Confronting Religious Error

[Leo Volont]

Confronting Religious Error Over the last several weeks the World has received a very important clue regarding the Success Islam has had in retaining its hold over its quarter of the Religious World. It is clear that Islam brooks no criticism and will react with extreme violence toward any criticism or self-reflection. From Morocco in the West to Indonesia in the East we can reasonably discern that there is likely not one single voice representing a critical scholarship or comparative theology over that entire federation of intransigence. Which is not to say that there is any particular Leadership that is aware of Islam’s theological, moral and spiritual shortfalls and deliberately conspires to suppress dissent with any certain awareness of their own hypocrisy, though there must be scattered individuals who would fit this description. What is happening is not so self-consciously aware. Allow me to offer my interpretation of what is happening. In any purported Religious Revelation, there are two elements – first there is the pure narrative – the description of events, speeches, visions, dreams, Apparitions, or Voices with no embellishment or editorializing. Secondly, and where all the error and abuse creeps in, is the accompanying Explanations. Sometimes these Explanations are contained in the very Scriptures themselves, but more often the Explanations are contained in the subsequent Teachings and Doctrines which the Original Scriptures give rise to. I suspect there are a great many ‘Explanations’ embedded in the Islamic Laws and Teachings. These Explanations serve two purposes. First, Scholars and Magistrates find that the Pure Islamic Narrative is simply unworkable at a practical level, and so certain changes are foisted upon the Narrative wherever they can be made to fit. Secondly, while criticism is discouraged at pains of the most extreme duress, over the Centuries such objections are anticipated and Explanations fabricated to answer the most obvious objections. We can see some certain clues that this has been a mechanism much used by Islam, because while we are all familiar with Mohamed’s personal History as an sexual opportunist (married the old Widow of his Boss so he could take over the Caravan Company, giving him the leisure for his Religious Speculations), Bandit General, War Maker, and Violent Persecutor (the Jews who originally welcomed him to the Community at Messina became his enemies when he began raiding the Caravans which disrupted their honest trade – it is here that Islam has Anti-Semitism virtually written into their Scripture… much in the same way that Judaism has a warrant to murder Palestinians because they had a Scriptural warrant to murder Philistines), and while we have heard of passages from the Koran which glorify its murderous soldiery, and classifies its martyrs not as persecuted victims but as aggressive militants who just happen fall into mishap in the course of committing a religiously condoned butchery, and rewards its assassins with promiscuous sex in paradise; in the face of all that, we hear on the six o’clock news from the Muslim Scholars far and wide that “Islam is not a sexist or violent Religion”. So, you see, where all the Narrative is clear and to the point, the Scholarship has put forth a cover story, an “Explanation” which somehow paints over what is clear to the Outsider but has convinced those on the Inside that the Narrative doesn’t really mean what it says. And we can understand that people would wish to believe any Explanation which makes their Religion more palatable. Especially since it is not as though these people have a choice. They are not permitted to object to their Religion, so they are in some measure pacified by such doctrinal mitigations. However, the problem is that the original Narrative still exists. While the Explanations are circulated to deal with a nervous Intelligentsia, the Militant Schools and the Dangerous Fundamentalists are well aware of the license for Violence which the straight Narrative of the Koran authorizes for them. So we see the paradox of Islamic Scholars telling us Islam is non-violent while the terrorists commit themselves to the bloodiest Terror while carrying their Korans next to their hearts. Islam, though the worst offender of all of the World Religions, is not entirely alone in its utilization of duplicitous Explanations. Indeed, Christianity hides a large faction of followers of the Anti-Christ behind a veil of Explanation. Just take a look -- in the Pure Narrative, we have Paul, a Pharisaic enemy of Jesus, one who voted to have Jesus executed, introduce himself into Scripture as one who murdered a Christian Leader elected to replace Peter after Peter had fallen into disfavor for murdering some members of his Congregation for not paying enough money to this extortionate Christian Mob. Subsequently Peter rewards Paul, who killed for him, with a position of authority in this New Jewish Sect. But the Jews were repulsed by Paul – they had understood exactly what he was and how he got his appointment, and rightly despised him for it. So Paul turned to the Greeks. Finding that the Greeks cared nothing for the Hebraic Religious Traditions, Paul fabricated a set of Doctrines that he could more easily sell to the profligate and polytheistic Greeks. He created an elaborate Explanation that would obscure everything that Christ taught that would have been so unappealing to Greeks more in search of Mystery than Morality. Let us take a closer look at the Christian Narrative and then at the Explanation. The Pure Narrative of Christianity tells us that Jesus had been prophesized to be a World King (see the Three Kings of the East) a strict moralist and a committed Spiritualist who met with a severe political opposition, was arrested by a coalition of various Power Factions in Jerusalem and was murdered. Paul’s Explanation was that God had intended this Death of the Messiah as a Sacrifice that had been the point of it all from the very beginning. Also, that it was by the Sacrifice of this Messiah that all Sins would be Forgiven, which ultimately means that all Sins would be allowed. We are to believe that the Jews were meant to profit by their rejection and murder to their Messiah. The Pure Narrative from Christ in his Parables speak of violence against the Prophets and Messengers of God only in terms of criminality, but the Explanations given by Paul toss out all of the Moral Teachings of Christ and center entirely on the fabricated notion that God had offered Jesus to be Murdered so that Humanity would have an Excuse to Sin with no regard for guilt or remorse. Paul’s Salvation was explicitly set forth to displace and replace the Law. Salvation would shove Morality to the side. This may sound extreme – my Explanation of Paul’s Explanation seems so stark and dark. So, yes, subsequent Religious Theology has been busy providing it own Explanations offered to mitigate the dreadful Fabrications that Paul had established. Paul himself, between his pointed arguments for a total forgiveness of any sin, spoke warmheartedly for an occasional Righteousness (or these statements were tacked on by Church Editors from the next Century or two), which in his next chapter he would insist was totally unnecessary. Salvation would be by Faith, or by Predestined Favor, and NOT by any Works. But the Christian Scholars and Theologians who would come later would select and edit what they would willingly understand to be certified Doctrine. The Catholic Church would take some slice from this Antichrist Pie, while the Protestants would swallow the whole thing. The Protestant conviction in Absolute Salvation has allowed them to raise up a Capitalism built upon unlimited Exploitation, Slave Trading, Rum Running, and purely territorial War. The Catholics fall a degree behind this Protestant Extremism (if is fortunate that the Influence of the Blessed Virgin Mary has never cited any Paulist Doctrine, just as Paul in all of his writings never bothered to quote Jesus even once). But, still, Catholicism suffers from a large Paulist Influence. Indeed, as an illustration of this, I have heard many a Priest and Bishop speak of their experience in Seminary when they were still just students, and they were consistent in agreeing that all their studies were easy until it came to the Study of Paul and his Letters. They were never clear with me why they thought it so difficult (or they could not bring themselves to say why, or perhaps allow themselves to think much about it), but the reason is obvious. The Writings of Paul, if taken clearly and literally would be morally objectionable and obviously Anti-Christical, so certain intricate formulas, excuses, and apologies had to be memorized and internalized, along with a familiarity with every verse from Paul that could be pulled into the context of mitigation and obfuscation of Paul’s deliberate arguments, so that the distasteful and damaging aspects of Paul’s Narrative could be systematically de-emphasized. While the Teachings of Jesus would take an easy year, as they were straight forward – saying what they meant and meaning what they said – several years would be required to Understand the Letters of Paul as NOT being the evil Works of the Antichrist, and hard work it would be. Paul was an ugly mean spirited Killer who advocated free sin as the reward for killing the Messiah. It would take some powerful mental gymnastics to transform that abysmal substance into a fabricated picture of a “Saint” Paul. Not every student who started Seminary would finish, and I suppose a great deal of the attrition was among those students who could not master that elaborate skill required that enables one to be able to read one thing while understanding another. Judaism also enjoys a good deal of Explanation to make itself morally palatable. The most striking example is the Story of Jacob. The pure narrative concerning Jacob tell us that a lazy, superstitious and stupid servant sent to find Jacob’s Father a bride, was satisfied with a prostitute that would accost any traveler on the road. This ‘wife’ of Jacob’s Father, Isaac, had two sons, but Jacob was the younger and should have been eliminated from the Birth Right of Abraham. But the scheming mother was repelled by the older son because he took after the Father (being uneventfully forthright and honest… must have seemed boring to a mother not far removed from being a whore), but loved the second son because he was more like herself – scheming and evil. The Scripture is quite clear that Jacob disguised himself and stole the Birthright through outright lies and fraud. We have Scriptural Explanation embedded in the Pure Narrative that proposes to justify the unjustifiable. Sadly, most Jews and many Christians accept the Explanations while ignoring the plain and unembellished details. And the Narrative even continues. Jacob marries a woman who is a thief who becomes the Matriarch for the 12 Tribes (the quality of the Breeding is demonstrated in the description of Jacob’s sons as a party of Sheep-Screwers who would sell the only Good Son into Slavery – These are the Fathers of the Jewish People). Reading further, Jacob proves a coward who tries to hide from the brother whom he consciously knows he has wronged. An Angel of God comes and fights Jacob and takes back the Birth Right of Abraham. The Angel calls Jacob by the name “Israel” which means “Fights Against God”. Hmmmm. Just paying attention to this Pure Narrative, we find that this Jacob is the Anti-Abraham, just as Paul would later be the Anti-Christ. But in Judaism as in Christianity, the Pure Narrative which is easy enough to discern in either Religion, is ignored for the sake of Doctrinal Explanation. We can only wonder what possible Explanation can make a Jew proud of being a Son of Jacob, or a Christian proud of being born again in the Blasphemies of Paul. But we cannot deny that Religions have proven very adept at formulating some very convincing Explanations. How much greater is the Sun then the Moon, but an eclipse reverses all of that, doesn’t it. So it is that Theological Explanation eclipses Religious Narrative Truth. Which brings us to my final point in this Essay – that we must not allow notions of Religious Tolerance to quiet us when it comes to pointing out the Truths observable in each Religion’s Pure Narrative, or to point out that whether the Explanations are morally better or worst than the Pure Narrative, that they are not the Truth but are only invented to obscure or divert the Truth. If the Pure Narrative is problematic, this needs to be declared. And if the Doctrinal Explanations are problematic, that that needs to be declared. Because when the Pure Narrative has moral or social vulnerabilities, or when the Explanations have moral or social vulnerabilities, then the danger is ever present that these vulnerabilities will be exploited by Evil. Satan glories in every Religious Mistake. Imposing Quiet in order not to offend Religious Sensibilities is simply to allow these Mistakes to perpetuate endlessly. Every Religion deserves and benefits by Moral, Spiritual and even Social Review. Civilization is too tenuous a thing to survive with a dysfunctional and cancerous Religion in its bosom so close to its heart. We especially know we have a problem when, after accusing a Religion of being inherently violent, it responds with a concerted and organized violence.

[Neruo]

Yeah.... well I kind of have to disagree with you on that.... yeah...

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Neruo Yeah.... well I kind of have to disagree with you on that.... yeah... So I take it that, being from the Netherlands, you WANT the Muslims to continue their murderous rampage aimed at further intimidating an already timorous population into accepting what would effectively be a Muslim Culture? Well, I think you should go out and get yourself fitted for a Turban and learn how to repeat "Islam is not a violent Religion" while setting fires, throwing stones, and exploding bombs.

[Neruo]

Originally posted by Leo Volont So I take it that, being from the Netherlands, you WANT the Muslims to continue their murderous rampage aimed at further intimidating an already timorous population into accepting what would effectively be a Muslim Culture? Well, I think you should go out and get yourself fitted for a Turban and learn how to repeat "Islam is not a violent Religion" while setting fires, throwing stones, and exploding bombs. Ha. In the netherlands there wasn't a single riot over the cartoon. Nothing. Not even peacefull. Do you really think that it was the religion itself that make all those people act like a bunch of retards? Ok the Islam does make violence seem less evil then the bible does. But lets not forget what some christians did. I mean the crusades wern't real cool too. Anyhow, the people you see on tv are a small group of total idiots. They just really have the tendency to overreact, becouse they feel like they are being opressed and shit. It isn't just their religion, it's a bunch of reason. They just live in a shitty county. America, christian, is totally funding the crap out of the israël war machine while they live in crappy houses. You can't blame it all on the koran. The koran doesn't really suck more then the bible. It's what the people make of it. (suck in both cases.) anyhow, the muslims in those countries would have found a way to riot over anyway. The people in paris wern't muslim too. People that have it shit just riot. And maybe people in the middle-east just fucking suck. Genetically. If america was muslim and the middle-east christian, there allso would be riots and hate.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Neruo Ha. In the netherlands there wasn't a single riot over the cartoon. Nothing. Not even peacefull. Do you really think that it was the religion itself that make all those people act like a bunch of retards? Ok the Islam does make violence seem less evil then the bible does. But lets not forget what some christians did. I mean the crusades wern't real cool too. Anyhow, the people you see on tv are a small group of total idiots. They just really have the tendency to overreact, becouse they feel like they are being opressed and shit. It isn't just their religion, it's a bunch of reason. They just live in a shitty county. America, christian, is totally funding the crap out of the israël war machine while they live in crappy houses. You can't blame it all on the koran. The koran doesn't really suck more then the bible. It's what the people make of it. (suck in both cases.) anyhow, the muslims in those countries would have found a way to riot over anyway. The people in paris wern't muslim too. People that have it shit just riot. And maybe people in the middle-east just fucking suck. Genetically. If america was muslim and the middle-east christian, there allso would be riots and hate. About you not seeing a big problem. Well, these things are incremental. I am not talking about what might culminate in the next two weeks, but the next two centuries. If you permit Islam to have its complete sway, while agreeing to muzzle your own critical view so as not to give them any offense, well, then the drift can only be in their direction. Why just look and you can see that the same thing happened with Religions surrender to Secular Politics -- a few centuries ago Religion tacitly decided to stay out of politics, and now we have Politics as a bastion for Free Masons and all kinds of corrupt ilk. And about your insistance that Muslims are probably just genetically troublesome and that their Religion, that can be pointed out in instance after instance is their support and enabler, has nothing to do with it.... well, that is simply your refusal to recognize a clear cause and effect relationship. I can argue against blatant stupidiity. Why just look at all of the trouble in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -- every troublemaker is from out of those Fundamentalist Islamic Schools (you see, the Governments there are much like what the American Government is becoming, and suppose they can save money on Education by allotting it entirely to the private sector). It must be your supposition that 12 years of uninterrupted indoctrination during the most formative time of a person's life does not count for anything. How can one confront such bluntness... such a wide capacity for ignoring the obvious? About Muslims finding any reason to riot.... duh!? That is what I have been saying. They grow up in the lap of a Religion that glorifies confrontation and theologically eggs on everybody into a fight. They have made aggression a virtue. Now, yes, there are a good many Islamic Apologists who trace back in influence to those Islamic Jurists and Scholars who had once had a Civilization to run, and were able to Overwrite and Explain away the actual Doctrines of their Prophet. God Bless them. But the Fundamentalist Movement within Islam rejects all subsequent evolutions of Doctrine and return to the Original Angry Beduin Himself, Mohamed, and wish to pick up the sword just where he left it. And about the Netherlands... well, I am glad that you do not have too many bodies littering your streets.... now.

[syzygy]

Originally posted by Leo Volont+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leo Volont)</div> we are all familiar with Mohamed’s personal History as an sexual opportunist (married the old Widow of his Boss so he could take over the Caravan Company, giving him the leisure for his Religious Speculations), Bandit General, War Maker, and Violent Persecutor [/b] eek! Where do you find such misintrepreted, ignorant information? Islam and Christianity aren't opposed if that's what this propaganda is being used for. Originally posted by Neruo@ And maybe people in the middle-east just fucking suck. Genetically. wtf? <!--QuoteBegin-Leo Volont They grow up in the lap of a Religion that glorifies confrontation and theologically eggs on everybody into a fight. No, they grow up with an interpretation that fighting should be done in the physical world instead of the spiritual. A misinterpretation that has also fallen upon Christianity. The existance of the Shi'ites and Sufis immediately displaces any charges that this behavior is inherent in Islam.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by syzygy eek! Where do you find such misintrepreted, ignorant information? Islam and Christianity aren't opposed if that's what this propaganda is being used for. ... ....No, they grow up with an interpretation that fighting should be done in the physical world instead of the spiritual. A misinterpretation that has also fallen upon Christianity. The existance of the Shi'ites and Sufis immediately displaces any charges that this behavior is inherent in Islam. Well, what do I have wrong? You see, people are told that Mohamed is a Great Prophet, just as they are told that Saint Paul is a Saint. And after being given this Orientation and Predisposition, they receive all of the Narrative and 'spin' it to cover for every benefit of the doubt. But if one simply looks at the Story Narrative of Mohamed, one sees a opportunistic gigolo who married for money, who made a name for himself by refusing to pay homage to the Pagan Clique in Mecca who payed homage to the local Idols, probably complaining about the expense and the tithing... a version of Tax Rebellion which has always appealed to those of selfish disposition and narrow mind. Not having any backbone, he ran away when he aroused serious opposition. No longer having his Mecca assets to live upon, he turned to banditry. Those who had welcomed him in his exile, when they found that he was a bandit stealing from their trading routes, expressed their objections, and he murdered them off. Gaining support in the countryside he waged a War against Mecca. But when the Forces of Mecca eventually got the upper hand, Mohamed, willing enough to send his own armies to their death, quickly came to Peace Terms in order to save his own skin -- again, proving himself ever again to be a coward. And look at the Peace Terms he adopted. He surrendered every Muslim to in perpetuity to Worship the Idols of Mecca that he had started off complaining about. So we have the Huge Contradiction of every Muslim who insist that Worshipping Idols and Images are strictly forbidden -- yet they bow to the Idols of Mecca 5 times a day, and must in their lifetime go personally to Mecca to grovel before the ancient pagan idots. Now, if any Muslim would just study their Pure Narrative, ignoring all the mitigating explanations and justifications and excuses, they would see that they don't so much have a great Prophet as a great scoundrel. Also, Sufis and the Sufi Orders predate Islam. So they are NOT Islamic. Sufis are Zoroastrians. Now, ofcourse, in that part of the wold they need to SAY they are Muslim. But we only have to review the History of the prominent Sufi Orders and see how they have been persecuted by the Sultanate and the Islamic Fundamentalist Communities. If Islam itself insists that the Sufis are NOT truly Muslim, and if we can examine Sufi Doctrines and Practices and see Zoroastrian Influences, then we must conclude that the Sufis are Zoroastrian. Indeed, which brings up one of the major flaws of Islam. Mohamed was supposed to be a Prophet. But a Prophet of WHAT Religion. I suppose Mohamed as started out as an advocate of Zoroastrian Influence, but Beduin Pride and Arab Nationalism soon learned to ignore these Old Persian Influences and made the Koran and Mohamed an isolated Religion all to itself. And the Context of this New Religion was narrowly prescribed. Almost the entire Koran was composed as Mohamed either argued against or engaged in Wars and Persecutions. This is a context that can hardly be discerned to be Religious and Spiritual.

[Neruo]

Originally posted by syzygy And maybe people in the middle-east just fucking suck. Genetically. wtf?! [/b] Why not? I mean this entire 20th century over-reacted fake looking like no-one is a rasict is bullshit anyway. People really took anti-rasism so far that it didn't help shit. Anyhow, why can't people in the middle-east be genetically more agressive? I mean if both your parents are retards so will you. I don't see why a race can't be different. Bulldogs don't behave like poodles. The intire all-races-are-equal shit should ly the fuck down: Races arn't that same, that's why it are called different races. I mean not like people should be shot Becouse they are different. They still have just as much value as any other race. Asians rock anyway. Oh, and the people in the middle-east had a way better civilisation in like 2000 b.c then us. So not like they are stupid. Europeans just changed a bit to imperialistic power-crazy fags. -------- And Leo. The bible fucking sucks too. Go cry about that. All religion sucks. I mean them aztec-human sarcrifices wern't jolly good fun too. Every religion has it sucky and better sides. People that believe the koran just choose to believe in a different lie.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Neruo ...And Leo. The bible fucking sucks too. Go cry about that. All religion sucks. I mean them aztec-human sarcrifices wern't jolly good fun too. Every religion has it sucky and better sides. People that believe the koran just choose to believe in a different lie. The Aztec's were Stone Age. The Higher Old World Religions have come along way since the Stone Age. We can see that Religion in the West left the Stone Age behind when Abraham refused to sacrifice his son and instead sacrificed a goat. It was the end of the institution of Human Sacrifice in the West. And God rewarded this step in Religious Evolution, by moving the West into the Bronze Age... yes, I will give up the Bible and I will give up the Koran. Remember, I am Catholic, and the Protestants most frequent objection to Catholics is that they do not sufficiently follow the Bible. They are right. One should evaluate Religions not on how well they conform to some original documents, but on whether and how many Supernatural Saints they are able to produce. Catholicism has had dozens of Christ-Like Saints -- the Miraculous Powers exceed even those documented concerning Christ. And so has Zoroastrianism as still being perpetuated by the Sufi Brotherhoods, and the Hindu Yogins, and a scattered Mahayana Buddhist hear and there. These are the True Religions. But Atheists need to find an argument they can win and so they go back and find books that they don't like that aren't even read anymore by anybody who has a Working Religion. Yes, you might win your Argument, but it fails to address any real point. You score no points against Real Religion because you are not aimed at Real Religion.

[dudesuperior]

Originally posted by Neruo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Neruo)</div> <!--QuoteBegin-syzygy And maybe people in the middle-east just fucking suck. Genetically. wtf?! [/b] Why not? I mean this entire 20th century over-reacted fake looking like no-one is a rasict is bullshit anyway. People really took anti-rasism so far that it didn't help shit. Anyhow, why can't people in the middle-east be genetically more agressive? I mean if both your parents are retards so will you. I don't see why a race can't be different. Bulldogs don't behave like poodles. The intire all-races-are-equal shit should ly the fuck down: Races arn't that same, that's why it are called different races. I mean not like people should be shot Becouse they are different. They still have just as much value as any other race. Asians rock anyway. Oh, and the people in the middle-east had a way better civilisation in like 2000 b.c then us. So not like they are stupid. Europeans just changed a bit to imperialistic power-crazy fags. -------- And Leo. The bible fucking sucks too. Go cry about that. All religion sucks. I mean them aztec-human sarcrifices wern't jolly good fun too. Every religion has it sucky and better sides. People that believe the koran just choose to believe in a different lie.[/b] LMFAO- That has got to be the most politically incorrect thing I have read this year

[Lucius]

*sigh* People really need to stop fighting. Atheists aswell as theists of all religions. The world is a crazy enough place as it is without everybody going on a rampage, deticating their entire lives to going crazy.. Don't people ever grow tired of it? I do. Instead of fighting with each other and trying to meddle in the business of other people and trying to tell them who is right and wrong they should search inside themselves and find their God or Goddess there. Find inner peace and love for yourself, and then everything around you. And once the love is found, stand up and spread it. We all just want to be happy, don't we? Love, understand, kindness, compassion, an open heart and soul, respect, true wisdom.. I don't know how many times I can repeat stuff like that. All religions preach the frikkin same, if they could all just come together.. A simple religion of love, atheists can understand and accept that too, even if they don't believe in 'something higher'. A new religion should be created that has love and compassion as priority, and from there everybody can believe whatever they want on a personal or cultural level. But this religion would be 'secondary'. Love is the true miracle. Sometimes I do tire of this world and society.. On the whole islam thing.. I posted a tiny something on Leo's other topic: Against Religious Tolerance. The muslims really need a break, as there are certain individuals really spoiling it for them.

[Neruo]

Originally posted by dudesuperior LMFAO- That has got to be the most politically incorrect thing I have read this year That's exactly my point. Just becouse you look at racial differences doesn't mean you are racist. It's sience. Objective perception. No one ever did research on it becouse people are all like 'oh teh noez,!11!! teh racizmset!11!!!! >: (".

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Neruo Anyhow, why can't people in the middle-east be genetically more agressive? I mean if both your parents are retards so will you. I don't see why a race can't be different. Bulldogs don't behave like poodles. The intire all-races-are-equal shit should ly the fuck down: Races arn't that same, that's why it are called different races. . Well, I have heard that they conducted World Wide Genetic Research and found that there are more people related to Ghenghis Khan then any other man. And these scions to Genghis Khan start in Mongolia, extend into parts of China and then follow the Invasion Routes across the Euro-Asian Steppe down into Northern India, across the Russian Steppes, through Old Persia (Iran) and into Arabia and up into the Balkans, being stopped only at the Bastion Wall of Europe, Vienna. And there is perhaps no greater Asshole in History than Ghenghis Khan. Once he was asked what gave him the most pleasure and he said that raping an enemies wives and daughters in his presence and then torturing them all to death is what he found the most fun. When we look at Mongolian and the Turkish Invasions of the Middle and Near East in the 10th through the 14th Centuries, what we can remark is that slaughter and genocide characterized these invasions. The Golden Hordes did not try to do any Nation Buidling. They did not want to deal with any Insurgency or Freedom Fighters. They just killed everybody. China was saved this ordeal because the Chinese were able to assert a stable peace, which surprised the Invaders, but it did convince them not to murder a population that seemed entirely docile. But all across Russia, Northern India, Persia and Arabia the tactic was to kill anybody who fell into their hands. those they breed up to resettle the regions were of course of their murderous genetic strain. But there is one redeeming trait in these Hordes. They could organize and regiment. it was said that Genghis Khan could call a formation of an Army of 100,000 men and know in 15 minutes who was present and who was missing. This ability and propensity to Organize and Regiment, if not Civilized in itself, is certainly one of the Building Blocks to Civilization. They may be Cruel, but they seem willing enough to Obey Orders and submit to Regulation. Loyalty is not the least of all Civilized Virtues.

[syzygy]

Originally posted by Neruo Anyhow, why can't people in the middle-east be genetically more agressive? http://record.wustl.edu/archive/1998/10-15...cles/races.html Originally posted by Neruo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Neruo)</div> I mean if both your parents are retards so will you.[/b] What does being mentally retarded have to do with middle-eastern peoples? Originally posted by Neruo@ Bulldogs don't behave like poodles. Some do, some don't. It depends a lot on how they are treated. <!--QuoteBegin-Neruo Oh, and the people in the middle-east had a way better civilisation in like 2000 b.c then us. So not like they are stupid. Europeans just changed a bit to imperialistic power-crazy fags. You don't have to go back to 2000 BC, the middle ages will do fine.

[Leo Volont]

Dear Syzygy, Actually, dogs are not interchangable. Dog Breeders have spent Centuries and numerous Generations in perfecting the trends toward certain Behavioral Characteristics in their pedigrees. A Working Sheep Dog -- the Shepherd Breeds -- are predisposed to their Work. Fighting Dogs -- the Pit Bulls -- a genetically predisposed to fight. Even when trained as lap dogs and companions, Pit Bulls have been known to turn on a dime and turn on owners and rip into children and babies. They are as dangerous as any wild animal, or even more dangerous, as people tend to let down their guard against their violent treachery. And there are no better Companion Dogs then those Pedigrees, the Toy Breeds, that have been breed over hundreds of years to make into loving, loyal and clever companions. Cats show a similar propensity to be influenced by Breeding. For instance, there is a new breed call the Bengal. It is a mix of Domestic and Indian Spotted Lepard. There was so much concern that it would be a glorified Wild Cat, that the Breeding Standard called specifically for "mild and gentle interactive Behavior". This forced the Breeders to focus as much on Temperament Breeding as breeding for pure aesthetic appearance. They succeeded wonderfully. While the Show Cages are full of all sorts of fussy cats, hissing and acting pissed off to be there, the Bengals are ... well... Happy Cats. They are delightful because they were breed to be delightful. Training has nothing to do with it. You must know this. How young could you be not to have noticed that your friends have the same flaws as their parents. Breeding does tell.

[syzygy]

February 12, 2006 Dear Leo Volont, I'm not saying dogs are interchangable, I'm saying that a certain breed of dog is not automatically going to be aggressive solely because of genetics. "There is no scientific proof that genetics cause a breed of dog to be aggressive, vicious or dangerous." - testimony from Standing Committee on amendments to the Dog Owners Liability Act. 2005 "Variability in behaviour has a wider range within a breed than between breeds. Within the discipline of psychobiology and animal behaviour there is no data from empirically supported studies, published in refereed scientific literature, to support the idea that one breed of dog is `vicious.' The adult behaviour of a domestic dog is determined overwhelmingly by its experiential history, environmental management and training." - Dr. Mary Lee Nitschke, Ph.D. And just because your parents do something, does not mean you are going to. Come on. Sincerely, Syzygy

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by syzygy February 12, 2006 Dear Leo Volont, "There is no scientific proof that genetics cause a breed of dog to be aggressive, vicious or dangerous." - testimony from Standing Committee on amendments to the Dog Owners Liability Act. 2005 Sincerely, Syzygy That is lawyer talk. When somebody says "Proof" what they mean, nowadays, is that in a 100% of every event in the entire Universe the same conclusion will hold without any exception. Under this burden of Proof, there is almost nothing in the realm of human or animal behavior which can be said to be 'proven'. Why, to prove such a thing, every animal in the universe would have to be tested thoughout every moment of their lives. this is certainly impossible, and so the lawyers claim nothing can be proven. The same lawyers come before the Supreme Court and swear on the Bible that it is not PROVEN that cigerettes cause cancer, not PROVEN that breast implants are a problem. The easiest thing to say is that nothing is Proven, and it is always true. Apparently the only thing that science is in a position to prove is that nothing can be proven. but is there a 99% likelihood that Pitbulls are more vicious then Poodles. Certainly. in fact it would be closer to 99.99%.

[syzygy]

So what's your point? That since more pit bulls (which is a group of breeds btw) attack people than poodles, then middle-eastern people are more aggressive than any other group of people? OH! It all makes sense now! . . .

[Burns]

Originally posted by Leo Volont Actually, dogs are not interchangable. Dog Breeders have spent Centuries and numerous Generations in perfecting the trends toward certain Behavioral Characteristics in their pedigrees. A Working Sheep Dog -- the Shepherd Breeds -- are predisposed to their Work. Fighting Dogs -- the Pit Bulls -- a genetically predisposed to fight. Even when trained as lap dogs and companions, Pit Bulls have been known to turn on a dime and turn on owners and rip into children and babies. They are as dangerous as any wild animal, or even more dangerous, as people tend to let down their guard against their violent treachery. And there are no better Companion Dogs then those Pedigrees, the Toy Breeds, that have been breed over hundreds of years to make into loving, loyal and clever companions. Cats show a similar propensity to be influenced by Breeding. For instance, there is a new breed call the Bengal. It is a mix of Domestic and Indian Spotted Lepard. There was so much concern that it would be a glorified Wild Cat, that the Breeding Standard called specifically for "mild and gentle interactive Behavior". This forced the Breeders to focus as much on Temperament Breeding as breeding for pure aesthetic appearance. They succeeded wonderfully. While the Show Cages are full of all sorts of fussy cats, hissing and acting pissed off to be there, the Bengals are ... well... Happy Cats. They are delightful because they were breed to be delightful. Training has nothing to do with it. Actually, I have come across many extremely sweet pit bulls, and some extremely fucking nasty lapdogs. There are certain breeds that are traditionally used for specific tasks (i.e. fighting, pulling sleds, pissing on the floor, etc), but just because the breed is meant to be used that way, doesn't mean they have to be. It's all in the way the dog is trained and socialized. I know you're speaking in more general terms than in specific cases, but there is more emphasis placed on learned behavior than in genetic predisposition. Now, I'd say you're correct in saying that a dog with some wolf in it will have an unpredictable temperment and therefore could not be trusted, even if it never showed any signs of hurting anyone before. But the behavior of a domestic breed of dog has a ton more to do with socialization than with genetics. Sorry this is kinda off-topic but I felt the need to add to this thought.

[bradybaker]

Look at Australia, a country where a significant percentage of the settlers were common and violent criminals. If such traits were heritable, Australia would have a significantly higher rate of crime and violent crime. However, Australia's crime rate does not reflect such a pattern.

[Neruo]

Originally posted by bradybaker Look at Australia, a country where a significant percentage of the settlers were common and violent criminals. If such traits were heritable, Australia would have a significantly higher rate of crime and violent crime. However, Australia's crime rate does not reflect such a pattern. Hmmm good point. But if you believe in evolution: Wolfs behave differently then cow. I never saw a cows hunt a prey in groups and then ferociously tearing it apart. Where is the line between a different race and organism? Horses and donkeys can have children, but those children can't have kids. It's kind of a step in between. But why arn't donkeys the same as horses? It's just a different race that happens to have a hard time getting proper reproducting kids. I mean where is the line? Donkeys are different from horses. Some races of horses allso differ from each other. Where is the line? The point is there is no line. Mankind made lines, nature doens't see lines. Evolution doesn't. Anyhow. There are small differences in people too. And some of those get passed around genetically, though offspring. But not all perhaps. Anyhow, external looks might have nothing to do with that. But all white people kind of came from the first people in europe. The asians from the first people in asia. yeah blabla I don't know how I can say that races Can have some differences except appearance. I mean it's just logic. Not only their external looks were passed on by their grandparents. However, I guess that extremely hariy people are allso a different family perhaps. Maybe all extremely hairly people come from one extremely hariy dude 10000 years ago. And if he was an asshole, hairy people might be assholes. If he was a saint, hairy people might be saints. Like that.

[bradybaker]

You're missing the importance of environmental influences on development. It's true that some people have more of a disposition to be agressive, or violent or saints. But that's only part of the story. Someone who has a very strong tendancy to be violent could grow up to be a saint given the proper environment. Conversely, someone who's natural disposition is to be saint-like could grow up to be a mass-murderer. The example of Australia shows us that genetics do not play a large role in determining whether a person will be aggressive or become a criminal. So clearly the environmental influence is very strong. With that in mind, consider the current situation in the Middle East, such a hostile, conflicted environment promotes more violent tendancies. As a rich, powerful nation I think the U.S. (along with all other capable countries) has a responsibility to try and fix the existing problem in this and other areas in the world. Of course that's not to say that everyone who grows up in the Middle East will be violent, they are still in the extreme minority.

[Neruo]

Ok, environment is certainly the biggest factor. Everyone can be turned into a mass-murderer. However what bothers me is that people have taken the OH NO RACISM SUCKS thing to far. Racism does suck, if you are judgeing people becouse they belong to a different group then your own. So it's just a form of discrimination. However becouse everyone should be treated the same doesn't mean that everyone Is the same. I don't even mean it negatively. I am just annoyed with the way people these days turn away from this part of science out of fear to be a racist. It's like the church in the middleages. However this time it's society, and luckily not a big deal. But still. Why can't you do objective, scientific research about the differences between races? I mean black people kick our ass in running. (and dancing). That's just a fact. If you say that doesn't mean you laugh at white people.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by burns91 Actually, I have come across many extremely sweet pit bulls, and some extremely fucking nasty lapdogs. . Well, yes, Doctor, ... but you are a Vet, and you are talking about exceptional particulars. But in the realm of Knowledge, and all knowledge outside of God is General Knowledge, we can understand the vicious breeds of dogs to be vicious, and the friendly breeds of dog to be friendly. Oh, and we should also look at capacity for viciousness as well as disposition. While a Toy Breed or Poodle may have a bad disposition, they do not have the same strength in their jaws or the same genetic machinery to rip off faces and tear out arteries as the Pit Bulls. a toy breed will nip and snarl when it turns against one. A Child may have its finger or ankle bitten, and Mom will check to see if the skin has been broken. But a Pit Bull could kill if provoked to nothing more than that same degree. But, yes, as an Animal Volunteer, I advise all prospective owners -- those ready to adopt --to evaluate possible pets not on their appearance and health alone, but upon what they can discern regarding personality. I specialize in Cats, and encourage people to make several trips to the Pet Store or Kennel and see if the particular animal they fancy is warming up to them. But, dog or cat, it would be good to make a few visits, around the clock, to see if the animal is uniformly desireable as a pet. So many people have a degree of 'buyer's remorse' regarding their pets... which is not to say that they do not love their pets, but they realize that they would have loved any animal they brought home, and they might have brought home better had they taken some extra time and care. and regarding both Dog and Cat adoptions, considering how long these animals can live, and pro-rating the cost against the years, it is not much more to buy a pedigree then a non-pedigree. Choosing from a breed that is known for a general quality of behavior and characteristics is a good shortcut to getting exactly what one is looking for.

[Burns]

Originally posted by Leo Volont Well, yes, Doctor, ... but you are a Vet, and you are talking about exceptional particulars. But in the realm of Knowledge, and all knowledge outside of God is General Knowledge, we can understand the vicious breeds of dogs to be vicious, and the friendly breeds of dog to be friendly. Oh, and we should also look at capacity for viciousness as well as disposition. *While a Toy Breed or Poodle may have a bad disposition, they do not have the same strength in their jaws or the same genetic machinery to rip off faces and tear out arteries as the Pit Bulls. *a toy breed will nip and snarl when it turns against one. *A Child may have its finger or ankle bitten, and Mom will check to see if the skin has been broken. *But a Pit Bull could kill if provoked to nothing more than that same degree. * * But, yes, as an Animal Volunteer, I advise all prospective owners -- those ready to adopt --to evaluate possible pets not on their appearance and health alone, but upon what they can discern regarding personality. * I specialize in Cats, and encourage people to make several trips to the Pet Store or Kennel and see if the particular animal they fancy is warming up to them. *But, dog or cat, it would be good to make a few visits, around the clock, to see if the animal is uniformly desireable as a pet. *So many people have a degree of 'buyer's remorse' regarding their pets... which is not to say that they do not love their pets, but they realize that they would have loved any animal they brought home, and they might have brought home better had they taken some extra time and care. and regarding both Dog and Cat adoptions, considering how long these animals can live, and pro-rating the cost against the years, it is not much more to buy a pedigree then a non-pedigree. *Choosing from a breed that is known for a general quality of behavior and characteristics is a good shortcut to getting exactly what one is looking for. I typed out such a nice, long, proper reply to this and then my fuckin' cat stepped on my keyboard and deleted it!! So you get the Cliff note version: So anyway, to make a long post short, the majority of pits I've seen in practice have been normal family dogs - only a few have been ill-tempered. You may know of an area that spawns more idiots that actually breed these dogs for fighting purposes - but that is not the norm. You are actually "playing to particulars" when you say all pit bulls are demons. On the contrary, I've seen MANY more extremely aggressive lapdogs that want to rip your face off with their mouth of rotting infected teeth. I probably have more credible experience dealing with a variety of animals, variety of breeds, in a variety of conditions to be thought of as "dealing in particulars."