menace to nobody and do not dream of invading the West in any way whatsoever: they have enough to do for the moment in defending themselves against European oppression, which threatens now to assail even their minds; and it is curious, to say the least, to see the aggressors taking up the pose of victims. This clarification was necessary, for these are things that that needed to be said; but we should consider it a waste of time to dwell at greater length on this theme, for the argument of the 'defenders of the West' is too flimsy and inconsistent.”

You might want to draw a link with the Charlie Hebdo affair. Of course we’ve got to condemn what happened but well personally I’m not Charlie. I’m Anis Al-Fayda and it’s already a lot. I remember a sentence by Georges Wolinsky, one of those who had been killed, it’s sad and all but these guys, it’s not my way of life, I mean it’s impossible. Do you know what he told his wife? It’s a quote that can easily be found on the Internet. “When I’m dead, you’ll burn my ashes and you’ll throw me in the toilet, that way I’ll see your buttocks, every day. What’s the plan? And when they made their caricatures, they are surprised to see that the Muslims react badly. “Oh but Muslims have no humor” … But you can’t ask them to react the way you want! All this takes its long roots into Orientalism. “Oh but you, Arabs, it’s okay. Leave us the grip with your prophet.” It’s almost that, you know. The West always has that view of the Orient.

35.30: I find this deilirium around sport plain stupid. René Guénon talks about it. Julius Evola as well. Just for that matter, these authors should be read. [very important on this forum]

["There is no longer any place for intelligence, or anything else that is purely inward, for these are things that can neither be seen nor touched, that can neither be counted nor weighed; there is only place for outward action in all its forms, even those that are the most completely meaningless. For this reason it should not be a matter of surprise that the Anglo-Saxon mania for sport gains ground day by day: the ideal of the modern world is the 'human animal' who has developed his muscular strength to the highest pitch; its heroes are athletes, even though they be mere brutes; it is they who awaken popular enthusiasm, and it is their exploits that command the passionate interest of the crowd. A world in which such things are seen has indeed sunk low and seems near its end" René Guénon in The Crisis of the Modern World]

35.55: I have grown up with the cartoon shows on TV, the American way of life and consumption society, like everybody but my parents told me to never trust anything that the medias said about us [Muslims]. However, I have something against the Muslims that I met. As a teenager when I started reading books about our culture, about what Arabs did in Spain, etc. I would talk about it with other Arabic migrants here in France, try to interest them, they did not give a flip about it. They are light-years away from it. They’d rather go and listen to rap music and go to a Greek restaurant. I remember an anecdote. I came back from a football match and I was in the car reading a book. It was Sinbad the Sailor. A monument of Arabic literature. I tried to interest them but they were listening to rap music and I could not compete with them. You have an “Institut du Monde arabe” here in Paris. It can be criticize but the Maghreb people here don’t even know where it is. However everyone knows that a new Burger King has been opened on the Place Saint-Lazare. […]

Vid 4: 0.00: With Internet, you can find books. You shouldn’t stick to Google and Youtube. Nothing better than reading. In order to counter the wave of imprecision and ignorance, go and read. Nothing to add.

0.45: Let’s talk about Hollywood. There’s a Christian American with Arabic roots, called Jack Shaheen who wrote a book called “Hollywood and the Arabs: How the Arabs vilified the People.” You have it on YT and Dailymotion [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKD3CnPJNOE ]. It goes all the way back to the 1920’s and 1930’s, to the old silent cartoons. The Arabs were presented with an image but well I mean, rock bottom! In the series 24, the villains are once the Russians, once the Chinese but 50% of the times, it’s the Muslims.
6.54: [Viewer’s question] Anis, on the whole, the colonization coming, they said “you’ve always been barbarious”, we are going to civilize you and cut your link with your ancestors. The Muslim loses his memory. After decolonization, the Muslim want to get back to what he used to be, only he does not know what he used to be and bases his thoughts on what the settler told him he was, so a brilliant. It produces our proud and stupid bearded men who do not look like their colonizer nor their ancestors. He does not look like anything at the end of the day.
[Al Fayda] It’s excellently well said. The show might stop here. Ibn Khaldun showed how the vanquished is subjugated by the victor and seeks to emulate the victor in order to try to take his power while in truth he only consolidates his dominated status. Trying to use the victor’s technique in order to emancipate is okay but seeking to stupidly emulate the victor is the best way to consolidate his alienation. […] In the end you don’t look like the victor because the victor keeps on despising you. You can draw a parallel between France and the USA for example. Some are ashamed of themselves. Take the Saud’s and their astonishing servility. The policy that the Saud are leading perfectly fit with the designs and the goals of Orientalism. Recently, King Abdullah died and the tribute that had been paid to him were unbelievable. Christine Lagarde [IMF chairwoman] said that he favoured the emancipation of women [laughs]. However, there are countries who are barbarious, you should destroy them, bomb them, etc. But Saudi Arabia is our allies…

