Ouroboros Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Hmm... some have argued that atheism is a form of pantheism, since an atheist "believes" in all that there is, the universe and all what is in it, and nothing but that. The Universe as a "god" in the sense of supreme power. It's eternal, it consists all knowledge and all life, all goodness and badness, and all in between. But the obvious difference of course is that an atheist doesn't pray to it, or worship it in any way. If we would hold these premises as true, then would the definition of Theism then require that the person not only has to believe in a supreme being or force, but also pray to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Wow these labels are more complicated than I thought. Pantheist = theist - yes, I see that but, you say a deist is not necessarily a theist and neither is a Hindu Vaishnava who worships Krishna? Gramps to clarify - the definition of theist is someone who worships a god with an interest in humans? Sorry but this is confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I'm just working off the etymology and what is a theisitic god... The Tao is more or less a god but it's not a Theistic one... Jesus is a theistic god... that is a personal God who is creator and ruler of the world. Thus if you believe in a god, but don't have a personal God who yadda yadda, then it's not a theistic god, and therefore the view is a-theistic... while not actually being without a god view... So Basically, the labels mean somewhere between nothing, and diddly-squat, which is the point. In the end, it appears that no one really has the slightest idea of what they're talking about, since the whole issue falls apart when one deconstructs the language mix used. It's like discussing the colour of wind, or the smell of the colour 'red', or the feel of E-flat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I'm just working off the etymology and what is a theisitic god... The Tao is more or less a god but it's not a Theistic one... Jesus is a theistic god... that is a personal God who is creator and ruler of the world. Thus if you believe in a god, but don't have a personal God who yadda yadda, then it's not a theistic god, and therefore the view is a-theistic... while not actually being without a god view... So Basically, the labels mean somewhere between nothing, and diddly-squat, which is the point. In the end, it appears that no one really has the slightest idea of what they're talking about, since the whole issue falls apart when one deconstructs the language mix used. It's like discussing the colour of wind, or the smell of the colour 'red', or the feel of E-flat... That's interesting, I never heard that definition of atheist before. It seems it would be widely misinterpreted around here since atheist is generally taken to mean no gods of any kind. There are a heck of a lot of conceptions of god out there. Personal gods and impersonal ones-deism, pathieism, etc. More and more it seems to me like getting past/above all labels would be a good thing but human beings sure do like to classify each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Well, the theistic definition from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 and adding in some Epistimological thought from the American New Thought Movement... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I'm just working off the etymology and what is a theisitic god... The Tao is more or less a god but it's not a Theistic one... Jesus is a theistic god... that is a personal God who is creator and ruler of the world. Thus if you believe in a god, but don't have a personal God who yadda yadda, then it's not a theistic god, and therefore the view is a-theistic... while not actually being without a god view... So Basically, the labels mean somewhere between nothing, and diddly-squat, which is the point. In the end, it appears that no one really has the slightest idea of what they're talking about, since the whole issue falls apart when one deconstructs the language mix used. It's like discussing the colour of wind, or the smell of the colour 'red', or the feel of E-flat... Yes. I can totally agree with that. And the Tao is a good example too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamal Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 name='HanSolo' date='Feb 24 2008, 12:31 PM' post='352627'So if you're an unbeliever in Jesus (as a God), then you're technically an atheist in regards to Christianity According to this definition all of people all across the world are atheists because they reject beliefs of others or are doubtful about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 According to this definition all of people all across the world are atheists because they reject beliefs of others or are doubtful about them. Yup. That's why it's so funny. You know, in the early Christianity, they were accused of being "atheists" by the other religions. Many times, this has been used as an epithet on anyone that don't agree with "my" religion. Today you have religions like Raelians, which are technically atheists, because they don't believe in any supernatural being, but yet, they are a religion. Or Scientology, same thing, they are atheists, but they have belief in supernatural stuff. To many Christians: Islam is a "false" religion and not the "true" belief in the "real" God. So we are all some form of atheist to someone else. Basically I think it has been used the same way as you would use "infidel". However, what the western world define as an atheist today, is someone that do not believe in supernatural beings that can control our life or created the universe. The estimate is that there's about half a billion atheists (if I recall correctly) in the world, of this kind, people who do not believe, like in the interrogative way, like a passive form. Then we have some that are a bit more certain, they don't only lack in faith in a god, but they are more affirmative that God does not exist at all (someone like me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamal Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Pantheism was entered in Islamic knowledge by Ibn Arabi. In fact he is originator of Pantheism school among Muslims. In Islamic world it called "vahdat vojood" that means unity of existence. It has several means and each mean has its follower. Most of these definitions, according to Islamic thoughts redound to blasphemy. But Ibn Arabi and follower of his school have specific definition of pantheism. All of pantheists at first were called Sufi but in recent years Sufi is expression for who assume all of phenomena as God or parts of God and follower of Ibn Arabi's school are called "Arif" that means; who knows God perfectly. They claim one of preconditions for prophet hood is becoming an Arif. To become Arif you need to do four spiritual trips. Their definition based on Quranic thoughts, it's simple but too precise. Quran express tens of names for God; rahman (Merciful), rahim (Mercy- giving), malek (ruler), ghafoor (Forgiving), karim (generous), shakoor (Appreciative), tavvab (Receiver of Repentance), hakim (Wise) and else. They believe essence and substance of God is unknowable and we just can know him through his names. All of visible and invisible things in existence are incarnations and influences of his names. If someone obtains capacity of acceptance of one or more of his names, he owns a kind of power that can do wonderful acts, like prophet's miracles. They say God is identical to existence; both words are name of one thing, so they usually use word "existence" instead of "God" and say: existence is the one do not have any associate. Other creatures are not existent veritably; they are existent figuratively and are sign of existence and just refer to him. This point segregates them of putative pantheism. Creatures are not God but are God representor. Believing Christ is God or God's son only justifiable by this attitude. Jesus like other phenomena shows God but a bit stronger than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Judging by the fact they can't touch a dog, I'd say Islam wins the dork award hands down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I think your knowledge about Islam is through media propaganda rather than fairly research. A short look at church rule in Middle Ages and comparing it with Islamic emperors at that specific time reveals a lot of facts.I have educated in Islamic field; inasmuch as I studied there isn't any permission to kill unbelievers out of battlefield. "Yet if they keep aloof from you and do not fight you, and they propose peace to you, God does not grant you any way against them". 4:90 Islamic injunctions are not source of terror, violent, car bombing and else; hence, you can't find these misbehaviors where don't attend foreigner military troops; physically or mentally. To pretend politically reactions as religious one is only misconception. People are enemy of their ignorance Imam Ali: 1st leader of Shiite For you to insinuate that any one of us has derived our knowledge of Islam - in any of it's forms or sects - through media propaganda is arrogance of the highest order. I'm more than content to bash YOUR religion based on historical data and the words of your own religious literature. The fact that you distinguish yourself as shiite tells all of us that you take your marching orders from Shi'a Imams and you just happen to consider these individuals to be infallible. There's a major rub right there, kamal. When your "infallible" leaders say, "Jump!", your fellow shiite's only question in response is, "How high?" That represents clear and present danger to the free world, my Islamic friend. You can state that killing unbelievers off the battlefield isn't in the rules of engagement all you care to but world data states otherwise. Your compadres kill and burn over cartoons! The facts are that Islamic "political actions" are actually mass killings that are, indeed, motivated by religious doctrine and for you to chalk them up as "misbehaviors" is repulsive and proof positive that you, yourself, believe that your cause is righteous and that collateral damage is simply one aspect of getting the job done. Accusation without evidence, my ass!!! The evidence is overwhelmingly AGAINST Islam and in the areas of gratuitous killing and untold misery, Islam is currently standing on the ropes and defiantly waving the World Championship belt before the crowd. Christianity is fucked up and we can chit chat about that over a cup o' Joe any day of the week. But in quoting your own book, your double talk is unrivaled and soaked in the blood of the innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted February 26, 2008 Super Moderator Share Posted February 26, 2008 Kamal, What are you doing here? Trying to convert ex-Christians to your fucked up religion? Islam is primitive, barbaric and Evil in its most virulent form. You lie about what the Koran says, and you ignore the way Muslims behave. From terrorists to heads of state, Muslims are cruel, vicious fucks who show the religion for piece of shit it is. Stop telling us that Islam is a religion of peace. It most definitely is not, neither in its written word nor its practice. Many of us have studied Islam and Islamic rule since your terrorists afflicted the world. We need to understand the enemy, and we do. Why don't you peddle your bullshit on some ex-Muslim site. Some of them might be stupid enough to believe you. This will be my final post on this topic because Kamal, you are a blind and ignorant fool. It is frustrating and a waste of time to have a dialog with a moronic religious fanatic. You, Allah, and Mohammed should go fuck the camels you rode in on. You are all disgraces to humanity and should be ashamed for even breathing our air. Your religion is a joke, and you are too stupid to see it. Now, go fuck that camel. - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamal Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 For you to insinuate that any one of us has derived our knowledge of Islam - in any of it's forms or sects - through media propaganda is arrogance of the highest order. I'm more than content to bash YOUR religion based on historical data and the words of your own religious literature. The fact that you distinguish yourself as shiite tells all of us that you take your marching orders from Shi'a Imams and you just happen to consider these individuals to be infallible. There's a major rub right there, kamal. When your "infallible" leaders say, "Jump!", your fellow shiite's only question in response is, "How high?" That represents clear and present danger to the free world, my Islamic friend. You can state that killing unbelievers off the battlefield isn't in the rules of engagement all you care to but world data states otherwise. Your compadres kill and burn over cartoons! The facts are that Islamic "political actions" are actually mass killings that are, indeed, motivated by religious doctrine and for you to chalk them up as "misbehaviors" is repulsive and proof positive that you, yourself, believe that your cause is righteous and that collateral damage is simply one aspect of getting the job done. Accusation without evidence, my ass!!! The evidence is overwhelmingly AGAINST Islam and in the areas of gratuitous killing and untold misery, Islam is currently standing on the ropes and defiantly waving the World Championship belt before the crowd. Christianity is fucked up and we can chit chat about that over a cup o' Joe any day of the week. But in quoting your own book, your double talk is unrivaled and soaked in the blood of the innocent. My thinker friend Generally talking does not prove/reject anything. Don’t blame me of following infallibles, simply tell me they aren't infallible because of so and so and……… You claim mass killing is motivated by religious doctrine, please refer to exact part of these religious doctrines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamal Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 Kamal, What are you doing here? Trying to convert ex-Christians to your fucked up religion? Islam is primitive, barbaric and Evil in its most virulent form. You lie about what the Koran says, and you ignore the way Muslims behave. From terrorists to heads of state, Muslims are cruel, vicious fucks who show the religion for piece of shit it is. Stop telling us that Islam is a religion of peace. It most definitely is not, neither in its written word nor its practice. Many of us have studied Islam and Islamic rule since your terrorists afflicted the world. We need to understand the enemy, and we do. Why don't you peddle your bullshit on some ex-Muslim site. Some of them might be stupid enough to believe you. This will be my final post on this topic because Kamal, you are a blind and ignorant fool. It is frustrating and a waste of time to have a dialog with a moronic religious fanatic. You, Allah, and Mohammed should go fuck the camels you rode in on. You are all disgraces to humanity and should be ashamed for even breathing our air. Your religion is a joke, and you are too stupid to see it. Now, go fuck that camel. - Chris what a pure logic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you realy convinced me Some of them might be stupid enough to believe you. If I want to pick up stupid unbeliever among of you, you must be glad and thankful because you claim religious people (more than 80% of world populations) are stupid so I just joined him to his folk and you got pure unique aging. Please don't blame impatient Muslims against western occupiers while you can't stand one of them in your virtual space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 My thinker friend Generally talking does not prove/reject anything. Don’t blame me of following infallibles, simply tell me they aren't infallible because of so and so and……… You claim mass killing is motivated by religious doctrine, please refer to exact part of these religious doctrines. Fair enough. You call the shots, I'll take 'em. If I understand you correctly, "general talking" is opinion. You require some type of proof in order to see that I am, at least, a worthy opponent. Again, fair enough. You do follow the will of those whom you consider infallible because you identified yourself as shiite. As you are well aware, Imamah is the Shi'a Islamic doctrine of religious, spiritual and political leadership of the Ummah. FACT. I submit to you that, in your faith, religion and politics are mixed and joined at will. But you know this. Therefore, a religious proclamation is or can be a political statement as well. FACT. Your particular beliefs separate you from amongst other Muslims. Truth be told, even in your own branch (shiite), you and your brothers argue over the identity of Imams and what they represent and this has led to different sects and much infighting. FACT. You guys can't even agree on your own special little brand of religion! With that type of foundation, it's easy for someone on the outside to see that your people can't seem to get their act together. That's well and good and of little surprise because Christianity does the same thing! Christians argue and fight over every word and tittle of the law as they stack rocks and point fingers at each other. That isn't due to any religion. That's due to the fact that mankind is selfish, concieted, and arrogant. We all want our own way and we're quite happy to manipulate each other to get it. It just becomes a separate world in religion. I will blame you for following "infallible" imams in the same way I'll blame a Catholic for following their "infallible" pope. Do you honestly believe that any man, regardless of education, training, or birthright is possessed of supernatural knowledge, authority, and freedom from any error or sin? THIS IS THEIR CLAIM. If you do (and you most certainly do), then you have willfully surrendered your own intellect and good sense. You have chosen to be a tool - a puppet - for the satisfaction and the use of an organization. In this system, you are cannon fodder... expendible. In believing that ANY man is enlightened simply due to the fact he is a descendant of ANYONE is foolishness. So I do tell you this day that those whom you consider infallible are certainly not because they are men just as you are a man. Perhaps more educated and certainly more privileged to knowledge and in the working ways of the leadership of your religion... but ordinary men just the same. We have a saying: Your imams put their pants on the same way you do - one leg at a time. So I fault you for following men who would have you believe they are without sin or error and who hold their supposed supernatural powers over you. MASS KILLINGS The 7 July 2005 London bombings (also called the 7/7 bombings) were a series of coordinated terrorist bomb blasts that hit London's public transport system during the morning rush hour. At 8:50 a.m., three bombs exploded within fifty seconds of each other on three London Underground trains. A fourth bomb exploded on a bus nearly an hour later at 9:47 a.m. in Tavistock Square. The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four suicide bombers, injured 700, and caused disruption of the city's transport system (severely for the first day) and the country's mobile telecommunications infrastructure. ~ Wikipedia I will only use ONE example of a mass killing to make my point. Rest assured there are numerous examples in the past few years that mirror this act and the reasons it was committed. This information isn't secret - it's public knowledge and trackable by world data. The reason for the attack was a response due to the British involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. A political move by Islamists? Certianly! But it's also clearly retribution based upon political motivation and religious interests. The people on those trains weren't on the battlefield. They were on their way to work. They were innocent - though not in accordance to your religion. The words of your book: 5:33, The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter. Is getting on a train to go to a job waging war against Allah? No. If there's a politial issue to be resolved, work should be done to resolve it with those in power and not with those who are daily working to provide for their families. If there is a military campaign, wage war... but wage it with those who have military might rather than those who are enroute to their place of employment. 8:60, Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly. War isn't waged in subway tunnels in cities. But terrorism is. Be aware of the fact that you, yourself, may be called upon to be spent in the cause of Allah. I'm certain that if you were, you'd consider it an honor. But who's will would you be fulfilling? Allah's or the will of a group of men with a political agenda? How many imams have you seen strapping explosives to themselves. None, of course. They have folks like you to do that. That should concern you. I could list passage after passage that call for the death of anyone who disagrees with the thoughts and ideas of your religious leaders. I, of course, can't cite specific passages that your leaders choose to draw from as they delegate and plan for attacks against civilians who are clearly not on your battlefield. I don't believe that's necessary here as we both know your book is loaded with many to choose from. The only difference between you and I is that you embrace those ideologies and I find them disgusting. But to say they aren't there is to place your ignorance on display. The very fact that you're convinced that anyone who disagrees with you is worthy of severe and everlasting punishment shows that you're not simply a follower of a religion, but even at the lowest echelons, you have elevated yourself to the lofty position of gods. 48:13, And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire! 3:85, If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good). Your religion doesn't accept anyone other than those who follow its ways and rather than just leave well enough alone, the followers of your religion venture forth to spread hatred and to bring about carnage and death. The facts concerning your religion and it's operations are, again, public knowledge. It takes very little effort to compile a mountain of evidence that provides conclusive proof that Islamic Fundamentalism (Shiite, anyone?) is not a religion of peace. Your religion is the cat who ate the canary... you're just demanding proof of the feathers left on the floor after the feast. [EDIT] And to be fair, kamal, please don't assume that I am of the opinion that your religion is the only one that's reprehensible and dangerous. I certainly wouldn't be here if I hadn't concluded that Christianity is delusional at best and sufficiently loaded with it's own history of murder and untold sorrow. RELIGION in nearly all forms thrives on the submission of its followers, the advancement of its operational agenda, in the filling of its coffers, and in the gratification of the egos of its bloated and pompous leaders. It's always the little guy who's trying to get at the carrot that's being dangled before them and struggling to bear the crushing and oppressive load... and anytime you're willing to throw off your own chains, we'd love to hear your personal deconversion story. The more common ground we share, the happier this world will be. In the meantime, we can continue to butt heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 How many imams have you seen strapping explosives to themselves. None, of course. They have folks like you to do that. That should concern you. Indeed. Kamal, you are wasting precious time posting on our site. To the best of my knowledge, none of us are interested in Islam. Your time would be better spent seeking out jihad-obsessed young men and women in your own community, and convincing them to find a peaceful way. You could save actual lives that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamal Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 name='Kenny' date='Feb 26 2008, 10:12 AM' post='353142' Following of infallibles isn't blindfold movement. It's a section of our belief system that begins from God on the high knoll to the end; the Hereafter. All of parts should logically be justified and must firmly be proved by absolute evidence; otherwise, it worthy to ashcan not our mind. If you concentrate on my post about pantheism and get it truly you may gusto a bit of its taste. How many imams have you seen strapping explosives to themselves. None, of course. All, of course. Firstly, as you may know number of our infallibles is fourteen; Muhammad, his daughter (Fatima), his son in law (partner of Fatima; Ali) and eleven of children and nephews of Ali & Fatima. Tow of them were killed by sword; Imam Ali when he was praying in mosque, and Imam Husain; the third imam, was martyred disastrously by command of Yazid at Asura in Karballa. It's noteworthy to have a little study about him as a brave and liberal human. Others except last one, who already is alive, were poisoned. Secondly, you repeated your opinion again, you didn't offer any document that they have done sins and bad behaviors; you believe it's unlikely that someone be infallible why? I bet you don't know. Thirdly, not only our imams don't allow us to do terror but also, they teach us that such manners are unmanly therefore, during Islamic revolution, against Pahlavi kingdom in Iran, its leader avoided people to use weapon in their battles; just demonstration and strike. As you are well aware, Imamah is the Shi'a Islamic doctrine of religious, spiritual and political leadership of the Ummah. FACT. That's right. You call the shots too, but you forgot one element; science. Doctrine of religion + spiritual + science + politic = salvation for human and humanity of injustice, prejudice and slavery of passions. And because of this formula we claim our religion (shi'a) is unique all across the world. MASS KILLINGS The 7 July 2005 London bombings (also called the 7/7 bombings) were a series of coordinated terrorist bomb blasts that hit London's public transport system during the morning rush hour. At 8:50 a.m., three bombs exploded within fifty seconds of each other on three London Underground trains. As I said and you agreed such blindly behavior are political reactions that were done by religious guys but deliberately religious part of them highlighted by media I don't know how old are you? But I think you can remember as same as these movements by Ireland republican military. They were bombing the same city but no one interpreted their manners as religious one. And the same attitude toward E. T. A. in Bask, Spain. And the best sample is Israel they have occupied Palestine by command of their religion and kill them and destroy their homes by command of their religion but there is no blame behalf of westerners why? Because Palestinian are not lively canaries; they are hatred muses that have to be killed; here the cat is champion!!!!! There are a lot of samples; Bosnia, Sabra and Shatil camps, Qana shelter just in recent years. You've quoted four verses of Quran to prove mass killing is motivated by religious doctrine, but at end you concluded: The facts concerning your religion and its operations are, again, public knowledge and I add again they are public knowledge that based on disobeys in one hand and media propaganda on the other hand . Not straight commands from religious doctrine, hence, you can't find out Christian massacre and Jewish massacre and even infidel massacre in Islamic world but Muslim massacre is a habitual manner in other religions. Also you've talked about killing citizens out of battlefield. Fact. But do you know how many Iraqi and Afkan citizens have been killed out of battlefield by beautiful missils? 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000 or more? Do you know right of Reciprocity is a natural right for anyone; religious and nonreligious? What's your opinion about Abo-ghoraib jail and Guantanamo Prison? Perhaps poetry of lovely canaries and hatred muses must be composed again! There is not any problem in Islamic thoughts; the fact is beyond the phenomenon of Islamophobia. If you want to people be convinced that Islam is religion of violence, massacre, barbarism and so, to invasion Islamic territories and fuck all of them you need to a purporst, so you provoke maniacs like Saddam, Bin Iadan and his companion to obey your demands and perform your maps then you don't need to U.N permission to go on your way. Next is turn of other branch (shi'a), unfortunately maniacs don't attend here. Here the ruler is wisdom. Syyed Hassan nasrollah fight manly and bravely and intellectually. Islamic world (suni and shi'a) are proud of him, therefore, you command Holly wood to make 300; Iranian (shi'a) are wild humans and use all of your powers to prove Iranian are making nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth.you don't need to acceptable evidence you have missile, money you are powerful, document is for the weak. By the way, what's your view about overlapped arsenals of various kinds of massacre weapons? In our lands canaries do not have paw! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I really don't feel like typing out a full response to this right now, so I've just re-pasted one of my earlier ones. Yes I agree that a lot of the things done in the name of Islam are political in nature rather than religious. But the fact that people are so easily able to use the Qu'ran to such ends is telling in my opinion. There isn't really a clear consensus on what jihad should be, some hold to your opinion based on scripture, while others can find as much support for theirs. If you have a problem with the conception of Islam by the rest of the world, then perhaps you should take it up with them. And here is an article for you to argue with rather than me Criticisms of Islam Really why do you feel the need to play Islam's advocate here? Its rather indefensible as a whole, do you speak for the Islamic world on what Islam is really about? You keep saying that we get all our negative perception of Islam from "media propaganda", well that is hardly true most of what Kenny and others have quoted is a matter of history and public record. I would venture to say that it is you who has the perception influenced by propaganda rather than confronting some uncomfortable truths about your religion and fellow Muslims. Do you know right of Reciprocity is a natural right for anyone; religious and nonreligious? No its not, where did you get such an idea? What's your opinion about Abo-ghoraib jail and Guantanamo Prison? Terrible, just part of a string of human rights violations carried out by the current administration. Yet, it was not a move based in any way on religious doctrines but politics and we all recognize that. Myself and others are currently trying to clean up this mess on our end, rather than trying to justify it to everyone else based on the merits of "they earned it". In our lands canaries do not have paw! Gah its nearly impossible to make out what you are trying to say. We can hardly carry on a discussion with this language barrier. If you think Islam is a great and rosy message why don't you work to make it that way in reality, rather than trying to tell us what it is and isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 kamal..... You are a "False Flag" excercise. You come in under pretense of holding merciful hand out to those who are infidels and atheists, worst category short of apostates to Islam. I am a criminal in your world, and even in your Country, a man who has transgressed your world's rules with abandon and ability. I know of you kamal, if not you as an individual, but as a type. You speak Peace and Reconciliation, yet behind your kind and seeming honest offer of love and support is the long knife of the mullah and islam. If you wield he sword or not, you are the false face, and in turn the sacrificial goat of your community, give an internet connection and task to convert the infidel. I have no patience for exchanging scriptures with you, nor do I care what you proclaim. You and yours and those who will follow in the questing for world islam are well advised to bugger off. My boots have soiled many houses, and in turn I refuse to be evangelized by your religion, person, or gods. kFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGiant Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I think if it weren't for Christianity's strong suicide prohibition, you'd see just as many xtian suicide bombers, as opposed to sniping doctors, planting car-bombs, chucking Molotov's into clubs they don't like, etc. Both have their complete homicidal nuts that are just sociopaths with an excuse. As far as redeeming qualities, well, I've always had this thing for Ecleasties(sp?)... There are some people who let their religion inspire them to do good rather than evil. Just don't hear about them near as much. I think your knowledge about Islam is through media propaganda rather than fairly research. A short look at church rule in Middle Ages and comparing it with Islamic emperors at that specific time reveals a lot of facts. I have educated in Islamic field; inasmuch as I studied there isn't any permission to kill unbelievers out of battlefield. "Yet if they keep aloof from you and do not fight you, and they propose peace to you, God does not grant you any way against them". 4:90 Islamic injunctions are not source of terror, violent, car bombing and else; hence, you can't find these misbehaviors where don't attend foreigner military troops; physically or mentally. To pretend politically reactions as religious one is only misconception. People are enemy of their ignorance Imam Ali: 1st leader of Shiite First off, I've done research beyond the media, on both sides. Second, I think you missed the point of my response. I have just stated that both systems are equally screwed up and terminally so. I don't know if you've noticed, but all religions have their zealots who will use their religion as an excuse to rationalize whatever they want to do, up to and including genocide. This is not unique to Islam or Christianity. And religion IS being used as a rallying cry and a tool to manipulate people to carry out violence and justify it. I'd also point to the claims of being an Islamic state in the Middle East by the countries themselves as evidence that the political and religious reactions, in those countries, are already tangled to the point of that there isn't much difference. I'd also point to the orders issued by religious authorities calling for the deaths of people (i.e. assassinations). How can you claim that this violence is not motivated by Islam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted February 27, 2008 Super Moderator Share Posted February 27, 2008 kamal..... You are a "False Flag" excercise. kFL Thank You, Skip! To seriously engage in a discussion with that liar is a waste of time, and I'm surprised it's been going on so long. - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 No wonder guys like him are willing to be a walking satchel charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts