IMMIGRATION thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As for the church of England, it is protestant, no?

No, not really - though it does have a Protestant wing. One might best describe it as nationalistic.

Didn't Protestantism come up around the same time as many of these (other) leftist ideas?

Proto-Protestantism arrived in the 1360's with Wyclif in England. Protestantism isn't really Left or Right Wing as we understand it today, what it is is a reform movement. Protestantism became a seperate branch of Christianity from the Catholic church because the latter oppressed and tried to eradicate the former due to various political considerations which made the Catholic Church unwilling to reform at that time.

Although technically Protestantism was the attempt to get all these wrong rightist ideas out of Jesus' church which had been added later.

As noted, Protestantism was one of a number of reform movements, for a number of reason it ended up outside the Church triggering centuries of intermittent religious conflict such as had not been seen previously.

As for the early church fathers being some sort of standard as PVC says, remember that even the early churches were often criticized and corrected by Paul because they strayed from the right path, introduced their own ideas and had too much infighting etc

The Church fathers all post-date Paul. You are thinking of Paul's letters and his disagreement with Peter. Paul was popular once the Church Romanised because he was a Roman but he was not the main source that the Church Fathers like Origin took their cue from.

Bear in mind that there was no formal declaration on what books actually constitute the authorised Bible until the Protestants, and then the Catholics decided they needed to be able to argue about it.

The catholic church apparently introduced a lot of things relatively early that were later criticized by the reformers as not being compatible with the teachings of Jesus. So I would actually say that the teachings of Jesus were rather leftist (not entirely, gay rights can hardly be found), but the way the catholic church and the majority of Christians implemented them for centuries was rather rightist. The old testament is also far more on the right with harsh punishments, strict rules etc. I would assume the CoE went with the protestant, more leftist views relatively early, but even today not all protestants are entirely leftist, a lot of movements seem to have stopped before gay rights and so on because this is really hard to justify when the bible says men laying with men is an abomination unto god.

This is a hideous over-simplification. Basically, concepts of Left and Right do not apply as you understand them - at various points Catholic and Protestant Churches have been more or less tolerant to each other. Until the last century I would say that, hands down, the Roman Catholic Church pre-1400 was probably the most tolerant Christian Church in history. After 1400 everybody starts to dig in with their opinion, then the Reformation goes horribly wrong and the princes start lining up on either side and you get the various Wars of Religion up until the Enlightenment.

[Gilrandir]

Yes, remember what Jesus said about rich men going to heaven and then look at all the riches the pope has...

I believe (but can't wager on that) that all the riches that the Pope has are not his personal ones but rather belong to the Holy See Inc., so he kind of rents them while he is in his office. When he steps down (as Benedict XVI did) he is left with what he had had before. Same like POTUS doesn't own the White House, but uses it at his discretion while being in office.

There was a guy around here back in about 2007 who refused to download Adobe Reader to read official documents to understand an argument. I suspect the frustration is similar to that.

I don't undersatnd whose frustration you mean. But the mentioned guy's reluctance is quite understandable to me. Once I succumbed to the temptation and installed a new version of Adobe Reader - and couldn't watch any videos full screen on my computer. So I had to delete the new one and search for the older one, and that took quite a time and effort. Perhaps he had faced the same choices and opted for the one I didn't take.

Not whilst they were killing, no.

Then let's introduce a new confession - intermittent Christians. Those stop being Christians in the moment of killing and resume the faith wiping the blood off their sword.

Christianity is a pacifistic religion, for all that Christians have rarely been pacifists.

And cannibals to boot. How can you otherwise term that ceremony during which wine turns into blood (of Jesus) and bread into flesh (of Jesus) both of which the faithful are to consume?

What is "Left Wing" Islam though? What about homosexuals?

1. I heard that homosexualism was a popular practice among Muslims:
https://books.google.com.ua/books?id...sexual&f=false
https://books.google.com.ua/books?id...sexual&f=false
2. Women are always homosexual (or bisexual), so what can we do with them in islam as well as elsewhere:
http://i100.independent.co.uk/articl...ys--WkDRFZmCOg
3. Leftist =/= champion of gay rights. In the USSR homosexualism was a crime, but no one denies that Communists belong to the Left.

The Church fathers all post-date Paul. You are thinking of Paul's letters and his disagreement with Peter. Paul was popular once the Church Romanised because he was a Roman but he was not the main source that the Church Fathers like Origin took their cue from.

When I read of Paul's adventures I had an impession that he was a rather obnoxious person - he was evicted from almost every city where he tried to preach, while such things are rarely happened/ were mentioned when others did the same.

[Husar]

I believe (but can't wager on that) that all the riches that the Pope has are not his personal ones but rather belong to the Holy See Inc., so he kind of rents them while he is in his office. When he steps down (as Benedict XVI did) he is left with what he had had before. Same like POTUS doesn't own the White House, but uses it at his discretion while being in office.

That does not change much as he uses the riches and as a cardinal or bishop he also lives a relatively rich life. It is the influence of the money and riches and the greed in accumulating them in the first place that is the problem. Things such as selling forgiveness for your sins for money. It may be a bit better nowadays, but during the middle ages, the time we were primarily talking about IIRC, it was pretty bad. The current pope seems like a relatively humble man though.

[Fragony]

Really modest I heard, his living quarters are supposedly really small with little more than a bed and some very basic furniture

[CrossLOPER]

I succumbed to the temptation and installed a new version of Adobe Reader - and couldn't watch any videos full screen on my computer. So I had to delete the new one and search for the older one, and that took quite a time and effort. Perhaps he had faced the same choices and opted for the one I didn't take.

Perhaps he had a similar unfamiliarity with technology in general, but that wasn't the point. Or maybe it was. I think this situation explains my point perfectly.

[AE Bravo]

Hate speach is banned, but due process of law makes that sort of thing difficult to enforce. Due process of law is, here, much more important than banning a specific preacher.

So because it is difficult to enforce there is no reason to bother with hate speech. Not good.

I don't disagree with this. I would argue that the Saudi government likes to export these people from the ME so that there are fewer of them at home.

Exactly. The thought of how KSA may exploit this when its intl relations standing becomes less important is terrifying. They placed themselves in a position to manipulate a huge portion of EU population.

It was still genocide, kill all the men, take all the women and children as slaves. The women presumably became wives and the children were either left as slaves or would have had to convert to Islam for any chance of freedom.

It's not excusable - there are other ways to deal with enemies, genocide is always carried out as a vindictive punishment and a warning to others.

There was hardly any other way to deal with them and they violated their own city's constitution. Many simply wanted to be slaves for a better life, they were commonly adopted in accordance to Islam as well.

I don’t see how he could’ve handled this war any other way. All Muslims would have been put to death and society would revert back to slavery and hardwired tribal hierarchy. He ensured the survival of his people after years of persecution, humiliation, torture, and demonization.

The prophet made war to ensure the survival and establishment of this message. Islam has been all about peace and they had to suffer injustice for years before they were forced into war. It was so pacifist nobles tried to constantly provoke them into violence, even shoving a spear up a female convert in front of her son, which was the prophet’s close friend. Like I said Islam has always been about the people, if the majority hadn’t been Muslim than it would’ve disappeared without a fuss.

Bani qurayza were also very stupid because they chose saad ibn muaz as their judge, a former ally who was wounded in a battle against them, instead of the prophet who might have given them reprieve. The term "genocide" didn't exist. Basically they got screwed over by their ally and it was their full responsibility.
So that being said every prophet is unique in his own right. If muhammad is david or solomon than jesus is abraham or noah. People calling muhammad a warlord or pedophile just do it to spite islam and the trouble fundamentalists cause. Doubt theyd see him the same way if it was any different.

Firstly, the version you heard was wrong.

Yeah I knew I got it wrong, vague memory of that story. Most of what I know about Jesus is from Reza's "Zealot" book, besides the Bible and Qur'an. Still can't help but feel that the former has been more perverted and institutionalized historically, and that's why it's not taken as seriously.

The answer to "how does a Christian embody Jesus" or, more properly, follow Jesus is usually "badly" but Jesus said that's OK so long as we love God and each other.

So then what’s the significance of being a Christian? Why subscribe to Christianity if that’s all it takes? If that’s all it takes than I am a Christian also if I believed in trinity.

Well, if it's a sacred and inviolable text then presumably it all happened as described. Which means the Prophet married a 9-year-old girl (yes I know he didn't sleep with her on the first night) and had the heads of every man in a Jewish tribe cut off an enslaved all their women and children.

I'm sorry but this guy can't be repackaged as a Pacifist or a liberal thinker - he was a warlord and a diplomat, and a very successful one, but he wasn't Jesus or the Buddha or even Ghandi.

Why not? It can be true without being historically accurate.

No mention in scripture of the prophet marrying a 9 year old girl or rolling heads for that matter. They weren't intimate until about ten years after. He served his people well and brought them a message that led to great success, made a better society. Gandhi was a racist.

[Brenus]

"even Ghandi." Err, read about Ghandi more than the Western legend, and you might find out few uncomfortable truths, as what he believed, what he preached, his sexuality and his "pacifism" (see war 1971 with Pakistan).
"The problem was that Gandhi was not a secular leader: The Mahatma was a devout and rather obsessive Hindu mystic, and he fashioned his Congress Party in a distinctly Hindu fashion. Its shape, tone and language ended up defying his principles, to tragic effect. “By his use of Hinduism as a political tool,” the historian Mr. French concluded in a 1997 book, “Gandhi unwittingly opened a Pandora’s box that has yet to be closed. … Gandhi alienated many Muslims, and ultimately helped to bring about the rise in fortunes of the Muslim League.”

[Husar]

http://www.nalandainternational.org/...47-putin-doshi

As for “democracy”, Putin said it best: “Am I a democrat? Of course I am. Absolutely. The problem is that I’m all alone, the only one of my kind in the whole world. Just look at what’s happening in America, it’s terrible—torture, homeless people, Guantanamo, people detained without trial or investigation. And look at Europe—harsh treatment of demonstrators, rubber bullets and tear gas used in one capital after another, demonstrators killed on the streets… I have no one to talk to since Gandhi died.” I suppose he is humorously putting himself in the company of Mahatma Gandhi. If Tolstoy was the role model of Gandhi, Gandhi has become the role model of both Gorbachev and Putin. Dr. Deepak Chopra, a friend of President Gorbachev, I believe, will confirm that Gorbachev, who was responsible lifting the Iron Curtain unifying Germany, was influenced by spiritual leaders of India including Mahatma Gandhi.

[Gilrandir]

Perhaps he had a similar unfamiliarity with technology in general, but that wasn't the point. Or maybe it was. I think this situation explains my point perfectly.

Perhaps it does. But we don't know what were the motifs behind that guy's decision. Maybe for him the chance to harm his computer outweighed the possibility to win in a senseless argument with total strangers, which was likely to bring him as much as moral satisfaction.

I don’t see how he could’ve handled this war any other way. All Muslims would have been put to death and society would revert back to slavery and hardwired tribal hierarchy. He ensured the survival of his people after years of persecution, humiliation, torture, and demonization.

The prophet made war to ensure the survival and establishment of this message. Islam has been all about peace and they had to suffer injustice for years before they were forced into war. It was so pacifist nobles tried to constantly provoke them into violence, even shoving a spear up a female convert in front of her son, which was the prophet’s close friend. Like I said Islam has always been about the people, if the majority hadn’t been Muslim than it would’ve disappeared without a fuss.

Bani qurayza were also very stupid because they chose saad ibn muaz as their judge, who was their ally, instead of the prophet who might have given them reprieve. The term "genocide" didn't exist. Basically they got screwed over by their ally and it was their full responsibility.

Putin offers quite similar arguments to justify what he was and is doing to Ukraine.

[CrossLOPER]

Maybe for him the chance to harm his computer outweighed the possibility to win in a senseless argument with total strangers, which was likely to bring him as much as moral satisfaction.

How do you harm your computer with Adobe Reader?

[drone]

How do you harm your computer with Adobe Reader?

Adobe products are rife with security vulnerabilities. They added so many bells and whistles to Reader that it has become a vector for infection.

[Husar]

I only use the app version sometimes, it has hardly any bells and not a single whistle.
The standard reader I don't like either, it also used to be rather slow and cumbersome.

[AE Bravo]

I admit that was quite the whitewash

But its important to make the distinction between the messenger and the politician. The message is the same and the best thing to ever happen to the arab people. Also not forgetting that many other prophets were sovereigns and not necessarily pacifists.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So because it is difficult to enforce there is no reason to bother with hate speech. Not good.

OK, maybe you don't understand "due process", or you're being wilfully obtuse.

Hate speech is banned, but due process means that you have to do a certain amount of it before you can be prosecuted and convicted. As a result you will see a certain amount of hate-speech on Britain's streets before the perpetrator is arrested.

Even so, I see a lot more of it, from all quarters, on US TV than UK TV so I'm not sure what you're saying there.

Exactly. The thought of how KSA may exploit this when its intl relations standing becomes less important is terrifying. They placed themselves in a position to manipulate a huge portion of EU population.

Well, worst case Europe suffers an anti-Muslim pogrom. This would be terrible but is a long way from the imagined "European Caliphate" that the Far Right fears. The reason for that is that the backlash will start long before Muslims become anything like a majority. In fact, it has already started and it getting worse as Muslims become more visible through their customs and dress.

I suppose I feel very detached over it as a European and as a Christian I feel it's just very tragic.

There was hardly any other way to deal with them and they violated their own city's constitution. Many simply wanted to be slaves for a better life, they were commonly adopted in accordance to Islam as well.

There are a multitude of different ways to deal with a defeated people, although I'm not even sure this particular Jewish tribe weren't just made an example of. I have read that they simply refused to fight for or against Mohammed.

In any case - here are some options Muhammed had.

Clemency - that is the generous mercy shown by the victorious King as a sign of his power. This was an old concept that goes back at least to the Persian Kings and was frequently employed by them and by Roman Emperors.

Christian Mercy (I don't know another word for it) - the gracious mercy shown without any precondition. This one is at least as old as Alaric I and his sack of Rome when he spared all the Churches and the Christians therein. Maybe this isn't an option under Muslim Theology when dealing with Jews but it has been used historically.

Banishment - They violated the peace of the city - send them out.

Decimation - kill one in ten of the enemy, spare the rest or just sell them into slavery.

Enslave the entire populace - was done several times historically, notably by the Spartans to the Helots.

Ransom - We English like this one, so did the Danes. The idea is you pay according to the transgression.

Pretty sure I could come up with others if I thought about it harder. The point is that Muhammed elected to carry out the most Draconian punishment short of actually killing everyone.

I don’t see how he could’ve handled this war any other way. All Muslims would have been put to death and society would revert back to slavery and hardwired tribal hierarchy. He ensured the survival of his people after years of persecution, humiliation, torture, and demonization.

It's not what he did during the battle, it's what he did during the peace that followed. Once victorious he carried out a terrible vengeance. At the behest of Gabriel and hence God irrc.

The prophet made war to ensure the survival and establishment of this message. Islam has been all about peace and they had to suffer injustice for years before they were forced into war. It was so pacifist nobles tried to constantly provoke them into violence, even shoving a spear up a female convert in front of her son, which was the prophet’s close friend. Like I said Islam has always been about the people, if the majority hadn’t been Muslim than it would’ve disappeared without a fuss.

Well, they didn't disappear - did they? They fought a war to not only survive but to overpower their rivals. Now there's nothing wrong with that in the grand scheme of things until you say "Muslims are all about peace". The early Christians were repeatedly and systematically persecuted over centuries but they did not rise up and overthrow the Roman Empire, eventually they became so numerous that an Emperor converted to Christianity.

Now, admittedly once Christianity got into the upper classes it did carry our pogroms and purges against other religious groups but the early Christians from Jesus up to the late 3rd Century at least were willing to die rather than fight back. Those people were genuinely "all about peace". There are, to this day, Christian sects which are entirely pacifistic and that is very clearly the Christian ideal as preached by Jesus.

If you want to argue some philosophical superiority of Islam go ahead but you won't get anywhere arguing that Muhammed was a "man of peace" because he clearly wasn't. Men of peace do not make war.

Bani qurayza were also very stupid because they chose saad ibn muaz as their judge, a former ally who was wounded in a battle against them, instead of the prophet who might have given them reprieve. The term "genocide" didn't exist. Basically they got screwed over by their ally and it was their full responsibility.

No - the Muslims are responsible and most especially Muhammed as their leader. Surely as God's Prophet he could have chosen to be lenient in any case? The fact that he killed all the men and enslaved everyone else must mean God endorsed this course of action

This is what I'm saying though - this is the model for Muslims, a man who destroys an entire tribe and his follows say "serves them right".

Also, remember that although "genocide" the term may not have existed the concept certainly did and was surely known in Arabia from their contacts with Persians and Romans.

This is not the "Religion of Peace" unless peace means killing all your enemies until there's no one left who opposes you. To be fair, that's a valid strategy and one I probably would have endorsed for a warlord or chieftain when I was a Pagan.

So that being said every prophet is unique in his own right. If muhammad is david or solomon than jesus is abraham or noah. People calling muhammad a warlord or pedophile just do it to spite islam and the trouble fundamentalists cause. Doubt theyd see him the same way if it was any different.

Well - remember that only Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet - Jews see him as a heretic who deserved to die for offending God and Christians see him as God.

Aside from that there's a long and rich theological literature in all three religions that has tried to answer the question of whether Prophets really are distinct actors in their own right or just the hands of God on Earth. For myself I would say that while prophets have free will it would necessarily seem to be restricted. A Prophet, per definition, enacts God's will and in the Old Testament when Saul refuses to kill all the Amalekites, leaving their livestock and their King alive, Samuel tells him God has rejected him.

Yeah I knew I got it wrong, vague memory of that story. Most of what I know about Jesus is from Reza's "Zealot" book, besides the Bible and Qur'an. Still can't help but feel that the former has been more perverted and institutionalized historically, and that's why it's not taken as seriously.

I can assure you the Bible, more specifically the Gospels, are taken very seriously by Christians and fairly seriously by non-Christians.

In any case you not only got the story wrong you completely missed not only the point Jesus was trying to make but also the significance of the story within the narrative of the Gospel and what it says about Jesus' own identity.

So then what’s the significance of being a Christian? Why subscribe to Christianity if that’s all it takes? If that’s all it takes than I am a Christian also if I believed in trinity.

I might as well say that Islam is just a slightly repackaged version of Judaism - Muhammed's life even parallels Abraham's to an extent.

Why not? It can be true without being historically accurate.

Only if it's allegorical.

No mention in scripture of the prophet marrying a 9 year old girl or rolling heads for that matter. They weren't intimate until about ten years after. He served his people well and brought them a message that led to great success, made a better society. Gandhi was a racist.

Well, I'd like to think he had all their heads cut off - it's preferable to most other ways of killing people. I looked up Aisha - I apologise as I had misremembered, 9 is the usually age given for the consummation of the marriage, 6 or 7 being the age of marriage. Later sources record he married her at 9 and the marriage was consummated at age 12, which seems more likely.

Marriage at such a young age to such an old prince is usually for political reasons rather than a love match, though they were supposedly happy enough.

My point is not that Muhammed is a monster, my point is that his conduct in his life is fairly unremarkable. He leads his people, he makes war and peace, he takes slaves, he releases captives etc.

Maybe God really does want us all to be Muslims but I don't think the story of Islam is all that distinctive and Islam mostly spread, especially at first, through conquest followed by conversion which was promoted by discriminatory practices.

[Fragony]

Yeah, das habben sie gewust. Estimated costs for Mutti Theresa, 20.000.000.000. Well not for her of course. Most immigrants are not highly educated as is is furiously screamed by the downwithusbrigade. Isn't it about time to send Merkel with a selfhugjacket to a controlled enviroment with padded walls?

[Gilrandir]

How do you harm your computer with Adobe Reader?

Perhaps my phrasing was not accurate. I meant my experience when I lost the ability to watch videos full screen after updating my Adobe Reader.

[Papewaio]

Maybe one day the child of an EUer and one of this wave of immigrants will be the next Steve Jobs.

[Greyblades]

An overrated hack who steals credit for other people's ideas?

[Fragony]

Maybe one day the child of an EUer and one of this wave of immigrants will be the next Steve Jobs.

Well, perhaps not. It's a leftist lie that these are highly educated people, most can't even read. We got no use for goatherders we hardly eat goat. They only just rolled of the mountain and are WAY behind

We should have had a lot of Steve Job's by now already in the 50 years we had mass-immigration. In the Netherlands before this wave it has costed 180 billion euro, 8 billion a year. Zero benefit, people from the eastblock actually work.

[Gilrandir]

Maybe one day the child of an EUer and one of this wave of immigrants will be the next Steve Jobs.

I'm sure jobs is what they look for in Europe.

[Husar]

Well, perhaps not. It's a leftist lie that these are highly educated people, most can't even read. We got no use for goatherders we hardly eat goat. They only just rolled of the mountain and are WAY behind

Couldn't find a more stereotypical stereotype?

We should have had a lot of Steve Job's by now already in the 50 years we had mass-immigration. In the Netherlands before this wave it has costed 180 billion euro, 8 billion a year. Zero benefit, people from the eastblock actually work.

How about a link to where you got the numbers from? I could only find numbers about the UK which are flawed because the net contributions of their children born in the UK were not taken into account as immigration contribution since they were born in the UK...

And how are they supposed to make money if people like you just won't hire them regardless of qualification just because of their name or face?

[AE Bravo]

There are a multitude of different ways to deal with a defeated people, although I'm not even sure this particular Jewish tribe weren't just made an example of. I have read that they simply refused to fight for or against Mohammed.

They conspired against them. The reason this tribe in particular wasn't banished like the other Jewish tribes (Nadir and Qaynuqa') was because the trial was carried out on their terms and they failed.

No - the Muslims are responsible and most especially Muhammed as their leader. Surely as God's Prophet he could have chosen to be lenient in any case? The fact that he killed all the men and enslaved everyone else must mean God endorsed this course of action

The last part is not necessarily true. In the context of seventh century Arabia it was justice. They were given freedom over their own judgement and going back on that would have rendered the whole process and city law null. Do you blame Jews for the Jewish revolts preceding Christ btw? Judas of Galilee?

A Prophet, per definition, enacts God's will

Moses killed, Joseph broke apart his family, Saul and Solomon waged war. Makes more sense that their main purpose is showing their mistakes that people can learn from. Different methods of enacting God's will.

Only if it's allegorical.

I think it's safe to say it's allegorical. If they weren't, than the Bible takes the cake in terms of historical fiction.

My point is not that Muhammed is a monster, my point is that his conduct in his life is fairly unremarkable. He leads his people, he makes war and peace, he takes slaves, he releases captives etc.

This is what makes him interesting. Muhammad was never the "messiah" or the "prophet," he was always called the messenger of Allah and the grounded culmination of this line. The totally "clean" prophets are always the most bland, except for the messiah Jesus. His politics and personal life weren't immune to criticism. It was already established there was a clear distinction between the man - the messenger and the message itself. This was a man who managed to create a morally superior society while he was alive.

As revolutionaries they all have blood on their hands.

[Papewaio]

An overrated hack who steals credit for other people's ideas?

