John L. Esposito - The Future of Islam

[DesertRose]

Posting this to elevate our conversations and understanding on modern history, religion and recent political thoughts from a non orientalist stand point.
This topic deals with the recent history and the future of Islam in the West.

One of the most respected American scholarly authority on Islam, John L. Esposito, visited the University of Kentucky Wednesday, September 10, 2014, to discuss “The Future of Islam: Assessing the Elements of Reform, Revival, and Fundamentalism in the Muslim World,” at the Singletary Center Recital Hall. The event was part of the University of Kentucky College of Arts and Sciences Passport to the World 2014-15 program Year of the Middle East: Crossroads of the World. A professor of Islamic Studies and International Affairs at Georgetown University, Esposito discussed his book on the portrait of Islam today and tomorrow, drawn by a lifetime of thought and research to sweep away the negative stereotypes of the fastest growing religion in the world.

 

[DesertRose]

Conversations with History: Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley

See the
Conversations with History Blog

See a webcast of this interview:
Esposito

This interview is part of the Institute's "Conversations with History" series, and uses Internet technology to share with the public Berkeley's distinction as a global forum for ideas.

Welcome to a Conversation with History. I'm Harry Kreisler of the Institute of International Studies. Our guest today is John L. Esposito, who is University Professor of Religion and International Affairs, and Founding Director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. A past president of the Middle East Studies Association, he is editor-in-chief of the four-volume Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, editor of the Oxford History of Islam, and the author of numerous books, including Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality, and most recently, the Oxford Dictionary of Islam.

1. Background ... influence of parents ... education ... discovering the Islamic world
2. Mutual Misperceptions ... Muslim ambivalence ... the West's double standard ... West doesn't see diversity ... ignorance ... what Americans should know ... roots of misunderstanding
3. "Clash of Civilizations" ... looking for the next threat ... monolithic view of civilizations ... danger of self-fulfilling prophecy
4. Islam and Modernity ... separation of church and state ... political/historical transitions left no room for debate ... reformists and revivalists ... global jihad : West defends Islam in Afghanistan ... global versus local ... stereotypes ... many forms of democracy ... Western support of authoritarian regimes ... Islamic moderates ... messy democracy
5. U.S. Foreign Policy ... the lure of bin Laden ... war on terrorism expands to imperialism ... anti-Americanism ... subtle approach needed ... more focus and open-mindedness needed ... extremists exploit real issues
6. Conclusion ... fundamentalism vs. extremism ... hopes for Muslim - Christian understanding ... importance of political education

© Copyright 2003, Regents of the University of California

Photos by Jane Scherr. Site questions: Email iis_webmgr at berkeley.edu.

 

[DesertRose]

 

[rainerann]

Personally, I don't have a problem with diversity because most every religion does not mandate religious practices. I could live among people who were Buddhists and it would not make a difference because a Buddhist does not require me to be a Buddhist too. Does not establish laws regarding this. At it's worst evidenced by Christian missionary work in Asia, Buddhist would approach Christians with a certain degree of superstition that has created some minor conflict between Christians and Buddhists. However, I would not consider this a threat to myself. I also support national missionaries and changing from a culture that sends foreign missionaries into other parts of the world to avoid creating offense by the practice of different cultures.

Aside from this, there is no reason for Buddhists and Christians to not coexist together in a secular world because our religions are not intended to serve as theocracies that require by any law that Buddhists practice the Christian faith or vice versa. This problem is not created when interacting with Hindus either because their spiritual beliefs do not need to be enforced by a legal code.

This is where the west has a legitimate issue with the theocratic system of Islam. This is the same as supporting communism or essentially wanting a different form of government known as sharia.

It has been confirmed on this forum that in a country that practices sharia, it is okay to stone a homosexual to death. You may not agree with this. That doesn't mean that it isn't a reality. When people imigrate into this country, it is not usual that they bring a belief that the process of government in the US should change in order to realize a complete spiritual experience the way it does in Islam.

