“We gave you three days to recant but you insist on not returning to Islam"

[Feuer Frei!]

This is seriously *expletive.

Sudan on Thursday sentenced a 27-year-old mother to hang for apostasy when she refused to renounce her family and the Christian faith in which she was raised. She is also to receive 100 lashes for adultery beforehand

SOURCE (http://www.jpost.com/International/Sudan-to-execute-Christian-woman-who-refused-to-convert-to-Islam-352465)

[Jimbuna]

Was discussing this with Steve on Skype yesterday.

[AVGWarhawk]

Welcome to civilized society. I wonder if the family member believed it would come to this. I suspect they did. Such a fun loving religion. :down:

According to Amnesty International, she was arrested in August 2013 after a family member reported that she was committing adultery because of her marriage. The charge of apostasy was added the following February, when she said she was Christian.

[Oberon]

That happens, sadly, religion is used as an excuse for all sorts of acts.

The other week Egypt sentenced over 500 people to death for being Muslim and supporters of Morsi. Some 16,000 have been arrested for being Islamists in Egypt since the military retook control.

There's idiocy on both sides of the coin. :nope:

[Skybird]

Valid Islamic rule, since all beginning on. Respect it, it is a high civilisation. :up:

[Catfish]

Well if you think how long it too the christian church to say good bye to the inquisition (not voluntarily, of course), and that they forgave Galilei, err, ten years ago (?), we can look forward to the next centuries of the relatively young religion of islamic faith :-?


Regarding the situation in Sudan though, it has always been invaded by arabian tribes since centuries, to collect slaves.
A situation for which b.t.w. the British Empire of those days, is not entireless innocent.
Meanwhile there is a counter-movement though, which the black christians call "arab-shooting", and the radicalism of some christians down there is not far behind radical Islam..

[Betonov]

Well if you think how long it too the christian church to say good bye to the inquisition (not voluntarily, of course), and that they forgave Galilei, err, ten years ago (?), we can look forward to the next centuries of the relatively young religion of islamic faith :-?

They made it all backwards.
They had their age of enlightment before the dark ages.

500years ago we chopped heads of heretics and heathens and they taxed the infidel.
Reverse this time around :nope:

[Skybird]

The difference, Betonov, is this. Jesus never preached to behead and discriminate infidels. Muhammad did. The hate and intolerance and barbary of followers of the socalled Christ, is a perverting of his message, the hate and intolerance and barbary of followers of Muhammad is not.

I'm honestly quite sick and tired these days of seeing the barbary of Islamofascism being relativised endlessly, as if that would change anything for the better or would excuse anything.

Strange that this single women catches interest, while the terror of Boko Haram in Nigeria does not even trigger a single yawning.

[Oberon]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/1a/1ad1804ccb2cc9d9b75206909660f1353c2ed9cb1d7ea23f35 8bdedc70fa2cb9.jpg

[HunterICX]

So? what's so shocking about this that we didn't know already?

Here in Spain the number of cases where husbands are abusing their wives repeatedly for a long period of time with some cases ending up in death has increased alarmlingy and to make matters worse the authorities turn a blind eye to this.
is that any better? No

Religion, Culture, Race, Ideology whatever (insert piss poor excuse here) for the sorry excuse of human waste you are when you commit an act of cruelty to your fellow man.

[Armistead]

I think until we drop religion, we'll never have morality.

[Oberon]

I think until we drop human nature, we'll never have morality.

Fixed that for you. :up:

[Armistead]

Fixed that for you. :up:


I stand by my statement. Yes, we're failed human beings, much different than choosing to be moral or not based on ideals. Religion misplaces our morality. Most of us can deal with times of human failure and mistakes, but can we deal with ideals that war with one another, dictate to use how we must act or suffer torment here on earth or hell. I think religion is the leading cause of narcissism.

We can certainly be moral and loving without it..

[Oberon]

I stand by my statement. Yes, we're failed human beings, much different than choosing to be moral or not based on ideals. Religion misplaces our morality. Most of us can deal with times of human failure and mistakes, but can we deal with ideals that war with one another, dictate to use how we must act or suffer torment here on earth or hell. I think religion is the leading cause of narcissism.

We can certainly be moral and loving without it..

A leading cause maybe, but I don't think the leading cause. If we got rid of religion, then we'd replace it with something else to discriminate with, skin colour, sexual orientation, genetic make-up, average income. Let's face it, we do it enough already and that's with religion still around.

Certainly, though, in nations with a more religious populace it is aggravated by the use of religion as a shield for violent behaviour and criminal acts. However, in other societies political activism or economic success can be used as a shield instead, how many corrupt officials get away with crime because of having money to bribe their way out of it, or because they're an influential politician?

[Armistead]

A leading cause maybe, but I don't think the leading cause. If we got rid of religion, then we'd replace it with something else to discriminate with, skin colour, sexual orientation, genetic make-up, average income. Let's face it, we do it enough already and that's with religion still around.

Certainly, though, in nations with a more religious populace it is aggravated by the use of religion as a shield for violent behaviour and criminal acts. However, in other societies political activism or economic success can be used as a shield instead, how many corrupt officials get away with crime because of having money to bribe their way out of it, or because they're an influential politician?

I don't think so, not if we educate people. Yes, we use other systems, but often the leader or state become divine, causing much of the same problems. I do agree we would still battle over social issues, but common sense is more likely to prevail if the ideals being pushed aren't divine.

Adding, the 3 major religions all believe in an apocalyptic ending. To this very day it is the reason for most war and suffering. Nations base policy over land on the bible/koran and people die by the 1000's daily. We should rather be focusing on how to progress and save humanity, not expect the end and keep preparing for it. I think it's a case because so many believe it is true, they're intent to make it come true.

[Oberon]

I don't think so, not if we educate people. Yes, we use other systems, but often the leader or state become divine, causing much of the same problems. I do agree we would still battle over social issues, but common sense is more likely to prevail if the ideals being pushed aren't divine.

The problem lies in humanity requiring a level of divination in order to work, there will always be someone who will take control of a program or government through greed or a desire for power. Take for example the October revolution of 1917, the original plan for socialism/communism was a committee of equals that would run a nation of equals, the original defining ideology of 'all are equal' which rapidly devolved into George Orwells 'Some are more equal than others' and ended up as a dictatorship of sorts where a handful of men controlled a nation of millions.

I don't think that there has been a political system in human history that has not gradually devolved into something similar, the Roman senate became ruled by the Emperor, Cromwell deposed the King but found that he had to become leader afterwards as no-one could decide what to do with the country.

It's funny, the bible uses the reference of the 'Shepherd' and his 'flock', comparing humanity as a whole to a herd of sheep, and history has shown that to be a relatively accurate symbology as our instinct goes.
Maybe this will change in the future, certainly we have seen a move away from religion in the western world, which has worried the church greatly (enough to make them take a concerted effort to clean up the choir boy problems, so it must be serious) however we still find distinct prejudices against people of different faiths, races, financial backgrounds, rampant in our societies. Since 9/11 there's a deep distrust of Muslims, since the financial crisis, there's a deep distrust of anyone on state benefits, and let's not even get started on the race problems in the west. I wish I could be as hopeful as some about the future of humanity and that we may one day shed these prejudices and be able to co-exist on equal terms, but I don't think that it will be in my lifetime or even that of my childrens lifetime (should I have any) or perhaps even their childrens, but maybe one day, if we don't send ourselves back to the dark ages first. :yep:

[Cybermat47]

I don't care what religion they are, that's just stupid :nope:

Such a fun loving religion. :down:

I don't think the religion's the problem. I've heard of plenty of Muslims who would condemn the treatment she's receiving.

[Wolferz]

Passion plays never end well. Somebody always gets Sprucified.:timeout:

[August]

You gotta admire her dedication to her faith.