Do better.

Point is Steve Jobs was half Syrian. So nutured in the right environment ie surrounded by engineers as was young Steve Jobs with HP. And the next boom idea home PC, home 3D commercial grade material printer, home ???. And out of the immigrants I'm sure you will get some hard working migrants.

Where I work in IT three quarters of the engineers are first or second generation Aussies. Integration done right is a boon.

Anyhow EU broke Libya with the bombing with no Marshall-like plan in place. You break it you bought it.
Syria the EU has been supporting the rebels which has allows ISIS to grow unchecked. You break it you bought it.

This is just recent events no need to add in Iraq, or British Colonial rule or Ottoman Empire. Just focus on the events that have happened in the last five years.

If a situation warrants bombing a dictator it also warrants looking after the people fleeing the same dictator.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They conspired against them. The reason this tribe in particular wasn't banished like the other Jewish tribes (Nadir and Qaynuqa') was because the trial was carried out on their terms and they failed.

The last part is not necessarily true. In the context of seventh century Arabia it was justice. They were given freedom over their own judgement and going back on that would have rendered the whole process and city law null.

Yeah - I just don't get it - or rather I do but I don't really buy it.

Seems to me Muhammed won the battle, he could do whatever he wanted. This tribe didn't trust Muhammed - which isn't necessarily unreasonable - and so selected another man to judge between them. This judge proscribed the worst punishment short of extermination.

Muhammed could still have shown them mercy but he chose not to.

Do you blame Jews for the Jewish revolts preceding Christ btw? Judas of Galilee?

You mean the Zealots?

Well, they were around during the time of Christ, Christ even had a former Zealot as a follower, but the Jewish revolt came roughly three decades after Christ's death. If you're asking if I blame the Jews throughout the Empire then no, but I think that those who went to war against Rome are responsible for their own actions just as the Roman legionaries are responsible for destroying the Temple.

As this relates to Muslims, weren't all Muslims more or less part of Muhammed's tribe at this time? Presumably the Muslims were under his command, under arms, and they did the killing.

If you are asking if the Muslims today are responsible then, no, that would be idiotic. However, you clearly endorse the actions of those early Muslims so I have to assume you approve of the punishment.

Moses killed, Joseph broke apart his family, Saul and Solomon waged war. Makes more sense that their main purpose is showing their mistakes that people can learn from. Different methods of enacting God's will.

For my birthday Montmercy sent me an essay on Pharaoh's refusal to let the people go and free will. In the case of Moses, he kills someone, flees into the desert and then becomes a prophet and one of the most visible avatars of God's will, what he does he does at the behest and with the power of the Lord.

Scripture records that both Saul and Solomon failed God - you could interpret their waging of war as a failure because they were unable to find another solution - or perhaps the Temple scribes glossed over things - we know they glossed over early Jewish polytheism.

I think it's safe to say it's allegorical. If they weren't, than the Bible takes the cake in terms of historical fiction.

Well, then one might as well say that Muhammed never existed and it's just a story - that's a popular belief among Atheists.

The Koran is different to the Bible in a number of ways, the Koran is essentially one book, not many, one man's biography supposedly transcribed during his lifetime. There's no reason to believe the narrative is in any way allegorical.

This is what makes him interesting. Muhammad was never the "messiah" or the "prophet," he was always called the messenger of Allah and the grounded culmination of this line. The totally "clean" prophets are always the most bland, except for the messiah Jesus. His politics and personal life weren't immune to criticism. It was already established there was a clear distinction between the man - the messenger and the message itself. This was a man who managed to create a morally superior society while he was alive.

As revolutionaries they all have blood on their hands.

Actually, both the terms "Prophet" (Speaker) and "Messiah" (Anointed) describe Muhammed perfectly. He was, according to the Islamic tradition, the one appointed by God to give people the correct instruction and way of living that most please God.

Note that Jesus is far from unique in being called "Messiah" because that appellation was applied by the Jews to Prophets and Kings they believed to be chosen by God - including the Persian Cyrus the Great.

My point, in any case, is that Muhammed is presumably the model for a Muslim man (correct me if I'm wrong) and, as a Christian, I find little to recommend him compared to other men.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do better.

Point is Steve Jobs was half Syrian. So nutured in the right environment ie surrounded by engineers as was young Steve Jobs with HP. And the next boom idea home PC, home 3D commercial grade material printer, home ???. And out of the immigrants I'm sure you will get some hard working migrants.

Where I work in IT three quarters of the engineers are first or second generation Aussies. Integration done right is a boon.

Steve Job was not raised by his Syrian father, indeed he never met him - he refused to even contact him. Steve jobs got his Job at Atari fraudulently by passing Steve Wozniak's work off as his own. Later Atari gave him a job based on Woz's work. Jobs couldn't do it so he palmed it off on Woz. Atari gave Jobs a bonus for every chip cut out of the design - $100 each. The bonus was $5000, Jobs told Woz he'd pay him half but Woz got $700. Steve Wozniak only found out he'd been ripped off ten years later.

So, in other words, without Steve Jobs Steve Wozniak might have been a tech genius at Atari where his talents would be appreciated.

This rather raises the question of whether we need another Steve Jobs, ever.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...test-news.html

So, Sweden has re-introduced border controls and now Donald Tusk fears the collapse of the Schengen area.

This is what happens when you try to fix multiple countries to a single currency and border zone without a shared government.

[Fragony]

I needed to clean my screen, immigrants complain about the food, I wonder why http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven...u_al_groo.html

last pic, yes that yoghurt tastes bad

[Sarmatian]

And who said Steve Jobs was a great man?

He's the consumerism poster boy - created something no one really needed and no one can live without it now. He's the quintessential capitalist anglosphere champion.

[Papewaio]

You really need to work on your confirmation bias and reading comprehension.

"Point is Steve Jobs was half Syrian. So nutured in the right environment ie surrounded by engineers as was young Steve Jobs with HP. And the next boom idea home PC, home 3D commercial grade material printer, home ???. And out of the immigrants I'm sure you will get some hard working migrants."

I'm not arguing for great men nor genes. Just like the entrepreneurs lauded in generations before like auto manufacturers or oil barons they are products of new oppourtunities and environment. Yes they do make the best of the oppourtunities, but they did not create the environment that allowed them to succeed.

My argument is that the right environment is STEM not religion and the right opportunity the next boom idea will make some young people look like genius entrepreneurs the opposite is also true dump people into an extremist religious school and their next boom idea will involve a strap on vest and attacking those who don't agree with them.

TL;DR In short environment and standing on the shoulders of giants makes greatness or great tragedy. Individuals still need to decide and take responsibility for their actions but the environment is a powerful lever to be used as they are trained fit to do so.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You really need to work on your confirmation bias and reading comprehension.

"Point is Steve Jobs was half Syrian. So nutured in the right environment ie surrounded by engineers as was young Steve Jobs with HP. And the next boom idea home PC, home 3D commercial grade material printer, home ???. And out of the immigrants I'm sure you will get some hard working migrants."

I'm not arguing for great men nor genes. Just like the entrepreneurs lauded in generations before like auto manufacturers or oil barons they are products of new oppourtunities and environment. Yes they do make the best of the oppourtunities, but they did not create the environment that allowed them to succeed.

My argument is that the right environment is STEM not religion and the right opportunity the next boom idea will make some young people look like genius entrepreneurs the opposite is also true dump people into an extremist religious school and their next boom idea will involve a strap on vest and attacking those who don't agree with them.

TL;DR In short environment and standing on the shoulders of giants makes greatness or great tragedy. Individuals still need to decide and take responsibility for their actions but the environment is a powerful lever to be used as they are trained fit to do so.

Yeah, but Steve jobs didn't really invent most of the things he's credited with, other people did and he took the credit. The point is that Steve Jobs may actually have been a net-detriment by sitting on Steve Wozniak, the man who really WAS the father of the Home Computer.