Types of Worship?

JP Cusick said:

You are welcome.

I am happy to do that.


I see no problem with that. They were at war against the American invaders.

Let us not forget the words of General Patton on the famous movie:

"Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

I see no logic in the view that there is anything wrong with other people fighting back against us, especially since we are the violent aggressors.

Click to expand...

In 1954, in Cairo, the members of the Muslim Brotherhood Navab-Safavi was addressing were then at war with American invaders? Shows what I know about history. Here I thought the U.S. had sent its forces into Korea in the years just before that time.

Just who were these American invaders, and why have our historians never mentioned them? Do you have some source, who knows where, that communicates this secret information only to you?

matchlight said:

In 1954, in Cairo, the members of the Muslim Brotherhood Navab-Safavi was addressing were then at war with American invaders? Shows what I know about history. Here I thought the U.S. had sent its forces into Korea in the years just before that time.

Just who were these American invaders, and why have our historians never mentioned them? Do you have some source, who knows where, that communicates this secret information only to you?

Click to expand...

I say that you are just trying to take the discussion away from the thread subject, as the French publishers were the ones pushing hostilities and it finally back fired onto them.

What I said in response to your post was you referenced the revolution in Iran which was therefore a war against the American invaders (or "occupation" if need be).

In 1954 the USA had already enforced the violent and immoral Jewish occupation of the Holy Lands which was relevant ever after.

It is even reasonable that the ignorant French publishers were acting from American guidance that "Free Speech" meant they were free to spew out their hatred because obviously people are still misguided in that.

Hrm, I was thinking this would be a comparison between say methodists and pentecostals

JP Cusick said:

I say that you are just trying to take the discussion away from the thread subject, as the French publishers were the ones pushing hostilities and it finally back fired onto them.

What I said in response to your post was you referenced the revolution in Iran which was therefore a war against the American invaders (or "occupation" if need be).

In 1954 the USA had already enforced the violent and immoral Jewish occupation of the Holy Lands which was relevant ever after.

It is even reasonable that the ignorant French publishers were acting from American guidance that "Free Speech" meant they were free to spew out their hatred because obviously people are still misguided in that.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see. Now U.S. forces had occupied Iran. My history books don't record that, either. Maybe you are imagining things again.

Please explain how anyone in the U.S. could in any way have determined French law regarding free speech, defamation, etc. I'd always thought France made its own laws.

I'll say anything I damn well please about any Islamist bastard, whenever I please, and if any of them don't like it, that's just too G--damned bad. No jihadist son of a whore is ever going to tell me what I can and can't say. I hope people in France feel the same way.

How long have you resented Jews and Israel? Apparently you think Israel was violent in 1948. Whatever it did to defend itself then was nothing compared to what it could do today, with a couple hundred atom bombs. If the need should ever arise, Israel could show its enemies violence on a scale they never even dreamed of.

matchlight said:

A good argument can be made that Islamic jihadism has nothing to do with legitimate religion, but is instead just a death cult, something like thugee once was in India. The thugs believed the goddess Kali required them to murder innocent people as sacrifices to her. And they may have murdered a million or more during the centuries the cult is thought to have existed before the British put an end to it.

Click to expand...

I thought they were just run of the mill highwaymen.

matchlight said:

Oh, I see. Now U.S. forces had occupied Iran. My history books don't record that, either. Maybe you are imagining things again.

Click to expand...

Link = Wise Geek - What was Operation Ajax? The 1953 CIA coup of Iran.

matchlight said:

Please explain how anyone in the U.S. could in any way have determined French law regarding free speech, defamation, etc. I'd always thought France made its own laws.

Click to expand...

People truly are blind without knowing history.

When the USA first gained independence 1776 then our biggest ally was France, and after our success the French people decided to gain their own independence in 1789 and overthrew their King and cut off his head and then created the Republic of France based on the model of their friends in the USA.

Link = French: Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen.

it's just me said:

I thought they were just run of the mill highwaymen.

Click to expand...

The Thugs were highwaymen of a sort, but they were a lot worse than that. When they murdered innocent people at random--and that went on for many centuries in rural India--stealing what they had was usually only a secondary motive. The main one was that their cult believed its horrific goddess, Kali, demanded human sacrifices. They often operated in pairs, sometimes having put the intended victim off guard by acting very friendly and offering to travel with him for safety's sake. They would wait until they were in some remote spot, and then one would distract the victim while the other strangled him from behind with a special cord. At least that was the usual way. The elaborate means they used to disguise the places where they buried their victims (this was part of the ritual) made it hard for the British, when they began to take steps to end thugee, to find evidence of the murders.