11.34: Look at the Western cynicism, we destroy countries. We contributed to create chaos in Iraq, well this the West. Ever since the Gulf War of 1991. That’s it. And now they say: those Iraqis are barbarians. You put chaos on their land. They are then killing each other and then aah they give themselves to good role, we are going to welcome the Christians in our land. Total cynicism from A to Z.

12.07: In France the government insults the Christians but they want to rescue the Christians from the Middle East. Actually if there’s a need for humanitarian aid to save Christians, that should be in France. Okay they are not killed in France, that’s not what I mean. The way Christians are dragged down into the mud, permanently insulted, the Femen going to defile churches, I mean the secularist France which struggled against the alliance of the “Sabre et Goupillon” [Saber & Sprinkler: Army & Church] in the 19th century, the France of the 1905 law [secularist law] claims to be the protector of Christians in the Middle East, but that is totally laughable. It’s just a way to make imperialism perennial in the land of Islam. Always!

16.10: Xavier de Planol made a thesis: “the Muslim is submissive to God while the sailor is of necessity a free man who wants to sail. Since the Muslim is intrinsically submitted to the Divine law, it kills every possibility of will to get free, so he does not know anything about the sea.” So the word admiral comes from Arabic: āmyr āl-baḥr : “prince of the sea”. So those people who are convinced about that, it’s useless to try to convince them they are wrong, it’s just in order to prevent others from believing their lies and ineptitudes. So in 656, the Muslim take Cyprus, not bad for stupid Arabs who do not know anything about the sea. The Muslim sea trade became very dense very quickly. It declined afterwards but it does not mean they never got interested in the sea, that’s totally wrong. Muslim geographers’ maps are also there to prove it.

18.30: When I see some “Identitaire” [far right movement] supporting Charlie Hebdo [left-wing mag], well I’d say they use the Charlie Hebdo affair in order to attack Islam even more. That’s it. They don’t give a flip about Charlie Hebdo. I personally don’t care about Charlie Hebdo. […] The Prophet has been insulted many times in his lifetime, he forgave everybody. So I ignore those insults on Islam. […] What stupefies me is that force of the Establishment. Despite the progress of alternative media like yours [Meta TV] or others – which does not mean to say that you have to buy everything we say – but with all these alternative medias, I mean 4 million people in the streets !!

20.38: Since 9/11 you no longer counts the number of people who’ve said 1001 ineptitudes about Islam. It’s their right to say it but they insult us.
 
Re: God and Religion

Maaaaaaaarten said:
Actually, through the years I've only become more orthodox in my faith. I've been raised in a pretty liberal Protestant household and throughout my youth most of my friends were irreligious, so for me it actually feels like making my own choice, thinking for myself and not going with the flow, when I committed myself to a more orthodox form of Christianity. :)
Hey Marty, you really are a Protestant equivalent of me. :p ;) I'd just add that of course the atheists never even consider the fact that atheist parents would never teach their children that God exists. So who's going with the flow? ...


By the way, congrats on reading Dostoewsky, lol. As I told you irl, I still have a copy of Crime & Punishment on my book shelf but never opened it. Oh and I just found a copy of Khomiakov's The Church is One (whom I told you about) on the net. Perhaps it might interest you. ;) http://www.holyresurrection.us/word%20files/The%20Church%20is%20One.pdf
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY