The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Because the offending issue is the destruction of cultural icons of gods, and the subsequent claim of "false belief." Not political figures and icons.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is wrong with smashing the idols?
- Thread starter sovietchild
- Start date
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Silly sovietchild... in order for me to be a hypocrite about Iraq I would have to first suggest that the US was right to invade, however I have ALREADY stated I believe it was a HUGE mistake that could not be justified. I believe that invading other people's lands and destroying their property is WRONG, because I know that I wouldn't want MY land invaded or MY property destroyed. You on the other hand think that invading other people's land and destroying their property is OKAY, but in the next breath complain about the invasion of Iraq. Do you even know what a hypocrite is? I suggest that you simply look in a mirror to find out.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
You ARE a hypocrite, because you support the destruction of property that does not belong to you, yet you would be outraged if anyone offended by your house chose to tear it down without your permission. YOU labeled YOURSELF a hypocrite with your own words.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The Kaaba was owned:
Regards
- Equally by Muhammad and the Meccans who were all descendants of Abraham and Ishmael, who had built this worship house for worship of ONE God, Muhammad was even more entitled to it because he wanted to restore it to its original position. Abraham and Ishmael never put any idols in it. Rather than going to other temples and emptying them from the idols , Abraham thought it proper, for peace, to build a house of worship of his own where his progeny could worship ONE God. So, Muhammad had every right to empty it from the idols that were put later on in the house , for which he gave reasonable and brilliant arguments to the Meccans.
Regards
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Disregarding that this is opinion; in this case it wasn't owned "equally" then, was it? The rationalizations that you people have for the wanton destruction of other's property.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Just wondering... do you support ISIS in their destruction of ancient artifacts that are invaluable to the understanding of human history?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I don't support them. I am just smashing the concept that it is essential to smash the statues , idols and artifacts. Please
Regards
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
gnostic
The Lost One
Muhammad didn't privately owned the Kaaba, before he fled into exile in 622, so he had no rights to dictate who put what in and around the Kaaba.
And Muhammad only claimed that he was descendant of Ishmael, but there are no family tree that linked Ishmael to Muhammad, until after his proclamation of being his descendants.
And a lot of legends surrounding Ishmael, were fabricated by Muhammad.
Second, there are no evidences that this structure of Kaaba was built in the 2nd millennium BCE Bronze Age.
gnostic
The Lost One
Again, you are not paying attention, sovietchild.
You thread is talking about destroying idols. Not all statues are idols and not all idols are statues.
An idol could be object, like a rock, a tree.
Statues of political leaders, are not idols.
You are trying to distract us, by mentioning statues from fnorth Korea and now the former Soviet Union, which have nothing to do with any religion. You keep moving the goalpost.
This is your desperation, because your original argument has always being weak, so you are trying to focus it away from Muhammad, which also revealed your dishonesty.
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
They brought up ISIS and destruction of Persian statues. Right? Who actually moved the goal posts?
And, just to let you know something. Soviet Union regime forced people to give flowers (gifts) to statues.
Last edited:
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
No I do not. Statues of Lenin are a part of history and I do not condone anyone willfully destroying historical artifacts. However I believe that the Russian people had every right to remove them from public display, but they should have been preserved for their historical significance.
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
So, you don't justify the actions of Ukrainian people destroying Lenin statues across the country? You think they should put those statues in one big historical place?
No matter how much I don't like the new Ukrainian government, I fully support their actions destroying those statues. And, no matter how much I like the rebels, I do not support their actions wanting to keep those statues.
I used to live by Lenin statue. The new regime have taken the statue down, but they put another one in place.
Google Maps
.....And, it looks like they continue to present gifts to statues.
Last edited:
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Yes I think they should preserve statues of Lenin in the Ukraine as a reminder that there was once a time when someone like Lenin had enough influence to have his statues erected everywhere. If you erase all evidence of bad things that happened then people can never learn from the mistakes of the past. That's why I think that preserving historical relics is so important.
gnostic
The Lost One
History is not about recording only the good things that happened, it is about recording both good and bad.
If you are only record the good and ignore the bad, then that amounts to the same as propaganda, which is dishonest tactics.
As painful or shameful as some memories may be, ignoring the past because you don't like it, like QuestioningMind said, you cannot learn from past mistakes, so you are doomed to repeat it in the future.
That's the consequences of ignoring part of history, or attempting to re-write history.
If you are only record the good and ignore the bad, then that amounts to the same as propaganda, which is dishonest tactics.
As painful or shameful as some memories may be, ignoring the past because you don't like it, like QuestioningMind said, you cannot learn from past mistakes, so you are doomed to repeat it in the future.
That's the consequences of ignoring part of history, or attempting to re-write history.
Quantum Ape
New Member
You don't have to burn a cross in front of a Christian.. but if you wanted to smash one in your back yard that's perfectly fine and disrespectful to no one.
I disagree.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
You did. Because the statues in question were at temples. Statues with religious implications.
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
How is presenting gifts to statues off topic? Wracking those statues seems fine to me.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
You're all over the place.
You asked who shifted the goalpost when it was mentioned that ISIS was destroying statues in Persia. YOU shifted the topic when you started going on about political statues.
Presenting offerings to idols is not relevant to that specific topic.
You have no regard at all, and are one of the most disrespectful people I have ever met. Such impartiality to the destruction of culture by zealous thugs invalidates any and all complaints by you when your religion is slighted, targeted, or victimized.