Therefore, it is not a phobia that causes the west to reject the notion of Islam while we have no trouble accepting people from all over the world with a wide variety of different beliefs. Since most of the world doesn't experience any real diversity and most countries exist as collective cultures of one dominant race, I truly feel that people don't understand what it is to actually live in a country where there are at least 25 different races represented at all times. This is why Americans are stereotyped of having a phobia of Islam because from the perspective of even Canada or any other country in the world, they don't have a real comprehension of the integration of different races that comes with experience as an American living in a country that has developed through immigration from all over the world.

For the most part, many people are perfectly capable of distinguishing the difference between Islam and race. They are not the same thing. A person from Turkey has a national identity with the country of Turkey that is preexistent to the acceptance of Islam as a national majority in this country. There is race. There is religion. The same is true of Christians and European cultures. There is race and there is religion.

This is why America has a seperation of church and state because these two concepts fused together in order to separate nationality from the practice of religion. So we can accept people of all races because we have a separation of church and state and most spiritual paths do not experience a conflict because of this except for Islam because they integrate the two so that it is a system that can give legal authority to present consequences for refusing to practice spiritual beliefs.

In truth, Islam has become an outdated system of government that most modern forms of government are opposed to. This is just a fact. The practice of creating theocratic systems has become outdated and does not function in a way that promotes growth the way history has experienced in the last four hundred years.

Islam should be opposed because of this and it has nothing to do with wishing harm on anyone who currenlty claims to be a Muslim. I disagree strongly with the form of government known as Islam because of the way it presently identifies itself coupled with the way this choice of identity has manifested itself throughout history. However, this is no way means that I would ever try or support removing this presence by force. The disagreement the west has with Islam is a legitimate disagreement that is not adequately addressed by anyone within the Islamic world who frequently try to cherry pick from doctrine of Islam in order to create a impression that Islam hasn't or doesn't believe in removing idolatry by force.

Sometimes, this is even something that people talk about with pride claiming that the Arab world was idolatrous so it was okay to make war with them and remove the idolatry that was present. In fact, this isn't true. What the Arabs did was basically remove Christianity from the Arab world. There is evidence that Christians were a stronger presence in Saudi Arabia then we are told Islam when began. The land was not filled with pagans unless you call Christians pagans.

So there are more than one false narrative that is presented by the Islamic world that is being challeged by the west and it should be challenged by the west because we cannot be naive to the history that Islam is responsible for whether they want to admit it or not. It is just a sign of being responsible for the safety of the people who do live in America at the present time no matter what race or religion they are. In order to protect their continued freedom of religion, questions about Islam and the motivations they have for their presence in the west need to be asked and need to be answered.

In all honesty, I have read a post from a Muslim forum where a women in America from Syria specifically says that her husband doesn't want to leave the US because he believes that God will give Islam victory over the west. Apparently, she wants to go back to Syria and doesn't think it is worth it to stay.

So whether there are countless videos talking about Islamaphobia or not, the fact remains that there is a different narrative that is being discussed in private and this narrative is the very reason that Americans who have freedom of religion legally protected, should be concerned.

It is evident to us in the west that this same freedom does not exist in the Muslim world no matter how many times someone quotes the verse about there not being any compulsion in religion. The fact that the Muslim world is isolated from so much tells me that if Islam were to take over the west, there would be just as much censorship to be concerned with. In all the time that the Muslim presence has existed in the middle east, there has never been any attempt to verify the history of this narrative through any kind of study like the countless studies that have been done in Egypt for several hundred years verifying information about ancient Egyptian practices.

For one reason or the other, the Muslim world has not endeavored to realize this same experience within the setting that they remain a majority in with every freedom and ability to do so. This is evidence of some form of oppression that I don't want in the US. They either are oppressed with lack of resources to pursue the same enterprise, or controlled through indoctrination to not attempt to question this or seek out the evidence of this that would exist under their own feet. Either way, not something that is going to benefit the US in our effort to overcome whatever remains of the presence of racism in the US.

As an American, my concern is to protect the diversity and the many things that we have gained because of our freedom to change and progress to where we are today. It may not be perfect, but a system like Islam is definitely not going to benefit our future progress. I am not going to deny this reality either just because someone calls me an islamaphobe for saying something.

 

[DesertRose]

In truth, Islam has become an outdated system of government that most modern forms of government are opposed to. This is just a fact. The practice of creating theocratic systems has become outdated and does not function in a way that promotes growth the way history has experienced in the last four hundred years.

As an American, my concern is to protect the diversity and the many things that we have gained because of our freedom to change and progress to where we are today. It may not be perfect, but a system like Islam is definitely not going to benefit our future progress. I am not going to deny this reality either just because someone calls me an islamaphobe for saying something.

Rainerann dude Muslims can not even implement their system in their own countries no one is telling America to become a Muslim theocracy they are a minority there!
That is the kind of bunk the Phobes peddle.
Please actually watch the videos by Esposito he is not Muslim by the way.

PS I think governance without religion becomes unethical on all levels (economic, social and political).
From its war making to the promotion of laws that allow for everything from the murder of innocents as collateral damage to the sanctioning of laws that accept immoral lifestyles.

If that is what you want with your skewed notions about what is outdated and what is not .....go for it, enjoy your progressive cultural marxism.
For us these systems of barely fettered immorality are in fact older than the Islamic theocratic model we call them the systems of ignorance/jahilyyah.
Hence we differ on what is defined as outdated.

 

[DesertRose]

 

[rainerann]

@DesertRose

Honestly, you seem like a nice person. However, your suggestion that this is some illusory concept is false. A theocracy is the goal of Islam.

This differs even from the theocracy that was established by the Jews. The Jewish people do not believe in conquering other nations by force to impose Judaism. Their government system was central to the land that was given to Abraham. It does not exist as a reality to implement this form of theocracy when in exile.

In just a brief search from Islamic sources, you will find that a theocratic government is the end game complete spiritual realization of Islam and that force can be used to accomplish this according to many Hadith and the Quran.

Therefore, opposing Islam as a form of theocratic government is not the same as having a religious or cultural bias. As a result of this statement, it is well within my right to oppose the theocratic system of Islam as it is defined as a system that is believed to replace all world governments. This is a distinguishing feature of Islam that is independent of a discussion on race or religion.

Islam is a failed political religion. Where or when it is even possible that at any point it will ever be successful politically is the same as believing in Santa Claus. Systems of government, even for spiritual people, demonstrate evidence of success and failure in the present time. Islam demonstrates failure. It is ridiculous to expect Americans to entertain the government aspect of Islam as though it were legitimate because it could also be called a religion.

Suggesting that Islam can separate itself from a politically driven agenda is deceptive. It is essentially deceiving people into believing that there is anything similar between a religion like Buddhism and Islam. They are polar opposites. With Buddhism, there is no need to fear anything other than some degree of superstition at it worst. Islam presently tries to hide its support of the political side of Islam because most of the world rejects this while most of the world has become more tolerant of what can be defined as a religion and Islam tries to take advantage of this to spread the religion of Islam with the eventual goal of implementing a full government process.

This fusion of political and spiritual objectives is why Islam creates oppression and should be rejected in the modern world. The new narrative on Islam is the result of the western influence and is not possible within an isolated Islamic influence demonstrated by the present state of the middle east. It is the western influence that causes many people like yourself to try to promote the false impression that Islam could ever be capable of being a successful theocratic system. Applying a government system around sharia is to bring snares and bondage onto yourselves.

So you can call people Islamaphobes all you want, but it is really just a way to distract the audience and avoid the actual discussion of the issue that relate to the process and goal of creating a theocracy as the final goal of Islam.

 

[DesertRose]

Honestly, you seem like a nice person. However, your suggestion that this is some illusory concept is false. A theocracy is the goal of Islam.

No one has disputed that.
The question is where? This theocratic state is not for the US but in the majority Muslim states.
Muslims who live as minorities in any country including the US must abide by the laws of that land. Any screeching about shariah being brought to the US is a lie that is pushed by Pamela Geller type loons and there is a whole website called loonwatch that helps you see their lies and tactics.
https://loonwatch.wordpress.com/
Serveto answered your question about Jews,

In just a brief search from Islamic sources, you will find that a theocratic government is the end game complete spiritual realization of Islam and that force can be used to accomplish this according to many Hadith and the Quran.

True, that is the form Islam takes we believe in Islamic governance for our states just like you believe your state should have the constitution
However, please note that groups such as the Muslim brotherhood did participate in free elections and they were forcibly removed. Same thing has happened in many Muslim majority states.

Islam is a failed political religion. Where or when it is even possible that at any point it will ever be successful politically is the same as believing in Santa Claus. Systems of government, even for spiritual people, demonstrate evidence of success and failure in the present time. Islam demonstrates failure. It is ridiculous to expect Americans to entertain the government aspect of Islam as though it were legitimate because it could also be called a religion.

Actually Islamic governance has ruled for thousands of years it has had its successes and it failures in terms of justice however our last system of governance was removed with the help of Western powers namely Britain with the help of treacherous nationalists. Refer to Lawrence of Arabia and Arab nationalism.

This fusion of political and spiritual objectives is why Islam creates oppression and should be rejected in the modern world

Once again there were periods as with all systems where we had oppression due to unjust application of laws and periods were we had stable and plural societies. In fact we provided protection at different times for those who were running away from injustice such as Jewish people running away from pogroms in Europe.
I would hardly call that failed. Our grandparents' generation fell asleep at the wheel. In addition I am for Muslim self determination you have to respect that Muslims want to be governed under their own system just as you and others want to be governed by your own system.
Frankly, we do not care if others do not want this.
We are not interested in being defined by others nor in being told how to govern ourselves by others,


Caliphates or Islamic theocratic states:

• The Rashidun Caliphate (632–661) – Beginning of the Islamic Empire
• The Umayyad Caliphate (661–750) – Successor of the Rashidun Caliphate
  • The Umayyad Caliphate of Cordoba in Islamic Spain (929–1031)
• The Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258) – Successor of the Umayyad Caliphate, Fall of Baghdad (1258)

• The Fatimid Caliphate (909–1171) End of the Arab Empire
• The Almohad Caliphate (1121–1269)
• The Ottoman Caliphate (1362–1923)

Other forms are also below:

• Regional empires
  
  Iran
  • The Persian Empire, under the Safavid dynasty (1502–1736), Afsharid dynasty, and Qajar dynasty
  • The Ilkhanate (Mongol)
  • The Khwarezmian Empire - The Khwarezm-Shâh Dynasty
  • The Buyid dynasty
  • The Great Seljuq Empire
  • The Saffarid dynasty
  • The Ak Koyunlu
  • The Kara Koyunlu
  • The Muzaffarids
  • The Tahirid dynasty
  • The Ghurids
  • The Ghaznavid Empire
  Middle East
  • The Tulunids (868-905, Egypt and Syria)
  • The Ayyubid Dynasty
  • The Mamluk Dynasty
  • The Sharifate of Mecca
  • The Qarmatian empire
  • The Rassids of Yemen
  • The Rasulid of Yemen
  Anatolia (Turkey)
  • The Ottoman Empire (1299–1923)
  • The Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm (1077–1308)
  • The Danishmends Dynasty (1071–1178)
  • The Mengujekids Dynasty (1072–1277)
  • The Saltukids Dynasty (1071–1202)
  • The Artuqids Dynasty (1101–1409)
  Central Africa
  • The Mali Empire (1230s–1600s)
  • The Songhai Empire (1340–1591)
  • The Adal Sultanate (1415–1555)
  • The Ajuran Empire (13th century–17th-century)
  • The Kanem empire
  • The Fulani Empire of Sokoto
  • The Fulani or Fulbe Empire of Macina of Seku Amadu
  • The Fulani or Fulbe Empire of El Hajj Oumar Tall
  • The Fulani or Fulbe Empire of Boundou of Malick Daouda Sy
  • The Kilwa Sultanate (10th century–1517)
  North Africa
  • The Almoravid dynasty (1040–1147) of Morocco
  • The Almohad dynasty (1121–1269) of Morocco
  • The Aghlabid dynasty of Ifriqiya Tunisia, East-Algeria, West-Libya and Sicily
  • The Hafsid dynasty (1229–1574)
  • The Alaouite dynasty of Morocco
  • The Marinid dynasty of Morocco
  • The Rustamid dynasty
  • The Wattasid dynasty of Morocco
  • The Saadi dynasty of Morocco (1511–1628)
  • The Dervish State (1896–1920)
  Europe
  Southern Europe
  • Caliphate of Cordoba (Al-Andalus) (929–1031)
  • The Ottoman empire (1362-1923)
  • The Emirate of Bari (847–871)
  • The Emirate of Sicily (965–1072)
  Eastern Europe
  • The Volga Bulgaria (922–1236)
  • The Golden Horde (1251–1502)
  • The Kazan Khanate (1438–1552)
  • The Astrakhan Khanate (1466–1556)
  • The Qasim Khanate (1452–1681)
  • The Crimean Khanate (1441–1783)
  • The Bashkirs
  • The Shirvanshah
  Central Asia
  • The Karakhanid empire: 840-1212, in Transoxiana
  • The Khwarazmian empire
  • The Golden Horde
  • The Timurid dynasty
  • The Chagatai Khanate
  • The Siberia Khanate
  • The State of Yarkand
  • The Shaybanids
  • The Samanid dynasty
  South Asia
  
  
  Mezquita
  India
  • The Mughal Empire in India (1526–1857), styled Padhsah-i Hind
  
  
  Taj Mahal
  • The Mamluk dynasty of Delhi (1206–1290)
  • The Khilji Dynasty (1290–1320)
  • The Tughlaq dynasty (1321–1398)
  Southeast Asia
  Malay Archipelago (East Indies)
  • The Majapahit empire
  • The Malacca Empire
  • The Bruneian Empire
  • The Sultanate of Aceh
  • The Aceh Sultanate Sultanate of Aceh

 

[AspiringSoul]

@rainerann
Shariah just means 'law'.
I don't know if you're aware but there are many areas in law. The aspects of shariah law in the West (moreso in the UK) deal primarily with civil law. The problem is when ignorant people hear the word 'shariah' and 'shariah courts' they immediately picture....stoning.

As for everything else, historically muslim countries have been more diverse than european/christian countries.
I don't want to just shift the blame because i do believe we're as bad...
but

you can't present modern day examples of shariah branded capital punishments when those same states are sponsored and allied with the west. I'm sure Saddam hussein's government was better than Isis but guess what...even Hussein was an american stooge.

Pakistan was doing wonderfully well until zia ul haq's 'islamification' but if you really study what happened in pakistan as a result, the wealthy/elite in the country isolated themselves to remain away from the public eye, the end result was they no longer operated in public which led to a huge loss of employment, philanthropic projects etc
it is changing for the better right now actually.
Zia ul haq was the man who was hand picked by house saud to fight the black semptember palestinian revolt in Jordan...
jordan/king abdullah, house saud, zia they were all just western stooges.
Zia was responsible for the death of thousands of palestinians in jordan which makes him worse than any israeli.
his militarisation of pakistan and creation of pakistan led to the creation of taliban in afghanistan and hence the modern problem of terrorism for/against pakistan (because the TTP is sponsored by india but they don't admit it in public)./

Maybe it would be best for you to judge my religion without the devil's spectacles mate?
these are deep rooted problems you're judging that go back to colonial times.

would you judge judaism when jews were colonised (ie at their worst) or judge them from the time of David?

Btw one major change of direction
I firmly believe the image of the beast is a collective thoughtform that was created through evil in order to perpetuate evil and keep people enslaved in evil and is fed off our evil.
all the blood sacrifices and sex rituals are part of giving human life to feed this thing...
and the reason why the west (ie the beast system) has been so accommodating of all nationalities/people is because we're part of a small project to break into the minds of each religion/nation and hence to conquer every thought form.
this might not make obvious sense to you.

I strongly believe in the power of the mind and esp the collective mind. What if you could tap into that but use it for your own end?
for example...seriously I believe the collective jewish mind in the 6th century literally created prophet Mohammed ie unconsciously.
when you consider the extent of power in the muslim world since it's inception, for all that to come from one race..that's a race the devil would want to control for sure...but the same is also true for islam/muslims today.
kind of like self-fulfilling prophecy, when muslims collectively think a certain way, it's going to happen.
it's ironic im on this forum too considering we're collectively making the nwo more real by dwelling on these subjects.

of course islam is questioned every day, it's a form of shaping our collective mind through 'moral' debate all the time.
is it really moral though? in reality secularism need not be immoral at all, it's what goes on behind that..what we're fed through our mouth, ears and ears. who controls that? if it's a secular/godless system, do you trust the people running it?

would you agree that bruce jenner and the kardashian family are bad for society? why are they on tv then? who made that choice?
sure, i don't need to watch them, but one way or another i'll know about them...and the gender debates that come with it and all else.
it's hard to escape from it.
isn't this a form of captivity?

 

[AspiringSoul]

you can't even call a young girl a 'girl' without potentially losing your job as a teacher because the girl identifies herself as a boy.

that's where we're at.

 

[Etagloc]

Okay..... so suppose we accept the premise (which I don't necessarily accept) that democracy is the best system- that is the universal, best system- the end-all, be-all, the end of history, etc.

Okay so we accept that democracy is the universal best system. And by democracy we mean Western style democracy- basically the political system of a country like US or Canada.

Okay, so this is the end-all, be-all of systems.

Doesn't this necessarily imply that imposing democracy- as we understand it to be- is anti-democracy?

A US-style democracy is only democracy if it's not forced. If 80% of the US woke up tomorow and decided "we want a Muslim president who will make the US a Muslim country"..... according the principals of democracy, the US can be a Muslim country, a socialist country, a whatever style of country.

If you try to force a system that goes against what the people want in terms of a system..... I just think that sounds like imperialism. There's tons of people in Muslim countries and they seem to be happy with being in Muslim countries. If it's what the people want, if we really believe in democracy then we have to accept that people can have a Muslim country if that's what they want.

There's tons of countries in the world so I think there's room for different types of countries. And having different types of countries under different types of systems sounds a lot more interesting than everyone having the exact same system (coughcoughneoliberalismcoughcough) pushed on them.

 

[Etagloc]

@rainerann
Shariah just means 'law'.
I don't know if you're aware but there are many areas in law. The aspects of shariah law in the West (moreso in the UK) deal primarily with civil law. The problem is when ignorant people hear the word 'shariah' and 'shariah courts' they immediately picture....stoning.

As for everything else, historically muslim countries have been more diverse than european/christian countries.
I don't want to just shift the blame because i do believe we're as bad...
but

you can't present modern day examples of shariah branded capital punishments when those same states are sponsored and allied with the west. I'm sure Saddam hussein's government was better than Isis but guess what...even Hussein was an american stooge.

Pakistan was doing wonderfully well until zia ul haq's 'islamification' but if you really study what happened in pakistan as a result, the wealthy/elite in the country isolated themselves to remain away from the public eye, the end result was they no longer operated in public which led to a huge loss of employment, philanthropic projects etc
it is changing for the better right now actually.
Zia ul haq was the man who was hand picked by house saud to fight the black semptember palestinian revolt in Jordan...
jordan/king abdullah, house saud, zia they were all just western stooges.
Zia was responsible for the death of thousands of palestinians in jordan which makes him worse than any israeli.
his militarisation of pakistan and creation of pakistan led to the creation of taliban in afghanistan and hence the modern problem of terrorism for/against pakistan (because the TTP is sponsored by india but they don't admit it in public)./

Maybe it would be best for you to judge my religion without the devil's spectacles mate?
these are deep rooted problems you're judging that go back to colonial times.

would you judge judaism when jews were colonised (ie at their worst) or judge them from the time of David?

Btw one major change of direction
I firmly believe the image of the beast is a collective thoughtform that was created through evil in order to perpetuate evil and keep people enslaved in evil and is fed off our evil.
all the blood sacrifices and sex rituals are part of giving human life to feed this thing...
and the reason why the west (ie the beast system) has been so accommodating of all nationalities/people is because we're part of a small project to break into the minds of each religion/nation and hence to conquer every thought form.
this might not make obvious sense to you.

I strongly believe in the power of the mind and esp the collective mind. What if you could tap into that but use it for your own end?
for example...seriously I believe the collective jewish mind in the 6th century literally created prophet Mohammed ie unconsciously.
when you consider the extent of power in the muslim world since it's inception, for all that to come from one race..that's a race the devil would want to control for sure...but the same is also true for islam/muslims today.
kind of like self-fulfilling prophecy, when muslims collectively think a certain way, it's going to happen.
it's ironic im on this forum too considering we're collectively making the nwo more real by dwelling on these subjects.

of course islam is questioned every day, it's a form of shaping our collective mind through 'moral' debate all the time.
is it really moral though? in reality secularism need not be immoral at all, it's what goes on behind that..what we're fed through our mouth, ears and ears. who controls that? if it's a secular/godless system, do you trust the people running it?

would you agree that bruce jenner and the kardashian family are bad for society? why are they on tv then? who made that choice?
sure, i don't need to watch them, but one way or another i'll know about them...and the gender debates that come with it and all else.
it's hard to escape from it.
isn't this a form of captivity?

Fascinating stuff. Thinking from another planet lol. But I'm down with it cuz I'm from the same galaxy.

 

[rainerann]

Not meaning to interrupt, but there are a lot of people, out on the fringes, who are looking at "messianic" Noahidism, a movement among Jews and others, as it relates to the possible aspirations and goals of the NWO and to the potential re-establishment of Jerusalem as the federal headquarters of the United Nations of the World, much like the District of Columbia jurisdictionally serves as the federal district to the States. Brussels was the temporary "tabernacle in the wilderness," so to speak.

Among those seven "Noahide" laws, as I understand, is a prohibition against "idolatry," which is understandably causing some Christians concern, as that definition, according to Jewish legal practices, can, though does not invariably, include the worship of Jesus as God incarnate.

Well referring to this as a fringe group sets the stage there. However, where this leads is a discussion on Zionism which I didn’t mention, but I’m thinking most people have already heard me oppose before this.

True Torah Jews is also an organization I support who demonstrate why something like this remains a fringe group- because it cannot be supported with doctrine. It is an extra set of teachings and introducing this does not create a contradiction to what I posted.

 

[AspiringSoul]

Fascinating stuff. Thinking from another planet lol. But I'm down with it cuz I'm from the same galaxy.

this hindu guy online once cursed at me
and i swear to you, he called me 'a quantum faggot'
his username, was 'space cowboy' too that was the funniest bit.

 

[AspiringSoul]

the sad part is, the most relevant truth to all of this was created over 17 years ago by Hideo Kojima in Metal Gear solid 2.

I can't get over this series, ive talked about it for so many years and don't get bored.
mind blowing.

 

[Etagloc]

this hindu guy online once cursed at me
and i swear to you, he called me 'a quantum faggot'
his username, was 'space cowboy' too that was the funniest bit.

Okay but..... you see

space cowboy is way different than
quantum cowboy or cosmic cowboy

a space cowboy just travels through space....
yawwwwn..... it's been done before.

a quantum cowboy is a traveler through dimensions

 

[AspiringSoul]

Okay but..... you see

space cowboy is way different than
quantum cowboy or cosmic cowboy

a space cowboy just travels through space....
yawwwwn..... it's been done before.

a quantum cowboy is a traveler through dimensions

his avatar was a picture of the kundalini 'serpent'
it was years ago man, well over 10 years ago...i remember it well because it was one of the stand out funny moments online.
after a day of tough back and forth debating, he got angry and called me that.

i miss those days.
people are too polite on here.

 

[Etagloc]

his avatar was a picture of the kundalini 'serpent'
it was years ago man, well over 10 years ago...i remember it well because it was one of the stand out funny moments online.
after a day of tough back and forth debating, he got angry and called me that.

i miss those days.
people are too polite on here.

So you got called a "quantum faggot"..... by a guy whos name is Space Cowboy with the kundalini serpent picture as their avatar...

people are weird lol

 

[rainerann]

On the contrary, True Torah Jews are, these days, the fringe group. They are dwindling and the disciples of the two Rabbis Kook, who reside in Israel and are redefining the Jewish doctrine, are on the ascendant in the occupied territories of Palestine and in such "settlements" as Gush Emunim.

I didn't say that it did "create a contradiction to what you posted." I addressed some of the issues you raised and I quoted you verbatim. I didn't realize that you were making a personal statement of support. I read yours as a blanket comment. You and I both, at times, oppose Zionism, especially many of its excesses, but that is not the issue here.

Yes, on the surface, I do support the religion of Judaism. I am very acclimated to what their doctrine says in the Torah and I did define Judaism as distinct according to this. What you are suggesting about the groups entertaining establishing Noahide laws is nothing more than a fantasy. This is how the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy is envisioned according to some people who want events to play out according to their own arrogance. However, this is not something that is actually supported by their doctrine. Therefore, from this perspective, I can support the religion of Judaism as a religion that does not create a conflict with the freedom of religion we have in American because they do not have a doctrine that warrants conquering and establishing a theocracy unless they make this up because they are somewhat competitive.

On the other hand, Islam prides itself in conquering and removing idolatry in many of the places where it exists as a majority. They have doctrine to support this within their religious writings that are considered valid and have existed since the beginning of the religion. Therefore, supporting a religion like Islam is the same as supporting something like a monarchy or communism. You are essentially supporting the freedom to exercise different forms of government. It is not about the freedom of religion. The end game is to convert the government process to a system that places religious leaders in a position of government where they are able to enforce and define laws according to Islam in any location in the world.

Theocracy is a failed system of government in the same way monarchy is outdated and has consistently demonstrated failure. So while I disagree with Zionism, I can differentiate Zionism from Judaism according to doctrine. Essentially, Islam and Zionism are two sides of the same coin. It doesn't surprise me that this creates such conflict between the two of them. They are like two alpha males. Zionism doesn't really have goals that are all that different than Islam. Another reason I would never say that Palestine will be restored when Zionism fails as the final fulfillment of prophecy. Neither one demonstrates how scripture describes Israel in my opinion that either one of them should claim the land according to a spiritual prerogative.

 

[DesertRose]

define laws according to Islam in any location in the world.

Dar al Islam means lands wherein Islam is practiced.

Essentially, Islam and Zionism are two sides of the same coin. It doesn't surprise me that this creates such conflict between the two of them. They are like two alpha males. Zionism doesn't really have goals that are all that different than Islam.

They are not the same. We are a religion not a political secular ideology, hence we are accountable to God.
We have rules of conduct in war that should be followed and they believe everything is fair game and that the ends justify the means.
You can not expect to go to heaven after killing innocents including women, children, and other non combatants like priests, old people etc...

Another reason I would never say that Palestine will be restored when Zionism fails as the final fulfillment of prophecy. Neither one demonstrates how scripture describes Israel in my opinion that either one of them should claim the land according to a spiritual prerogative.