Recreating Islam

[chica]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/v/vkXOwBIRX7Y[/youtube]

Omg, what a cute accent this guy has!

The Bible was written millenniums ago, I wouldn't expect all ideas in it to be civilized. Even if it was written by people, and not dictated by God, it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

Some people are more spiritual than others, and they deserve to have a way to express their spirituality. That way is through religion, but religions need to be revised and adapted to modern times and values.

 

[the judge]

a Japanese Buddhist organization Soka-gakkai

HA that reminds of a crazy philosophy teacher of mine, she's a member of that organization and she always took us to their exhibitions (about Gandhi, human rights etc). Is it mean?

 

[Kewpie]

HA that reminds of a crazy philosphy teacher of mine, she's a member of that organization and she always took us to their exhibitions (about Gandhi, human rights etc). Is it mean?

You could've complained to the school authority that the teacher was promoting her religious interest using her position.

One of my childhood freinds is a member, but I no longer in touch with her. Members of this cult are generally nice people, but so persistant which makes me really sick.

 

[dunya]

The organisation Soka Gakkai is very rich and encourages donations from members. It encourages converting people to the cause and claims to be the only true way to enlightenment and happiness.
It has many attributes which are cultish. It is sexist as an organisational structure.


Most religions have some good ideas at their core, of justice, peace and love. Yet invariably when hierarchical structures, money and power are added to the mix they become corrupted and new rules are added which benefit the few, divide and oppress. As can be seen by this "revision" of Islam, the spirit of the law has been lost over time, and those who try to restore it to anywhere near the original intentions will have a hard time of it.

 

[Uncleskinny]

I used to be much more militant anti-religion than I am now. There was a place in the past when people needed mysterious and divine explanations for all the phenomena we see about us - but we are more clever, more scientific now. We have drugs that are derived from experimentation and research that save lives, we have machines that let me talk to you via this site (imagine that 20 years ago). Religion, until very recently was the only way the man in the street could explain the world around him, but we are more scientific now and can explain much of what we see. I say much, because there are still mysteries - how can dogs foretell earthquakes and seizures, for example. Religion gives a lot of people comfort and direction in their lives, and I'm not going to knock that - how can you knock something that makes someone happy that does no harm to anyone else? These days, I have my own opinions, other have theirs. Vive La Difference, and lets all get on.

Peter

 

[Flax]

I used to be much more militant anti-religion than I am now. There was a place in the past when people needed mysterious and divine explanations for all the phenomena we see about us - but we are more clever, more scientific now. We have drugs that are derived from experimentation and research that save lives, we have machines that let me talk to you via this site (imagine that 20 years ago). Religion, until very recently was the only way the man in the street could explain the world around him, but we are more scientific now and can explain much of what we see. I say much, because there are still mysteries - how can dogs foretell earthquakes and seizures, for example. Religion gives a lot of people comfort and direction in their lives, and I'm not going to knock that - how can you knock something that makes someone happy that does no harm to anyone else? These days, I have my own opinions, other have theirs. Vive La Difference, and lets all get on.

Peter

I can tell you don't live in the USA!

 

[Uncleskinny]

I can tell you don't live in the USA!

I'm confused?!?!

If someone wants to do something and it doesn't hurt or harm anyone else, let them get on with it! If they want to stick a cucumber up their arse for gratification, if they want to eat a bag of chili, if they want to go on a long run or swim - let them do it - if no one else is affected, and no one else is harmed - live and let live.

I fear I may have missed your irony - can you explain? Has there been some court case we in the U.K should know about?


Peter

 

[Flax]

I'm confused?!?!

If someone wants to do something and it doesn't hurt or harm anyone else, let them get on with it! If they want to stick a cucumber up their arse for gratification, if they want to eat a bag of chili, if they want to go on a long run or swim - let them do it - if no one else is affected, and no one else is harmed - live and let live.

I fear I may have missed your irony - can you explain? Has there been some court case we in the U.K should know about?


Peter

well... I don't know how things in the UK are, but here in the US, hate crimes, hateful speeches, hateful protests and war is purely based on religion.

So I think it harms people in various levels, in many different ways.

Just take a look at videos like:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/v/XW4Ym9IS7Ks[/youtube]

 

[Uncleskinny]

well... I don't know how things in the UK are, but here in the US, hate crimes, hateful speeches, hateful protests and war is purely based on religion.

So I think it harms people in various levels, in many different ways.

Just take a look at videos like:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/v/XW4Ym9IS7Ks[/youtube]

I've seen that before.

I think my point is - if that chap wants to sing about his (very misguided) beliefs, then I'd prefer to let him. I'll sit back here in my armchair and laugh at him. If he turns up at a gay chap's house and starts throwing bricks through the windows then that's a different matter. I'd fight for his right to say what he wants to say. I don't have to agree. If no one is harmed, then he can say what he wants to say. Those who were the intended targets of his song might disagree, but my view is that he should be free to say what he wants to say. It's the internet equivalent of a troll who deals so many threats through this medium, but when you meet them in the real world, it's a different matter.

<incoherent rant over>

Best Wishes,

Peter

 

[Coiffeur_En_Flame]

well... I don't know how things in the UK are, but here in the US, hate crimes, hateful speeches, hateful protests and war is purely based on religion.

So I think it harms people in various levels, in many different ways.

Just take a look at videos like:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/v/XW4Ym9IS7Ks[/youtube]

You're an idiot. Instead of having a serious debate about religion, all you've done is provide evidence of the nutcase minority within Christianity. You think the majority of Christians worldwide support Fred Phelps and his agenda of hate? You're just assuming that everyone within a religion shares the views of the extremists. You're as intolerant as the God Hates Fags crazies.


Coiff.

 

[chica]

I've seen that before.

I think my point is - if that chap wants to sing about his (very misguided) beliefs, then I'd prefer to let him. I'll sit back here in my armchair and laugh at him. If he turns up at a gay chap's house and starts throwing bricks through the windows then that's a different matter. I'd fight for his right to say what he wants to say. I don't have to agree. If no one is harmed, then he can say what he wants to say. Those who were the intended targets of his song might disagree, but my view is that he should be free to say what he wants to say. It's the internet equivalent of a troll who deals so many threats through this medium, but when you meet them in the real world, it's a different matter.

<incoherent rant over>

Best Wishes,

Peter

But are you sure he is not doing harm to anyone? I believe people have the right to pollution-free environment, and hate speech is pollution.

 

[Kewpie]

But are you sure he is not doing harm to anyone? I believe people have the right to pollution-free environment, and hate speech is pollution.

But if you are a sane and civilized individual, you can judge what is right and wrong.

 

[chica]

But if you are a sane and civilized individual, you can judge what is right and wrong.

Yes, I can, but I don't have to be exposed to what is wrong... Actually I have to be, but I shouldn't have to be Is that too much to ask???

 

[Kewpie]

Yes, I can, but I don't have to be exposed to what is wrong... Actually I have to be, but I shouldn't have to be Is that too much to ask???

We aren't living in a bubble which shuts down all the vicious virus and germs.


"Carrie" will be shown tonight on Channel 4, the heroine's mum is a religious fanatic.

 

[Flax]

You're an idiot. Instead of having a serious debate about religion, all you've done is provide evidence of the nutcase minority within Christianity. You think the majority of Christians worldwide support Fred Phelps and his agenda of hate? You're just assuming that everyone within a religion shares the views of the extremists. You're as intolerant as the God Hates Fags crazies.


Coiff.

I am not an idiot. I just happened to read the bible. Have you?

The "nutcases" you're talking about are just following the bible.

Also, do you know where the words "hours" and "horizon" come from? Try to find out.

In the meanwhile, here's some good teachings from the bible for you. And god bless you:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

 

[chica]

We aren't living in a bubble which shuts down all the vicious virus and germs.

But we should!

"Carrie" will be shown tonight on Channel 4, the heroine's mum is a religious fanatic.

I never saw the film, just the scene with chopping carrots Or maybe I saw the whole film, but I only remember that part...

 

[sol]

Because a "civilized religion" is an oxymoron.

They promote faith. And faith is always lumped in the same group of words that have a good meaning such as compassion, love, fraternity, respect, kindness.

While its actual meaning is blind belief. You must believe without question. And not only that, you must fear god.

Faith is a violence against of one of the most valuable human attributes: reason. It's a violence against free thinking and creativity.

You are intolerant and generate violence with his commentaries.

Nevertheless you do not belong to any religion.

The religions defend his faith, but you do not believe in anything. Then, do you defend?, you only attack

 

[Hellie]

But are you sure he is not doing harm to anyone? I believe people have the right to pollution-free environment, and hate speech is pollution.

Unless you live in an Islamic state then you are free and should be to say what you like, whomever it may offend.Its called freedom of speech.I find Jehovas offensive and annoying but they are within their rights to harrass me at my door.I find many peoples opinions offensive but I would defend their right to say it.Or to believe and follow which ever crack pot religion they may choose.If its done without violence then attempting to legislate against would be impossible.Its one thing to stand on a street corner and rally a mass riot -another to tell your mates in the pub your questionable views.

Supposing you invited all political parties to a debate locally or on TV etc.. would you then say that the BNP couldn't participate because their views were offensive to some.That would be an outrage.you may not like their views but short of abandoning democracy what would you do?I'm a vegetarian-i don't suddenly decide that I'm going to spurn my friends and family because they are not-its the same with all views.

It used to be treason to speak ill of the Queen and could be punishable by death but w'eve moved on.

 

[chica]

Also, do you know where the words "hours" and "horizon" come from? Try to find out.

I give up! This is all I found:

horizon - c.1374, from O.Fr. orizon (14c.), earlier orizonte (13c.), from L. horizontem (nom. horizon), from Gk. horizon kyklos "bounding circle," from horizein "bound, limit, divide, separate," from horos "boundary." The h- was restored 17c. in imitation of Latin. Horizontal (1555) originally meant "relating to or near the horizon," later (1638) parallel to it, "flat."

hour - c.1250, from O.Fr. hore "one-twelfth of a day" (sunrise to sunset), from L. hora "hour, time, season," from Gk. hora "any limited time," used of day, hour, season, year; cognate O.E. gear "year" (see year). Greeks borrowed the notion of dividing the day into hours from the Babylonians, but the Babylonian hour was one-twelfth of the whole day and thus twice as long as a modern hour. The Greeks divided only the period of light into 12 parts, and the Romans adopted the system from them. Night was not similarly divided till much later, and thus the period of time covered by an hour varied according to the season. In 16c. distinction sometimes was made between temporary (unequal) hours and sidereal (equal) ones. The h- has persisted in this word despite not being pronounced since Roman times. Replaced O.E. tid, lit. "time," and stund "period of time." Hourglass is from 1515.


What's the catch???

 

[Flax]

You are intolerant and generate violence with his commentaries.

Nevertheless you do not belong to any religion.

The religions defend his faith, but you do not believe in anything. Then, do you defend?, you only attack

I believe in science, women's rights, animal rights, civilized society.

I'm not attacking religion. I'm stating the facts, ma'am. Or do you prefer to believe that the bible doesn't advocate racism and sexism? Or maybe that islam doesn't marry old men to young children?

That would be real faith.

And what do you call the act of injecting fear in children's heads, telling them if they don't do what their god says, they will burn in eternal fire? I call that child abuse. Some people call that "spreading the word of god".