It was also hard to break the cult because it survived by being passed along very secretly through families. The British finally hit on something fairly simple that worked. If they captured a Thug and found strong evidence against him, they would threaten to hang him if he did not cooperate completely by informing on others. And the ones informed on were then given the same choice, until in time there was a network of Thugs-turned-informers working hard to save their own necks. At some point, the British started trying and hanging the curs, and they kept this up until so many had been found out and executed that the cult was broken forever. No one knows just when thugee began or just how many innocent people the Thugs murdered throughout India over the centuries, but I've seen the number estimated at a million.

Gladiator said:

Parishioners often think of Worship as going to a religious worship service, listening to religious leaders speak of prophets recognized by the religion, and encouraging religious devotion to religion and/or a Deity.

For the Muslims who murdered the satirical cartoon publishers of Charlie Hebdo magazine, Worshiping Mohammad took a different form. The Hebdo assassins decided to worship by identifying some public critics of Islam, and carrying out a public execution of the published critics of Islam.

Worshiping a religion, by hating the critics of the religion seems to be anti-religious, since the purpose of most religions is to bring enlightenment to the followers of the religion.

"Police said arrest warrants had been issued for Cherif Kouachi, 32, and his brother Said, 34, who they said were believed to be "armed and dangerous". Another suspect, Hamyd Mourad, 18, was named earlier in a police document, according to media reports.
However, unnamed officials said that Mr Mourad handed himself in to police after seeing his name circulating on social media. He was arrested and taken into custody, AFP reported."

As it happened: Charlie Hebdo attack - BBC News


This is a Link to the thread under Breaking News.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...muhammad-cartoons-magazine-paris-w-157-a.html


Can Murder be a form of Religious Worship?


There are discussion of wars and violent punishments by God in the Old Testament. So Violence is a part of some religious teachings. Jihad is considered a holy undertaking in Islam. Catholics and other religions ex-communicate members into former members. I am just trying to better understand this violent type of worship. What are all the religious justifications of violence in the name of Religion?



//

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that the basis of this thread is even accurate. Is there any evidence that these murders were considered an act of worship by anyone?

matchlight said:

The Thugs were highwaymen of a sort, but they were a lot worse than that. When they murdered innocent people at random--and that went on for many centuries in rural India--stealing what they had was usually only a secondary motive. The main one was that their cult believed its horrific goddess, Kali, demanded human sacrifices. They often operated in pairs, sometimes having put the intended victim off guard by acting very friendly and offering to travel with him for safety's sake. They would wait until they were in some remote spot, and then one would distract the victim while the other strangled him from behind with a special cord. At least that was the usual way. The elaborate means they used to disguise the places where they buried their victims (this was part of the ritual) made it hard for the British, when they began to take steps to end thugee, to find evidence of the murders.

It was also hard to break the cult because it survived by being passed along very secretly through families. The British finally hit on something fairly simple that worked. If they captured a Thug and found strong evidence against him, they would threaten to hang him if he did not cooperate completely by informing on others. And the ones informed on were then given the same choice, until in time there was a network of Thugs-turned-informers working hard to save their own necks. At some point, the British started trying and hanging the curs, and they kept this up until so many had been found out and executed that the cult was broken forever. No one knows just when thugee began or just how many innocent people the Thugs murdered throughout India over the centuries, but I've seen the number estimated at a million.

Click to expand...

Surely the British did more then just threaten and hang the citizens of India, as they had a weapon to beat people called a lathi, see picture HERE.

And see link here = Hidden narratives of torture - British India | University of Cambridge

So the accusation above by "matchlight" is meant to be true and accurate because the British tortured the people into confessing, and we all are to believe that the confessions under torture has got to be true and accurate because those doing the torture also wrote the history.

The claim is that there were criminals in India who murdered innocent people at random and the British imperialist were there to save the day.

The truth is that the people of India were notoriously peaceful as it was the land of the Buddha and Gandhi and of deep religious convictions, and it was only the white Caucasian invaders who murdered and killed innocent people at random.

This is the same kind of twisted nonsense as calling the Muslims as intolerant when it is the French publisher which incites violence.