[TarJak]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/28002262.jpg

[Platapus]

I don't think I would ever feel comfortable living, or even visiting, a country that has a non-secularism based government.

Religion should always be a personal choice.

It has to be personal in that the government plays no part in encouraging or discouraging any specific religion or any religion at all

It has to be a choice, as citizens of a country need to have the freedom to, within the laws, exercise their religious culture or not exercise their religious culture as they see fit.

A government that does not recognize that religion is a personal choice should not be considered a legitimate government in the context of freedom and fairness. But a lot of people disagree with my opinion. I have to recognize that just over 25% of the countries of the world do not accept the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" when it comes to religious freedom. cf the Cairo Declaration.

Again, in my opinion, a religion that does not recognize that religion is a personal choice should not be considered a legitimate religion in the context operating in our human societies.

To me, killing someone because they changed their minds about a religion is completely abhorrent to me and I honestly can't understand that mindset.

What another person believes, disbelieves, or changes their belief, does not, should not, and never will have any real effect on what I believe or disbelieve.

[Penguin]

I don't think I would ever feel comfortable living, or even visiting, a country that has a non-secularism based government.


That's why I have never been to any of the square states. :D

[Mr Quatro]

Religion is just an organized way to serve God, but we don't all have the same god.

Islam is a religion ... Christianity is not a religion even though there are religious factions within the following of the teachings of Jesus Christ such as the Roman Catholic church and then we have faith groups such as Baptist and Methodist and so on, but being a Christian is simply being a follower of the Son of God most high Jesus Christ.

This persecution of a Christian for her faith is nothing new. The first Christians were burned at the stake, skinned alive, cast out of the synagogue's and the market places forced into slavery and fed to the lions.

Before Nero burned Rome down he would order all of the Christians to be tied on crosses in his garden while his Roman guards came along with a pitcher of kerosene and allow each believer to renounce this Jesus as their Lord and accept Nero as their only God.

One by one they would decline and the solider would throw kerosene on them, but if one were to be weak and agree they would let that person go.

Then when all was ready Nero would come down from his palace and step into his waiting chariot stripping himself naked and take a flaming torch setting each one of the Christians on fire in his garden.

The faith in Jesus Christ has gone through many difficulties in the last 1,984 years since Jesus hung on that cross on Calvary, but the end is not yet in sight.

It is written that the believers in Jesus Christ win in the end ... :yep:

[Flamebatter90]

Christianity is not a religion

Of course it is a religion.

[Oberon]

Islam is a religion ... Christianity is not a religion even though there are religious factions within the following of the teachings of Jesus Christ such as the Roman Catholic church and then we have faith groups such as Baptist and Methodist and so on, but being a Christian is simply being a follower of the Son of God most high Jesus Christ.

That definition works for Islam too, there's Sunnis and Shias, and from that there's the various schools and approaches to Sunni Islam, and just as many, if not more different schools of belief in Shia Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

[TarJak]

Religious nutters of all stripes have been persecuting one another since the dawn of time. Strangely this has been a particular feature of middle eastern Judaic root religions since christianity and Islam broke away centuries ago.

[Wolferz]

:stare:Armageddon out of here.

[Mr Quatro]

Of course it is a religion.

Maybe for people who clump everything together, but not for the true believer who is guided by the Words of Jesus not by the words of man.

http://www.christinyou.net/pages/Xnotrel.html



Christianity is not religion! Christianity is Christ! Christianity is "Christ-in-you."

Jesus Christ did not found a religion to remember and reiterate His teaching.
Christianity is the personal, spiritual presence of the risen and living Lord Jesus Christ,
manifesting His life and character in Christians, i.e. "Christ-ones."
Paul explained, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me;
and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God,
who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal. 2:20).

[Sailor Steve]

It's easy to make yourself special when you make up your own definitions. By the dictionary's definition, Christianity is indeed a religion.

re·li·gion
/rɪˈlɪdʒhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngən/ Show Spelled [ri-lij-uhhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngn]

noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

[TarJak]

In actual fact, Christianity is simply another Judaic sect. Nothing more nothing less.

[Jimbuna]

Religion...don't you just love it :hmmm:

[TarJak]

Religion...don't you just love it :hmmm:

No:nope:

[Oberon]

Maybe for people who clump everything together, but not for the true believer who is guided by the Words of Jesus not by the words of man.

http://www.christinyou.net/pages/Xnotrel.html


And yet...

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1.27)

But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. 1 Timothy 5.4

That is not to say that Christianity is not the "personal, spiritual presence of the risen and living Lord Jesus Christ" but equally it is, whether officially founded by Jesus or not, a form of religion, one that was founded on the teachings of Christ, not by him but by his words and actions, just as Buddhism was founded on the teachings of Gautama Buddha.

That being said, I can understand the problems inherant in calling it a religion, Jesus wasn't exactly a big fan of organised religion, and thus for a Christian to describe it as a religion would make it one of the things that Christ campaigned against, however you cannot deny that humanity has made it into a religion in the years following the cruxifiction of Jesus, and that religion has in turn splintered into different denominations, just as other religions have. You see, the problem with any belief system is the human bit, the bible itself may be the word of God, but it's the word of God filtered through humans, and that in itself has been altered over centuries of transcription, from ancient Hebrew to Latin to English, and changed depending on the whims of those who have authorised its transcription.
Thus the teachings of Christ as written in the King James bible may not necessarily be the teachings as originally put forward, certainly not verbatim. In turn, each person takes away a different viewpoint from the already altered words of Christ, and uses that viewpoint as their own personal belief. For example, Christ believed in passive resistance against authority, and yet his word and name have been used in active aggression against people of all creeds and beliefs. Are the men who marched on Jerusalem in 1099 true followers of Christ? So many Jews and Muslims were butchered when Raymond of Toulouse conquered the city, and yet he was convinced that he was doing the work of the Lord and of Christ.

By its original intention, Christianity may not have been intended to be a religion, but a religion it has become, like it or not, and humanity has only itself to blame for that.

[Jimbuna]

No:nope:

Oh come on....add a little politics and a dose of bigotry and you've got a fine feast to feed on :)

[August]

In actual fact, Christianity is simply another Judaic sect. Nothing more nothing less.

Maybe between Protestant sects but Catholicism is a very different animal.

All due respect to the dictionary people but calling Christianity a religion is like lumping buses, cars and trucks together and calling them automobiles.

[TarJak]

Oh come on....add a little politics and a dose of bigotry and you've got a fine feast to feed on :)
True:D

Maybe between Protestant sects but Catholicism is a very different animal.
No I think you'll find that Catholicism is a sect that split off the same Orthodox Christian root sect of Judaism. The Protestant sects are merely sectarian branches of Catholicism. They all trace their roots back to the same Judaic sect that believed that Jesus was the Messiah.

All due respect to the dictionary people but calling Christianity a religion is like lumping buses, cars and trucks together and calling them automobiles.
Well they are. Particularly if you stick to the root of the word which was late 19th century: from French, from auto- 'self' + mobile 'mobile'.

You Americans perverted it into meaning a car.:O: Mind you by the American dictionary definitions they all qualify.

n. A self-propelled passenger vehicle that usually has four wheels and an internal-combustion engine, used for land transport.

adj. Of or relating to automobiles; automotive.

[Oberon]

To be honest, it took a Hindu man to make the best point about Christianity:

http://rtbrooks.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/gandhi-quote.png

[Sailor Steve]

All due respect to the dictionary people but calling Christianity a religion is like lumping buses, cars and trucks together and calling them automobiles.
On the other hand a devout Muslim would make the same distinction. His belief is real, and therefore not another religion.

[Wolferz]

There's still that big "lie" in the middle of belief. Mostly due to the meddling of men who sought control over their peers through spiritual manipulation. Also known as brainwashing. Every major religion is guilty of it. Some more than others.:hmmm: I won't mention any names because they know who and what they they are.

[Platapus]

Would it be more appropriate to refer to christanity as a group of religions?

Of course that would mean we have a universally accepted definition of what a religion is. Which we ain't got.

[Mr Quatro]

No we can't group them all together ...

for one they don't even know they are doing the wrong thing by being led by a man telling them what to do instead of the words of Jesus Christ the true son of God.

If you ask a Catholic person if they are a Christian ... they will say, "No" we are Catholics.

Christ like, being like Christ, Christ means the anointed one, the promised one. Christianity is being filled with the Spirit of the living God.

We are predestined to be like Christ (I would have to find the scripture, but it is written)

We don't know what we will be like when Jesus comes back, but we do know that we will be more like Him. 1 john 3:2

This is what Jesus thinks of religion: St Matthew 7:22-23

"Not all those who say ‘You are our Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven. The only people who will enter the kingdom of heaven are those who do what my Father in heaven wants. Jesus will reject many who believe in religion upon His return to earth.

"On the last day many people will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, we spoke for you, and through you we forced out demons and did many miracles.’ Then I will tell them clearly, ‘Get away from me, you who do evil. I never knew you.’ I don't mean to argue the difference in Christ and religion. I just want to defend my faith.

As for Mr Gandhi ... I have yet to meet anyone from India that I like either, but I'll keep looking lol

[mapuc]

Today in our modern world..it could be that Christianity isn't a religion for some and it is for other

Many century ago Christianity or it's believe it was a religion

people, most of them, lived by the holy Bible

that's how I understand it.

Furthermore

Every religious believer think they have God's approval and are the right one in God's view and the others are not.

Markus

[Oberon]

As for Mr Gandhi ... I have yet to meet anyone from India that I like either, but I'll keep looking lol

It's funny that you should say that, because Gandhi and Jesus have a lot of similarities in their behaviour. Both of them came from occupations that were completely unrelated to their future roles, Gandhi was a lawyer, Jesus a carpenter, both dealt with an occupying force, Jesus the Roman Empire, Gandhi the British Empire, and both called for non-violent resistance to the occupation.
If you take a historical look at some of Jesus's sayings, you'll see just how much of a rebel he was, take for example this famous quote:

But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. —Matthew 5:39-42I'm going to bring across something I read on a blog a while ago and put it here:

"But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave. I can attest to the original poster’s comments. A few years back I took an intensive seminar on faith-based progressive activism, and we spent an entire unit discussing how many of Jesus’ instructions and stories were performative protests designed to shed light on and ridicule the oppressions of that time period as a way to emphasize the absurdity of the social hierarchy and give people the will and motivation to make changes for a more free and equal society.
For example, the next verse (Matthew 5:40) states “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” In that time period, men traditionally wore a shirt and a coat-like garment as their daily wear. To sue someone for their shirt was to put them in their place - suing was generally only performed to take care of outstanding debts, and to be sued for one’s shirt meant that the person was so destitute the only valuable thing they could repay with was their own clothing. However, many cultures at that time (including Hebrew peoples) had prohibitions bordering on taboo against public nudity, so for a sued man to surrender both his shirt and his coat was to turn the system on its head and symbolically state, in a very public forum, that “I have no money with which to repay this person, but they are so insistent on taking advantage of my poverty that I am leaving this hearing buck-ass naked. His greed is the cause of a shameful public spectacle.”

All of a sudden an action of power (suing someone for their shirt) becomes a powerful symbol of subversion and mockery, as the suing patron either accepts the coat (and therefore full responsibility as the cause of the other man’s shameful display) or desperately chases the protester around trying to return his clothes to him, making a fool of himself in front of his peers and the entire gathered community.
Additionally, the next verse (Matthew 5:41; “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”) was a big middle finger to the Romans who had taken over Judea and were not seen as legitimate authority by the majority of the population there. Roman law stated that a centurion on the march could require a Jew (and possibly other civilians as well, although I don’t remember explicitly) to carry his pack at any time and for any reason for one mile along the road (and because of the importance of the Roman highway system in maintaining rule over the expansive empire, the roads tended to be very well ordered and marked), however he could not require any service beyond the next mile marker. For a Jewish civilian to carry a centurion’s pack for an entire second mile was a way to subvert the authority of the occupying forces. If the civilian wouldn’t give the pack back at the end of the first mile, the centurion would either have to forcibly take it back or report the civilian to his commanding officer (both of which would result in discipline being taken against the soldier for breaking Roman law) or wait until the civilian volunteered to return the pack, giving the Judean native implicit power over the occupying Roman and completely subverting the power structure of the Empire. Can you imagine how demoralizing that must have been for the highly ordered Roman armies that patrolled the region?
Jesus was a pacifist, but his teachings were in no way passive. There’s a reason he was practically considered a terrorist by the reigning powers, and it wasn’t because he healed the sick and fed the hungry.
You can see, through historical context how different the true meaning of these words were than how they are portrayed in society today. In short, different times meant that things meant different things than they do today (that really wasn't much shorter, was it? :hmmm:). Which brings me back to the various translations of the bible. When someone says that they follow the bible, do they mean that they follow the original copy which has been lost to time, because that is the only one that will not contain some form of editing or alteration in it. It's like a game of Chinese whispers, eventually degradation will slip in and things will change. Let's not forget either that back before the invention of the printing press, each bible was hand transcribed in latin, meaning that only the priests could understand it and preach it. Who is to say that each preaching priest did not add his own slant to the text, in order to please a certain noble or a reigning monarch?

Do Christians go to church? Do Christians believe that the pope is God representative on earth? Does this not go against the beliefs of Jesus against authority and organised religion? The extravagance of the Vatican, the gold and silver of the church, does this not remind anyone of the gold being counted in the temples? There are so, so many contradictions between organised religion based around Christ and the teachings of Christ that it's little wonder that so many people have moved away from it, it is hypocritical and if there's one thing that people hate, it's hypocrisy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking the words of Christ, nor am I directly attacking your faith, it's good to have faith in something, but it's when these words are twisted into things that they are not, when a whole organisation which contradicts the meaning of Jesus's words is built up around them, that makes me sad, and I think that if Jesus did come back and saw what we have done with what he said, he would be sad too.

[TarJak]

One wonders why your faith needs defending? :hmmm:

Perhaps you need the assistance of the ultimate defender: http://youtu.be/PYHwTF7mjUg

[mapuc]

On a friends wall(he's a Muslim) I wrote

Any religion that have to do such things against its believers is a religion in crisis

Markus

[Nippelspanner]

Islam - the religion of peace! :up:

[Wolferz]

Oberon's blog quote really hits the nail on the head. Maybe the blogger was a carpenter too. Bible based religions aren't based in a faith in God or his son. They are based in an almost rabid belief in an incomplete book that was translated and pieced together by men with an agenda. In other words it's of the world.

Many of the teachings of Christ found in this book were based heavily in metaphor and parable. The people of today know very little of the history of the days when the twelve wrote their epistles of the life of Christ. There are also numerous translation errors in the Old Testament. Which is just a history of the Hebrew tribes of Israel. Again, People today try to apply those stories to modern times and it's like comparing a modern jet to the airplane invented by the Wright brothers.
All you really need is the faith of a Mustard seed. Not a modern literal translation of an ancient text molded (badly) to fit a religious doctrine.
It's no wonder there are so many people running around dazed and confused.:hmmm:

[Skybird]

It's called Führerprinzip.

[Sailor Steve]

No we can't group them all together ...
Yes, we can.

for one they don't even know they are doing the wrong thing by being led by a man telling them what to do instead of the words of Jesus Christ the true son of God.
You make that distinction. Can you show any evidence of what you believe, outside what the Bible says?

If you ask a Catholic person if they are a Christian ... they will say, "No" we are Catholics.
Not even close to true. I attended a Catholic high school for awhile, have known several Catholics over the years and have studied many Catholic teachings. While they identify their official church as Catholic, the vast majority identify themselves as Christians. Most Christians also identify themselves as Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians etc.

Christ like, being like Christ, Christ means the anointed one, the promised one. Christianity is being filled with the Spirit of the living God.
So you believe, as I used to. The problem is that everyone who believes anything believes that they also have the only true faith. Christians are no different in that respect.

We are predestined to be like Christ (I would have to find the scripture, but it is written)
Then you should find it. Consider, though, that it is still no more provable than anyone else's scripture.

We don't know what we will be like when Jesus comes back, but we do know that we will be more like Him. 1 john 3:2
You believe that. You don't "know" it, anymore than anyone else knows anything based on faith. You may be right, but if you can't prove it then it's just faith and nothing more...or less.

I don't mean to argue the difference in Christ and religion.
And yet that was how you started your very first post.

As for Mr Gandhi ... I have yet to meet anyone from India that I like either, but I'll keep looking lol
Does Jesus have anything to say about mocking other people?

[August]

Yes, we can.

Of course but that doesn't mean it's accurate.


You make that distinction. Can you show any evidence of what you believe, outside what the Bible says?

He's talking about the Holy See I think.

[Sailor Steve]

Of course but that doesn't mean it's accurate.
Very true, but it works both ways. All believers believe that their way is the truth, and everything else is a lie. None of them can prove it, so faith is all they have.

He's talking about the Holy See I think.
Would the Pope deny being a Christian? He may not fit a Protestant's definition, but he certainly considers himself a follower of Christ. Unless of course he's one of the many over the centuries who merely uses the position to further his own ends. But that is also true of many others who call themselves "Christian".

So who really has the truth? Please show me.

Back to the topic, yes we have Muslims killing Christians for refusing to renounce their faith. We have people killing people for a lot of reasons, none of them particularly good. At least we no longer have Christians killing Christians for refusing to renounce their faith.

[Armistead]

Very true, but it works both ways. All believers believe that their way is the truth, and everything else is a lie. None of them can prove it, so faith is all they have.


Would the Pope deny being a Christian? He may not fit a Protestant's definition, but he certainly considers himself a follower of Christ. Unless of course he's one of the many over the centuries who merely uses the position to further his own ends. But that is also true of many others who call themselves "Christian".

So who really has the truth? Please show me.

Back to the topic, yes we have Muslims killing Christians for refusing to renounce their faith. We have people killing people for a lot of reasons, none of them particularly good. At least we no longer have Christians killing Christians for refusing to renounce their faith.

But Steve, the truth is there if you really really open your heart to it and discern the word.....All 1200 denominations and all the different major religions believe this.....all you have to do is pick one!

[August]

Very true, but it works both ways. All believers believe that their way is the truth, and everything else is a lie. None of them can prove it, so faith is all they have.
We're not talking about faith, we're talking about identification and categorization of a subset of the many religions that worship the God of Abraham.

Would the Pope deny being a Christian? He may not fit a Protestant's definition, but he certainly considers himself a follower of Christ. Unless of course he's one of the many over the centuries who merely uses the position to further his own ends. But that is also true of many others who call themselves "Christian".

Maybe he would but it's the divine authority that Catholics believe the Pope possesses which Protestants take issue. It's a fundamental difference that makes lumping Catholicism in with the many Protestant sects debatable.

[TarJak]

So Christianity is a broad church?:D

[Stealhead]

One wonders why your faith needs defending? :hmmm:

Perhaps you need the assistance of the ultimate defender: http://youtu.be/PYHwTF7mjUg

:har:

I agree with Oberon Jesus would be disappointed with modern humans. People fail to see how much of a rebel he was.

[Mr Quatro]

Very true, but it works both ways. All believers believe that their way is the truth, and everything else is a lie. None of them can prove it, so faith is all they have.


Would the Pope deny being a Christian? He may not fit a Protestant's definition, but he certainly considers himself a follower of Christ.

So who really has the truth? Please show me.



By your own words Steve you use to be a believer and now your aren't ...

You say you were wrong to believe and now you say you are right.

This doesn't mean the believers you left behind should follow your example ... we just simply continue to believe and add to our faith.

Truth is a spirit, truth is one of the seven spirits of God that stand before His throne both day and night: Revelations 4:5


And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
and don't forget Jesus also has the truth: Revelations 5:6

The Lamb looked as if he had been killed. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God that were sent into all the world. and of course the promise Jesus gives believers: St John 14:16-17


I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth.
The world cannot accept him, because it does not see him or know him. But you know him, because he lives with you and he will be in you.
I love you Steve I wish there was something I could say or do to return you to faith in the saving grace of Jesus Christ,
but that is the work of the Holy Spirit.

If you do still pray ... pray for the Lord to show you the way. He never refuses a small sincere prayer of faith.

back on topic, yes ... What that poor woman must be going through ... only God can give her the strength she needs to overcome her adversary.

[Armistead]

I think Steve is a lot like me, once very involved in faith. I actually lost mine trying to find it. I think the problem is, many of us really test our faith and realize it's just that, beliefs with no real evidence and much evidence to the contrary. I think the only way to keep faith is to shun history, science and logic.

That's not saying I don't say God isn't possible, but it's clear beliefs are more cultural indoctrination. I can't find a reasonable God in any religion. You would think if God existed we would have a clear revelation so that in the end the masses aren't tortured for all eternity. Honestly, the God of he bible is so cruel, unjust, biased, etc., I would have to assume he is the creation or view of those early Jews.

Certainly religion played a needed role in early humanity in numerous ways. It helped explain then what science could not. No doubt even those religious have evolved, but the bigger question is when will we evolve out of the need of religion? My guess is most of the world isn't, because of lack of money and education. It's still the same, poor uneducated societies need religion to keep them from chaos.

[Sailor Steve]

We're not talking about faith, we're talking about identification and categorization of a subset of the many religions that worship the God of Abraham.
We're also talking about people who claime to worship the God of Abraham, but who don't believe that Jesus is the chosen Messiah, or who don't worship that God at all. They too all claim to be right.

Maybe he would but it's the divine authority that Catholics believe the Pope possesses which Protestants take issue. It's a fundamental difference that makes lumping Catholicism in with the many Protestant sects debatable.
But many of those Protestant sects make the same claims about each other. That the Catholics and Protestants disagree about certain fundementals is only relevant if you belong to one group or the other. They both (all) claim to have the truth. That doesn't show which is actually right or wrong.

You say you were wrong to believe and now you say you are right.
You haven't read much of my writings. I don't claim to be right at all. My only claim parallels that of Socrates: All I know is that I know nothing. Knowing that my knowledge is that limited leaves me wanting evidence when someone else claims that they do know something. Many make that claim. I have yet to see any real evidence from any of them.

This doesn't mean the believers you left behind should follow your example ... we just simply continue to believe and add to our faith.
And I consider that a good thing. I just question you when you claim you know the object of your faith is real. Believing and knowing are two very different things.

Truth is a spirit, truth is one of the seven spirits of God that stand before His throne both day and night: Revelations 4:5
and don't forget Jesus also has the truth: Revelations 5:6
You speak of truth, and yet you quote a source that is unverifiable. You believe that source on its own merits, and you never question whether that belief, and the source, is valid or not. That's not truth, that's belief. I don't deny that your truth may be real, only that you haven't shown it.

and of course the promise Jesus gives believers: St John 14:16-17
Again a source you can't verify. That's the problem that led me to where I am in the first place. I came to realize that there is no evidence at all. Christians always quote the Bible, and yet there is nothing to corroborate it.

If you do still pray ... pray for the Lord to show you the way. He never refuses a small sincere prayer of faith.
I did, many times. That's how I got here.

back on topic, yes ... What that poor woman must be going through ... only God can give her the strength she needs to overcome her adversary.
If by some chance she is freed, Christians will say God was responsible. Muslims will say Allah was merciful. If she is not, Christians will say God had other plans and Muslims will say Allah was vindicated and she got what she deserved. Everyone will go on proclaiming their own rightness.

What I am certain of is that evil people (not all Muslims, but the individuals who are doing this) will go on committing evil and claiming they are doing good, and others will look for reasons. It's not any religion's fault; they too are composed of people looking for reasons. It seems to be a part of human nature to believe things so strongly that they become willing to do anything to justify their belief.

Honestly, I'm glad I don't believe anymore.

[Wolferz]

I think Steve is a lot like me, once very involved in faith. I actually lost mine trying to find it. I think the problem is, Snippage


Certainly religion played a needed role in early humanity in numerous ways. It helped explain then what science could not. No doubt even those religious have evolved, but the bigger question is when will we evolve out of the need of religion? My guess is most of the world isn't, because of lack of money and education. It's still the same, poor uneducated societies need religion to keep them from chaos. How else would a religious leader keep the masses subservient to his so called God given power and prevent them from rising up against their sovereign rulers? By claiming their sheep are heretics and killing them?
That was tried over and over and it took a long time to realize it wasn't working...
Considering the hundreds of years time frame of it all, I guess they just enjoyed torturing and murdering the peasants for pleasure.:hmmm:
Funny thing is it's still a common occurrence today in certain religions.:huh:
The only difference being, now the peasants are just rosy cheeked choir boys or participants in the church sports league.:huh::nope:
The early church was also active in suppressing scientific discoveries.
"Foosball is the devil, Bobby Bouchet!"

[banryu79]

I think until we start thinking with our very own heads and feeling with our very own hearts and take full responsibilities for whatever act we choose to do, we'll never have morality.
Fixed fixed.

[Skybird]

We do have morality existing already, Armistead, since long before modern religions were given birth to. It's just that you cannot have just one side of a coin only, there also exist the antithesis to morality. And the more you try to sharpen and reinforce morality, the more you boost immorality as well.

It's better to go back to some very essential and easy principals and basics, and trying to set an own example to others by living up to them. The Golden Rule for example is a good beginning. Natural Law is another simple set of very basic fundamental principles. And the denial of the "right" for slavery.

And also helpful is to understand the meaning of Karma: the inevitable causal link between cause and effect.

I cannot see that it needs a specific Judaic, Christian, Muslim or Buddhist mindset to see the reasonability of the above. Maybe instead of trying to be morally outstanding humans, it would be enough if we would allow ourselves to just be humans.

But as I said, that does not mean that the second side of the coin can be avoided. Everything comes at a cost. That's the nature of things. We are no creatures of light exclusively, but light and darkness both reside in our existence. Becoming human maybe means nothing else than understanding this - and resisting the temptation of wanting to deny the existence of the one while exclusively focussing on juts the other. The hedonist and the ascet - to me them both got some things wrong. You cannot find your frfeedom by denying things existing - if you do that, things claim even more power about you, making you even more unfree.

Moderation sounds like a good idea, doesn't it. Moderation regarding any kind of extremes.

[Armistead]

I know many believers will say where does morality or conscious come from since we can't find it in our brains. It's obvious early man had no morals, they killed like animals without guilt to survive. Over time they evolved and learned to survive and build social structures. Simply, morality is a social system and our conscious is how our brain responds to it.

I think the reasons it stop making sense to me is because sincerity and logic don't play a part, you have to choose the right religion or savior or be doomed. I think how the millions of Jews Hitler killed that didn't accept Christ as the messiah, based on fairly good reason if you're a Jew. Yet, they loved God. I can imagine suffering in a concentration camp faith was all they had and the hope of death. I'm sure they prayed to the God they loved. Yet, when they die, they found the God they love worse than Hitler. It would be the same with all religions where culture indoctrinates and people follow. Whatever religion is right, it excludes the masses to hell.

Who wouldn't wish God to be true, eternal life in bliss to be true? I've had several loved ones die, would love to see mom again. But, I see no evidence that it is. If God is true he's either a tyrant and it comes down to the luck of which religion is right, all religions are right or he's nothing like any religion proclaims.

[TarJak]

Or he's chuckling at the religious nutters whilst welcoming atheists into oblivion.:dead:

[Armistead]

I would like to think if he exist that he would welcome all humanity, even if some judgment is required..

[Oberon]

I would think, and hope, that when we leave all this behind, we leave all that...stuff...behind with it.

[August]

God is not there to protect us. If he did what would be the point of our existence? Better to not have created us in the first place if all we are is puppets on a celestial string.

No, I believe God gave us the most precious gifts that any father can give his children. Freedom and trust. Trust that we'll use our freedom for good instead of evil. Kind of like the first time your father handed you the keys to his car, we are at the wheel of our own destiny so to speak. Yeah we might get hurt but that imo is far better than a completely sheltered life with no free will.

[Skybird]

I know many believers will say where does morality or conscious come from since we can't find it in our brains. It's obvious early man had no morals, they killed like animals without guilt to survive. Over time they evolved and learned to survive and build social structures. Simply, morality is a social system and our conscious is how our brain responds to it.

I think the reasons it stop making sense to me is because sincerity and logic don't play a part, you have to choose the right religion or savior or be doomed. I think how the millions of Jews Hitler killed that didn't accept Christ as the messiah, based on fairly good reason if you're a Jew. Yet, they loved God. I can imagine suffering in a concentration camp faith was all they had and the hope of death. I'm sure they prayed to the God they loved. Yet, when they die, they found the God they love worse than Hitler. It would be the same with all religions where culture indoctrinates and people follow. Whatever religion is right, it excludes the masses to hell.

Who wouldn't wish God to be true, eternal life in bliss to be true? I've had several loved ones die, would love to see mom again. But, I see no evidence that it is. If God is true he's either a tyrant and it comes down to the luck of which religion is right, all religions are right or he's nothing like any religion proclaims.

Morals you already see in little children that voluntarily share with each other (or steal :) ), try to give solace to the other when seeing another child crying, knowing that who found somethign first cannot made to give it up without setting up a fight. We see in some apes, mammals and birds both altruistic motives, social cooperation, and also the cleverness of how to exploit the other and mislead him. I think that is where morals come from: people formed communities, and where there are communbities, there are do'S and don'Ts. The balance between both is a question of collective and individual experience. When the individual sees a given method working well for his interest, it will support it. People take altruistic action into account when in the long run it pays off for them as well.

As I said, biologists report according behaviour patterns form their observations of several apes, birds, and mammals.

I think morals is a lot about group interaction and coordination of single interests in groups. Morals mean to have a choice between complying and disobeying with these rules. For that choice, a certain amount of intelligence and self-awareness and identity concept is necessary. Where these are not given, there is no moral behaviour possible, only preset instincts and genetically encoded behavior programs.

Terrence Malick said in his beautiful movie The Tree Of Life that there is the choice between the path of nature, and the path of mercy. And there is the scene with the dinosaur that sees another, ill one lying on the ground, a smaller creature. And at the last moment before trampling on it and killing it, the bigger dino hesitates, stops, looks closer, then slowly moves his feet back, and turns and goes away. You can make of this any interpretation you want. If you are in the path of mercy crowd, you may interpret it as compassion maybe. If you are with the opath of nature crowd, you may see it as instinct reaction, or realisation that the small dino is no threat.

Anyhow, both views are legit. So maybe, it all is just a dance of words.

[Jimbuna]

I would think, and hope, that when we leave all this behind, we leave all that...stuff...behind with it.

Amen

[Armistead]

God is not there to protect us. If he did what would be the point of our existence? Better to not have created us in the first place if all we are is puppets on a celestial string.

No, I believe God gave us the most precious gifts that any father can give his children. Freedom and trust. Trust that we'll use our freedom for good instead of evil. Kind of like the first time your father handed you the keys to his car, we are at the wheel of our own destiny so to speak. Yeah we might get hurt but that imo is far better than a completely sheltered life with no free will.

Yet the bible is full of verses that proclaim Gods protection.

It's sort of like so many of my friends post memes on FB that everything that happens to you is part of his plan and will. When I ask how a child being brutally raped is part of a plan, then it's just God is a mystery. My biggest issue is watching so many claim prayers answered or lil miracles, such as a raise, mortgage refinanced, new job, healing {under a doctors care of course} and a big PTL. It makes God seem so trife when you know millions of children suffer and die each year with mothers praying their hearts out and God turns a blind eye, yet can find time to give someone a raise. I wonder how someone feels that just lost a child to cancer seeing someone else claiming God found them a new car. Americans make God so generic and self serving.

[Jimbuna]

Yet the bible is full of verses that proclaim Gods protection.

It's sort of like so many of my friends post memes on FB that everything that happens to you is part of his plan and will. When I ask how a child being brutally raped is part of a plan, then it's just God is a mystery. My biggest issue is watching so many claim prayers answered or lil miracles, such as a raise, mortgage refinanced, new job, healing {under a doctors care of course} and a big PTL. It makes God seem so trife when you know millions of children suffer and die each year with mothers praying their hearts out and God turns a blind eye, yet can find time to give someone a raise. I wonder how someone feels that just lost a child to cancer seeing someone else claiming God found them a new car. Americans make God so generic and self serving.

Great post :yep:

[Skybird]

Any god there is cannot be a god if it cares for man or listens to prayers. Prayers are deals tiny little men want to enforce onto an entity they claim is unbelievably above them. If that were true, why should it care, then? I do not care whether I stepped onto an ant while walking in the woods, or not. And never I would start trying to discuss my life plan with it. Prayers are man's way to try bribing fate and get recognised as playing a more central role in the universe, than we actually do. We think that if we spell the magical formula right, beside its irrelevance it nevertheless would make the universe moving differently and bending nature's law. But it does not work this way. The causal link people want to see, is just a random event.

If you watch at the cosmos, at least as far as we can gather it, it is a spectacular but lifeless, desolate place that has its beauty only by what humans attribute to it. So is nature - it just does not care for man, not at all. Without humans, things are still just what they are. Many questions we may yell in frustration at this cosmos, but it never gives an answer in return. The only thing we hear is the voice of our own imagination, and the only truth is that which we have attributed to it by ourselves.

That's why I think the only way for us to find some peace of mind, is by listening into the space within ourselves, and trying to find out in what way it may be linked to the space around us. Whether the world outside really is like our senses tell us, is questionable, the only thing we can be certain of, is the undeniable fact that we are undergoing the process of witnessing.

[CaptainHaplo]

My how the subject has changed.... Still, a couple of notes...

First of all - yes, Christianity is a religion. If it wasn't, please tell all the Christian churches to give up their tax free status because they are religious entities....

Second, what is so often lost when it comes to issues of faith is that there is a huge difference between a religious belief system defined (and redefined) by men and a spiritual communion with Deity.

The thing is, Islamic "extremists" are those that take their belief system as literally as possible and do their very best to hold to it. The religious system itself is being followed by the extremists. Compare that to Christianity, where the "extremists" are those who choose simply do not choose to recognize or accept "sinful acts" of others, such as homosexuality. While both religious structures hold the acts as abominations, Islam calls for the execution of the homosexual, while Christianity has moderated from stoning the person to hating the action while loving the person. Where Islam calls for the killing of those who leave Islam, Christianity moved away from calling for death to the apostate. It is an interesting case study that "extremists" in one religion are the moderates in another, is it not?

As for asking how God could "allow" this or that, there are so many numerous theories on the why it would take months to discuss them all. Personally, I am at peace with the actions of God, and thus am not driven to question them beyond what I have already done. Still, I understand and respect that not everyone can have - or accept - the answer I have. Others will have different answers, and some will have no answer at all.

[Wolferz]

Nice analogy, Haplo.:up:

In a nutshell, religion and faith in a supreme being is in the mind of the beholder. Many people need it to stave off the depression and hopelessness that would be caused by the answer to the age old questions...
"Is this all there is?"
"Do we just cease to exist when we die?"

From scientific studies we know that there is more out there just waiting to be discovered. Much more.
The answer to question number two is far more elusive and won't be answered until we experience the death of these physical biological robots we run around in.

I'd like to think that I am much more than the sum of these atoms that this physical body is made of. That idea requires faith in something greater than scientific proof.
Everything about religion is a made up construct by men who were possibly mentally ill.
"If you talk to God you're religious"
"If God talks to you you're a nutter"

[Sailor Steve]

The thing is, Islamic "extremists" are those that take their belief system as literally as possible and do their very best to hold to it. The religious system itself is being followed by the extremists. Compare that to Christianity, where the "extremists" are those who choose simply do not choose to recognize or accept "sinful acts" of others, such as homosexuality. While both religious structures hold the acts as abominations, Islam calls for the execution of the homosexual, while Christianity has moderated from stoning the person to hating the action while loving the person. Where Islam calls for the killing of those who leave Islam, Christianity moved away from calling for death to the apostate. It is an interesting case study that "extremists" in one religion are the moderates in another, is it not?
While it's true that Christianity has mellowed with time, I have to wonder how much of that was voluntary and how much was due to the growing influence of the Enlightenment. Not claiming, merely wondering. I enjoy exploring the causes, though I know I'll never have a real answer. Did Christianity reform on its own or was it forced to by reasonable people objecting to religious squabling in the civilized world? Probably some of both, because there are reasonable people everywhere, and if they're not shouted down or intimidated by unreasonable people they do have an influence.

I'm reminded of what I was once told is an old Hindu saying: "No God should ever be judged by the sort of people who claim to worship him."

[Dread Knot]

Did Christianity reform on its own or was it forced to by reasonable people objecting to religious squabling in the civilized world? Probably some of both, because there are reasonable people everywhere, and if they're not shouted down or intimidated by unreasonable people they do have an influence.




Here lies one major concern I have regarding Islam. In contrast with the general historical awareness, even recognition of the manner in which the scriptures were gathered in Christianity, which made criticism of the texts possible, there seems to be little corresponding recognition in Islam. After all, it was a Roman emperor who ordered that an authoritative biblical text be put together. There was never a pristine original copy of the Bible to adhere to, and the essence of the faith was defined by synods and in creeds.

In the case of Islam, we have a sacred immovable text, so perfect and unamendable that only the original classical Arabic is considered valid for the practice of true Islam. (Which in turn has produced arguments regarding the perfection of classical Arabic.) This absolutism at the level of the Koran itself, is the key obstacle to the modernization of the faith as practiced and is what always threatens a return to its worst forms at any time.

I perceive it as sort of a 'Dale Carnegie' one-upsmanship, making its absolutism more influential and so taking it to the next and now impossible level. Perhaps it was a ploy at the time to make it more competitive with the well established Jewish and Christian faiths in the area. But its consequences are nasty.

[Skybird]

In the case of Islam, we have a sacred immovable text, so perfect and unamendable that only the original classical Arabic is considered valid for the practice of true Islam. (Which in turn has produced arguments regarding the perfection of classical Arabic.) This absolutism at the level of the Koran itself, is the key obstacle to the modernization of the faith as practiced and is what always threatens a return to its worst forms at any time.

I need to be hairsplitting here. There HAVE been various versions of the Quran circulating after Muhammad'S death,. local leaders payed a caste of scripture interpreter - in other words: bribed them - to interpret it in a menaing that was "helpful" for the rulers'S interest. From this, a fragmation of the transcripts of Muhammad's preachings took place, while the original copies once should have been given to Muhammad'S wife which can be doubted and indeed is discussed). Not before the second or third Caliph, the man ordered that the final version of the Quran should be extracted from these versions.

