Do tell, then. I'd love to know all about me.Ticia wrote:
Nothing. I know thee wellDesertFox- wrote:
Yes, what of it?
It was fine as it was. No need to fix it.Shahter wrote:
fixedFEOS wrote:
Organized religion is man attempting to explain the mind of God. That is an endeavor doomed to failure from the start.Shahter wrote:
exactly. as long as people keep confusing their religious faith with dusty old books and men in fancy clothes we will have this organized religion bullshit going on and on. ridiculous.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
wtf - that's nonsense. Having a dick causes 'impure thoughts'. No-one can stop themselves from thinking about sex (for example). That's why some idiots, like the ex-pope, flagellate themselves. Your statement also shows incredible narrow-mindedness concerning what a religion actually entails, or indeed of religion in general.Ticia wrote:
If someone really practices their religion they can't even have an impure thought.
Most of the times do as i say not as i do.DesertFox- wrote:
Do tell, then. I'd love to know all about me.Ticia wrote:
Nothing. I know thee wellDesertFox- wrote:
Yes, what of it?
The idiot you talk about was the head of the Catholic Church who will very briefly become a saint. Do you realize that the road to "sainthood" is what every religion actually entails?ruisleipa wrote:
wtf - that's nonsense. Having a dick causes 'impure thoughts'. No-one can stop themselves from thinking about sex (for example). That's why some idiots, like the ex-pope, flagellate themselves. Your statement also shows incredible narrow-mindedness concerning what a religion actually entails, or indeed of religion in general.Ticia wrote:
If someone really practices their religion they can't even have an impure thought.
In the past religion was behind the most atrocious wars,it restricted thought and progress, it permitted slavery and racism,it allowed women to be treated as second class citizens. Today religion still tries to control everyday life, the holy wars are still happening,stem cells research and hpv vaccines are demonic,homosexuals are immoral,women cannot be priests and so on.
All the so called progressive churches you must be thinking of are just doing a good job of picking and choosing what they want to believe and reject what they don't like,kudos to them but that's called believing in yourself,not accepting God.
A true believer will always be in conflict with todays world for they demand society to adapt to them not the other way around.
this was your original quote. The notion of 'impurity' is extremely subjective and varies significantly amongst almost all adherents, 'devout' or otherwise, of any one religion. 'Sainthood' as a state that can be attained by humans is pretty much limited to Christian sects iirc. Religions like buddhism and sikhism do have saints but they are mythical figures, and mortals cannot achieve that state. So you are wrong if you say 'every' religion entails 'the road to sainthood'. Further the idea that in the Catholic church a person must have performed a 'miracle' simply shows how ridiculous the idea is.Ticia wrote:
If someone really practices their religion they can't even have an impure thought.
So you're saying 'accepting God' is what you say it is? How very...subjective. Any reason you're right and all the 'progressive' churches are wrong? I also think you're wrong when you say a 'true believer' (whatever that is) must demand society adapt to them. My mother is very religious, or should I say spiritual more, follows Jesus Christ but has no truck with organised religion in general. The most organised she gets is attending Quaker meetings (the most worthy of Christian sects imo). She can fit into society very well, but she also tries to make it a better place by having established a charity and so on. She doesn't demand society adapts - that would be totally pointless, and one reason that your 'true believers' will always end up disappointed.All the so called progressive churches you must be thinking of are just doing a good job of picking and choosing what they want to believe and reject what they don't like,kudos to them but that's called believing in yourself,not accepting God.
A true believer will always be in conflict with todays world for they demand society to adapt to them not the other way around.
@the original OP.
probably not due to the violent nature of their religion.
probably not due to the violent nature of their religion.
banandrooz wrote:
@the original OP.
probably not due to the violent nature of their religion.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
no, what?ROGUEDD wrote:
banandrooz wrote:
@the original OP.
probably not due to the violent nature of their religion.
im being serious.
imo its a violent religion in general.
Funny how you call some cults ridiculous but others are ok,how...subjective!ruisleipa wrote:
this was your original quote. The notion of 'impurity' is extremely subjective and varies significantly amongst almost all adherents, 'devout' or otherwise, of any one religion. 'Sainthood' as a state that can be attained by humans is pretty much limited to Christian sects iirc. Religions like buddhism and sikhism do have saints but they are mythical figures, and mortals cannot achieve that state. So you are wrong if you say 'every' religion entails 'the road to sainthood'. Further the idea that in the Catholic church a person must have performed a 'miracle' simply shows how ridiculous the idea is.Ticia wrote:
If someone really practices their religion they can't even have an impure thought.So you're saying 'accepting God' is what you say it is? How very...subjective. Any reason you're right and all the 'progressive' churches are wrong? I also think you're wrong when you say a 'true believer' (whatever that is) must demand society adapt to them. My mother is very religious, or should I say spiritual more, follows Jesus Christ but has no truck with organised religion in general. The most organised she gets is attending Quaker meetings (the most worthy of Christian sects imo). She can fit into society very well, but she also tries to make it a better place by having established a charity and so on. She doesn't demand society adapts - that would be totally pointless, and one reason that your 'true believers' will always end up disappointed.All the so called progressive churches you must be thinking of are just doing a good job of picking and choosing what they want to believe and reject what they don't like,kudos to them but that's called believing in yourself,not accepting God.
A true believer will always be in conflict with todays world for they demand society to adapt to them not the other way around.
Sainthood was in " " because it can be applied to every religion,every single one gives you a moral code to follow. Call it sins or karma there's no difference imo.
And your mom is not part of any organised religion but is "spiritual", good for her but that's exactly what i was talking about, don't give it a bad name by calling it religion.
Where did I a) mention cults, and b) say they were ridiculous? I also said the Quakers are 'worthy' and nothing else. You're misquoting me.Ticia wrote:
Funny how you call some cults ridiculous but others are ok,how...subjective!
Sainthood was in " " because it can be applied to every religion,every single one gives you a moral code to follow. Call it sins or karma there's no difference imo.
And your mom is not part of any organised religion but is "spiritual", good for her but that's exactly what i was talking about, don't give it a bad name by calling it religion.
You talked about progressive churches and 'true believers', the latter conept of which is hard or imossible to define outside organised religion. Now you say you were talking about being spiritual, but you never mentioned anything about that earlier. What do you mean 'don't give it a bad name by calling it religion'??
Sainthood and following a moral code are totally different things. Don't mean to be rude but brush up on your terms before you start using them, otherwise you start having to backtrack and say 'oh that's what I meant', when you said something else.
By your "the Catholic church a person must have performed a 'miracle' simply shows how ridiculous the idea is" you're calling it a cult, look up the term if you don't know what it means.ruisleipa wrote:
Where did I a) mention cults, and b) say they were ridiculous? I also said the Quakers are 'worthy' and nothing else. You're misquoting me.Ticia wrote:
Funny how you call some cults ridiculous but others are ok,how...subjective!
Sainthood was in " " because it can be applied to every religion,every single one gives you a moral code to follow. Call it sins or karma there's no difference imo.
And your mom is not part of any organised religion but is "spiritual", good for her but that's exactly what i was talking about, don't give it a bad name by calling it religion.
You said your mom was more spiritual than religious. I said your mom like all the so called progressive churches are picking here and there until they have a custom made God,again that is believing in human choice not religion.ruisleipa wrote:
You talked about progressive churches and 'true believers', the latter conept of which is hard or imossible to define outside organised religion. Now you say you were talking about being spiritual, but you never mentioned anything about that earlier. What do you mean 'don't give it a bad name by calling it religion'??
I've used the broad definition of sainthood to make it easy for you,guess you still don't get it. One is the mean the other is the end.ruisleipa wrote:
Sainthood and following a moral code are totally different things. Don't mean to be rude but brush up on your terms before you start using them, otherwise you start having to backtrack and say 'oh that's what I meant', when you said something else.
Why do they follow it if not because they want to model themselves on Jesus or Muhammad or Buddha?
Lowing jr.androoz wrote:
no, what?ROGUEDD wrote:
banandrooz wrote:
@the original OP.
probably not due to the violent nature of their religion.
im being serious.
imo its a violent religion in general.
lol
not that i disagree but
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
Nope, because being "devout" would require following the teachings, and the teachings do not follow the principles of freedom and tolerance.Harmor wrote:
I hope we can have a civil debat on this without this going into a flame war against muslims.
--
Can a devout Muslim be a good American?
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/8452 … 186417.jpgThe United States allows you to practice your religion peacefully, but what I see, especially in Britain, is that extreamists are attempting to enforce their religious beliefs onto the populous.Soda Head wrote:
NOTE: Article below is reposted for discussion purposes and does not reflect the view of SodaHead.com
I find this to be an interesting "proposition" or "theorem" not only in view of the circumstances at Ft. Hood, but also in view of the transgressions of both "Christians" and "Jews" and "Hindu's" and "Shintos" and pretty much all the members of the world's 'big' religions if they are measured by these same standards.
an a Muslim be a real American?
In light of the murders at Ft. Hood by a Muslim Officer (who had sworn to defend the people, our Constitution and the United States) this article becomes more timely and real than ever;
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
I sent that question to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah
except Islam.
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of
Islam and the Quran (Koran).
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make
friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual
leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him.
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Read more: http://carlstrode.blogspot.com/2009/12/ … rican.html
Examples:
CAIR says clothing chain racist
Muslims spar with congresswoman over her views on Islamic terror
[url=http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci-tensions26-2010feb26,0,2749140.story]Muslim radicals defended by CAIR,
Lawyers Guild[/url]
From Magna Carta to Sharia Law – Britain’s Decline
etc...
What is their objective? Are we kowtowing to them because we want to be politically correct?
Discuss.
I know what it means, thanks, but you obviously don't:Ticia wrote:
By your "the Catholic church a person must have performed a 'miracle' simply shows how ridiculous the idea is" you're calling it a cult, look up the term if you don't know what it means.
1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Under none of those definitions did I call it a cult, did I? You're wrong.
Wot? Maybe you could define what you mean by a 'prgressive' church as opposed to a backward church cos you're not making ANY sense here. In what way is following a religion...NOT a matter of choice? How could you believe in religion then? What is it, for you, to 'believe in religion'.Ticia wrote:
You said your mom was more spiritual than religious. I said your mom like all the so called progressive churches are picking here and there until they have a custom made God,again that is believing in human choice not religion.
Well please give me the definition of sainthood cos you're not using it in any way I've ever heard before. Here's the dictionary definition:Ticia wrote:
I've used the broad definition of sainthood to make it easy for you,guess you still don't get it. One is the mean the other is the end.
Why do they follow it if not because they want to model themselves on Jesus or Muhammad or Buddha?
1 : the quality or state of being a saint
2 : saints as a group
So what's your definition then?
One is the mean the other is the end? Nope, you've lost me I'm afraid.
We weren't talking about Cult as a religious practice by that definition all religions are cults.ruisleipa wrote:
I know what it means, thanks, but you obviously don't:
1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Under none of those definitions did I call it a cult, did I? You're wrong.
What we were discussing was the pejorative definition: Cult …refers to a group whose beliefs or practices could be, reasonably or unreasonably, considered strange (wiki) And that is exactly what your comment about Catholicism was getting at.
One may choose to follow it but once they do they give away freewill. The actions and beliefs of the individual are now subjected to an all knowledgeable religious authority aka dogmatism.ruisleipa wrote:
Wot? Maybe you could define what you mean by a 'prgressive' church as opposed to a backward church cos you're not making ANY sense here. In what way is following a religion...NOT a matter of choice? How could you believe in religion then? What is it, for you, to 'believe in religion'.
Plus reason and logical thinking does not coexist with faith. If one accepts that then fine but don't try to sell religion as humanism for they're always mutual exclusive
I'm trying to figure what is so difficult for you to grasp here?ruisleipa wrote:
Well please give me the definition of sainthood cos you're not using it in any way I've ever heard before. Here's the dictionary definition:
1 : the quality or state of being a saint
2 : saints as a group
So what's your definition then?
One is the mean the other is the end? Nope, you've lost me I'm afraid.
Everyone who practices their faith is called to be a saint,to be holy. Even the religions who do not have saints promote a moral rectitude and a special relation with the sacred in order to achieve: the afterlife for christians,reincarnation for the hindus,rebirth for the buddhists or the jannat for the muslims .
Hmmm..ok well that's what you were talking about. I never mentioned the word cult as you recall. If a cult is group whose practices may be considered strange then by that definition all religions can be considered a cult as well! So I dunno what you're getting at.Ticia wrote:
We weren't talking about Cult as a religious practice by that definition all religions are cults.
What we were discussing was the pejorative definition: Cult …refers to a group whose beliefs or practices could be, reasonably or unreasonably, considered strange (wiki) And that is exactly what your comment about Catholicism was getting at.
not sure I agree with you here either. It might often true what you say, but most people exercise free will every day of their lives anyway. Not EVERY human action is subject to a religious code of conduct. Taking a shit isn't sanctioned by any church is it? I think you're being a bit dramatic here. Religion and humanism aren't always mutually exclusive. You can believe that behaving well towards humans is the goal of all actions and still be religious. Indeed have you never heard of the term 'religious humanism'? It is also certainly true that people who follow religions do not follow every single one of the teachings, at least not all the time, many of which are old-fashined or irrelvant to a modern lifestyle. It might mean they're not a 'good' religious person but it DOES mean they still have free will and the ability to chosoe their actions. Although I think fundamentalists are generally misguided and probably slightly mad, it's not true to say that no-one who follows any religion is irrational, illogical or simply a sheep going about their business with all their thoughts and movements controlled by their church. Although you could say that about many people who waste their lives working in shit jobs and going home to watch American Gladiators in the evening You have an even more negative view of religion than I do!Ticia wrote:
One may choose to follow it but once they do they give away freewill. The actions and beliefs of the individual are now subjected to an all knowledgeable religious authority aka dogmatism.
Plus reason and logical thinking does not coexist with faith. If one accepts that then fine but don't try to sell religion as humanism for they're always mutual exclusive
What's difficult to grasp is your conflagration of the idea of becoming a saint - something which not all religions suggest is even possible never mind desirable - with the idea of behaving in a 'holy' way, by which I presume you mean in a way which follows the precepts of that particular religion. It's just your use of the word which is odd is all.Ticia wrote:
I'm trying to figure what is so difficult for you to grasp here?
Everyone who practices their faith is called to be a saint,to be holy. Even the religions who do not have saints promote a moral rectitude and a special relation with the sacred in order to achieve: the afterlife for christians,reincarnation for the hindus,rebirth for the buddhists or the jannat for the muslims .
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-03-05 23:57:46)
No contradictions in the Quran.
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
It depends how you define "good American" I suppose. It's not just Muslims that don't agree with Democratic systems, the American constitution and the rest of the points. I suspect the American leadership considers somebody to be good if they're tax paying and law abiding... Like the majority of them are.
Last edited by jord (2010-03-06 01:16:49)
Maybe not, but then the question should be whether there is something wrong with Islam or with what constitutes a "good American".