Later, with the implementation of a dramatic change in written Arabic that according to linguists has fundamentally changed the meaning of at least one quarter, more likely one half, possibly even three quarters of the words in written Arabic, it became even more difficult.

The Quran today may be whatever it is, but one thing it is not: authentic. The Arabic language it now exists in, did not exist at Muhammad's time. Of course, saying so is seen as heresy, and I have just earned myself another death sentence, I fear. To decide what the Quran indeed means or oroiginally wants to say, one must comparew it to the general biography of Muhammad and copare it to the ddeds and actions of the man. The Quran is not the word of God, but the words of Muhammad, who used the founding of his religion to silence opposition and increase influence. And Muhammad was anything but a peace-loving man of modesty. He was a war leader, bandit and conquerer. And the Quran reflects that mindset. And here I just earned myself another death sentence...

It's long ago that I learned all this stuff, details are escaping my memory, I fear. But in general what I wrote above is the essence. I explained all that in much more detail in much longer posts several years ago :D

The superstitious mindset of true Muslims of course does not worry for these self-contradictions, these and several others. Its all miracle done by Allah. Simplistic answers from simplistic minds. The standard recipe for dealing with criticism, is to call critics infidels and heretics, and kill them if they cannot be made to submit to Islam. Like this woman now.

[Armistead]

It's funny, I started posting videos on FB of the great debates, Hitchens, Dawkins, Krauss, Ehrman, etc. I was blasted by so many....Christians. They almost seemed shocked to find out many of these are held in divinity schools. Course, when you name the schools, of course they're liberal schools. I still remained shocked that people don't test what they believe against any source...

Boy, do I miss Hitchens, love or hate him, he was one of the best...

[Wolferz]

Nice explanation of Islam there Skybird.
One could also argue the same point about the Christian bible. From a Hebrew/Roman perspective of course. Texts dug out of some ancient tomb and Translated from the Greek language. Then selectively cherry picked by a bunch of old fossils who recognized the power it would afford them over the masses and proclaimed to be the words of God. Huh? What?
Convenient at the time.:hmmm:

[August]

Yet the bible is full of verses that proclaim Gods protection.

There are a lot of claims. You just have to ask yourself if you worship God or worship a book written by men.

Then there is the matter of what God is supposed to protect. Soul, life property or something else.

[CaptainHaplo]

Nice analogy, Haplo.:up:

In a nutshell, religion and faith in a supreme being is in the mind of the beholder. Many people need it to stave off the depression and hopelessness that would be caused by the answer to the age old questions...
"Is this all there is?"
"Do we just cease to exist when we die?"

From scientific studies we know that there is more out there just waiting to be discovered. Much more.
The answer to question number two is far more elusive and won't be answered until we experience the death of these physical biological robots we run around in.

Scientifically speaking, we do not cease to exist when we die. We are, if you break it down, more energy than we are matter. Energy - at least as we understand it - cannot be created or destroyed. It merely changes form. (See the Law of Conservation of Energy). Thus we will exist, though science can not say whether our consciousness will do so - simply because science has not been able to truly understand what consciousness IS.

[Sailor Steve]

Scientifically speaking, we do not cease to exist when we die. We are, if you break it down, more energy than we are matter. Energy - at least as we understand it - cannot be created or destroyed. It merely changes form. (See the Law of Conservation of Energy).
That's also true of a fire, the light from a lamp, or any other form of energy, or matter. The energy from the fire goes somewere else, as a different form of energy. That doesn't mean it's still a fire when it does so.

Thus we will exist, though science can not say whether our consciousness will do so - simply because science has not been able to truly understand what consciousness IS.
That is absolutely true, and that is the nature of all things scientific. On the other hand religious sources have claimed since the beginning of religious writing to know absolutely that there is a soul that is separate from the body, all without any evidence other than the claim that it is so.

It's easy to dismiss science for not having a particular answer, but claiming the existence of something because science can't disprove it borders on deception in the sleight-of-hand category. Science can't disprove the existence of a separate concsiousness, or soul. Science can't disprove the existence of God. Science also can't disprove the existence of Bertrand Russel's Cosmic Teapot, or, as I like to say, the existence of little blue bug-eyed men from Atlantis living in the oceans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

To summarize: Science has shown that energy changes form, but does not cease to exist. Science has also show that energy and matter are interchangeable, so that combining oxygen and certain materiels and applying an external energy source can cause combustion. Science has further shown that the matter consumed in the combustion takes on a different form of matter or energy.

What science has not shown is that any given part of the matter or energy continues on in the same state, or at least enough to support the claim that the matter or energy will continue to exist in the same state for all eternity. No, there is no proof that the consciousness or soul cannot continue on after death, but there is no reason at all to believe it will other than the desire for it to be so. Do people believe this because religious writings claim that God has revealed this to certain people and they wrote it down, or was it written down because people wanted to believe it?

I don't claim to have an answer, but those who do claim to have an answer don't believe in the existence of certain concepts because those concepts can't be disproven. They use the fact that they can't be disproven to support their beliefs. That is about as unscientific as one can get, not to mention unreasonable and irrational. And, to me anyway, a little dishonest.

[Armistead]

There are a lot of claims. You just have to ask yourself if you worship God or worship a book written by men.

Then there is the matter of what God is supposed to protect. Soul, life property or something else.

The bible has verses that cover all of those.... or we can wrap it all up in one..."Whatever ye ask"

I think most Christians accept that the bible is the final and only revelation to man to know how to worship God. Myself, I don' like the idea that all loving just beings have such an ego that they demand you worship them. Sounds more man made to me..

I still debate some in Christian forums. Right now debating Noah's flood. It's amazing the logic people can come up with to believe in such lore.

[Wolferz]

That's also true of a fire, the light from a lamp, or any other form of energy, or matter. The energy from the fire goes somewere else, as a different form of energy. That doesn't mean it's still a fire when it does so.


That is absolutely true, and that is the nature of all things scientific. On the other hand religious sources have claimed since the beginning of religious writing to know absolutely that there is a soul that is separate from the body, all without any evidence other than the claim that it is so.

It's easy to dismiss science for not having a particular answer, but claiming the existence of something because science can't disprove it borders on deception in the sleight-of-hand category. Science can't disprove the existence of a separate concsiousness, or soul. Science can't disprove the existence of God. Science also can't disprove the existence of Bertrand Russel's Cosmic Teapot, or, as I like to say, the existence of little blue bug-eyed men from Atlantis living in the oceans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

To summarize: Science has shown that energy changes form, but does not cease to exist. Science has also show that energy and matter are interchangeable, so that combining oxygen and certain materiels and applying an external energy source can cause combustion. Science has further shown that the matter consumed in the combustion takes on a different form of matter or energy.

What science has not shown is that any given part of the matter or energy continues on in the same state, or at least enough to support the claim that the matter or energy will continue to exist in the same state for all eternity. No, there is no proof that the consciousness or soul cannot continue on after death, but there is no reason at all to believe it will other than the desire for it to be so. Do people believe this because religious writings claim that God has revealed this to certain people and they wrote it down, or was it written down because people wanted to believe it?

I don't claim to have an answer, but those who do claim to have an answer don't believe in the existence of certain concepts because those concepts can't be disproven. They use the fact that they can't be disproven to support their beliefs. That is about as unscientific as one can get, not to mention unreasonable and irrational. And, to me anyway, a little dishonest.

"Praise the Lord and pass the collection plate" kind of sums up the dishonesty part. God has no need for money but his self proclaimed servants can't get along without it. They'll passionately tell people anything to boost the tithes. Most churches even put up a tote board as a means to make the parishioners feel guilty and give more.:-? Look at Jim and Tammy Faye Baker for the definition of religious con artists.

[u crank]

I used to say I believe there is a God and go from there. I now say, if there is a God and then discuss it. Since it can't/hasn't been proven either way I think, to me anyway, that it's a reasonable stance. And if there is a God I think he wouldn't expect any more than that in light of the proof he has given for His existence. He may have reasons...


Myself, I don' like the idea that all loving just beings have such an ego that they demand you worship them. Sounds more man made to me..


I agree. It does sound like what men want all the time. A far more likely thing that God would want is for man to try to understand his creation through logic and science and do his best to preserve, protect and improve it. Oh yea and that whole love thing to. :D

[Platapus]

back on topic, yes ... What that poor woman must be going through ... only God can give her the strength she needs to overcome her adversary.

Is there some reason why your god would not rescue her or prevent her execution?

[Mr Quatro]

Sudan on Thursday sentenced a 27-year-old mother to hang for apostasy when she refused to renounce her family and the Christian faith in which she was raised. She is also to receive 100 lashes for adultery beforehand


I'm glad all of you have it all figured out about how this poor ladies immediate problems of having faith in Jesus Christ as her Lord and savior is her real problem.

Most, but not all of you have debunked her faith and said in effect that she has no right to resist the Muslim/Islam practices of demanding she follow their god of Islam with the punishment of death for her sin against them.

Throwing rocks is all your doing ... All of you accept for maybe August would be let go if caught with a bible in their country.

[Mr Quatro]

Is there some reason why your god would not rescue her or prevent her execution?

because the promise of heaven is her reward ... Saints pray in heaven too you know :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

"Praise the Lord and pass the collection plate" kind of sums up the dishonesty part.
Actually I was talking about honesty and dishonesty in arguments. Not the same thing at all.

God has no need for money but his self proclaimed servants can't get along without it.
That's true of anyone. We can't survive without some kind of income, whether it be cash, credit or chickens. I can see the point of someone dedicated to "Serving the Lord" having that as his only work and being paid out of the generosity of the faithful. Jesus himself didn't have a job during his ministry, but relied on the help of his followers, including some women with money to spare. Does this make him a scammer? I don't see it that way, if the story is true at all.

They'll passionately tell people anything to boost the tithes.
Some will, yes, but certainly not all. In the past I was aquainted with several ministers who lived on what their followers gave, but were content to live minimally, using only what they needed and redistributing the rest. Billy Graham was well known for living modestly, setting up charitable organizations to use the rest to help people who needed it. As with anything in life, the bad ones make the headlines and people forget all the good ones. I've known some good ones in my time.

Most churches even put up a tote board as a means to make the parishioners feel guilty and give more.:-?
"Most"? I've never seen that. I'm sure it happens, but no church I attended back when ever did anything like that.

Look at Jim and Tammy Faye Baker for the definition of religious con artists.
Yes, but again they made the headlines because of their bad ways. You don't read about the thousands who truly believe what they're doing.

[Sailor Steve]

A far more likely thing that God would want is for man to try to understand his creation through logic and science and do his best to preserve, protect and improve it. Oh yea and that whole love thing to. :D
That's what the Deists of the Enlightenment era believed. God made the universe and blessed us with a brain to go and find out about it for ourselves. Many Christians accused Thomas Paine of Atheism because of his book The Age Of Reason, not reading enough of it to find the part where he proudly proclaims his Deism.

[Armistead]

I used to say I believe there is a God and go from there. I now say, if there is a God and then discuss it. Since it can't/hasn't been proven either way I think, to me anyway, that it's a reasonable stance. And if there is a God I think he wouldn't expect any more than that in light of the proof he has given for His existence. He may have reasons...



I agree. It does sound like what men want all the time. A far more likely thing that God would want is for man to try to understand his creation through logic and science and do his best to preserve, protect and improve it. Oh yea and that whole love thing to. :D

Well, my problem with believing in God is that you would think he would give us a clear revelation so we could know him. For me...religion gives NONE, other than some elements of good philosophy. People talk of how fine tuned the universe is, but is it? For the most part man lives in pain and suffering. I would think if God exist, then he would've gave us a clear just revelation....to all man, instead of first just one tribe. The revelation we have now has caused mankind more misery than anything, much to helpless children.

Maybe we were seeded by aliens, maybe there is God, maybe not. The best I can do is be sincere in trying and try to love others, but sadly that isn't enough for any of the religions...I also deplore the element of human sacrifice, something man did since his beginning to please the gods...Is Christ really different? Why should I be condemned by the actions of Adam and Eve and Christ condemned for my actions? The themes of religion are all the same, man is condemned for being human, fear, guilt, rewards, severe eternal punishments...

enough babbling...

[Sailor Steve]

I'm glad all of you have it all figured out about how this poor ladies immediate problems of having faith in Jesus Christ as her Lord and savior is her real problem.
You take everyone to task, but you misquote the Original Post. Feuer Frei said how wrong he thought it was, but you repost his link to the article and attribute the quote to him. The discussion has wandered, certainly, but can you show anyone who said that her faith is her real problem?

Most, but not all of you have debunked her faith and said in effect that she has no right to resist the Muslim/Islam practices of demanding she follow their god of Islam with the punishment of death for her sin against them.
People are arguing against faith in general, but you specifically accuse them of debunking her faith. And who specifically has said she has no right to resist the Muslims? Anyone?

Throwing rocks is all your doing ... All of you accept for maybe August would be let go if caught with a bible in their country.
Who specifically is throwing rocks, and at whom? Again, the discussion has been derailed into yet another "Faith vs Reason" argument, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the OP. Blame us for wandering off-topic all you want, but what you accuse us of has no basis at all except in your own mind.

[Cybermat47]

Although Islam is a violent religion, not all Muslims are violent. I once read a pamphlet from a Muslim that had a very peaceful message on it. And it wasn't 'Become a Muslim and we won't hurt you', it was 'We don't care what religion you are, we'll help you in times of need.'

[Armistead]

Although Islam is a violent religion, not all Muslims are violent. I once read a pamphlet from a Muslim that had a very peaceful message on it. And it wasn't 'Become a Muslim and we won't hurt you', it was 'We don't care what religion you are, we'll help you in times of need.'

Not all Muslims believe or do what the Koran teaches. However, that is really our best hope for Islam, how do we get it out of the dark ages like we did Christianity? The only way is secularism and science. Maybe in time. I honestly don't mind the placebo effect religion gives people if it's a good thing.

[u crank]

Well, my problem with believing in God is that you would think he would give us a clear revelation so we could know him.

I have struggle with this for a long time. I have no answers. The best that I can come up with is that God, if there is a God, is an intelligent, creative being with a free will. So are we. Approaching a relationship with this being by any of the man made religions that exist seems to me to be in opposition to those qualities. His and ours. Maybe in the future....

People talk of how fine tuned the universe is, but is it? For the most part man lives in pain and suffering.

I think there is a difference between a finely tuned universe and the lot of biological beings. We are frail beings in a violent universe.

I would think if God exist, then he would've gave us a clear just revelation....to all man, instead of first just one tribe.

That would seem like the right thing from our point of view.

The best I can do is be sincere in trying and try to love others, but sadly that isn't enough for any of the religions..

I stopped worrying about that a long time ago. You can't please them anyway so why try? I think that I am more tolerant of them than they would be of me. Who's right?

enough babbling...

Babbling is my second language.:O:

[CaptainHaplo]

@SailorSteve - I don't have any issue with the science, and I am not dismissing science in any way. We do not have any proof of what happens to the consciousness after death on this plane - be it cease to exist or go on to happy happy land or whatever else a person may believe. This is the key, because science can not currently answer that question. Thus, any belief of what "may" happen is as valid as the next for the person who chooses to believe it.

@Everyone
The key here is that a woman is to be hanged because of her choice of faith. While I will keep her in my prayers and have every confidence in the power of prayer, I am reminded that my God prefers more than just beseechment. Thus, emails and phone calls to your senators and representatives at the federal level to let them know they should pressure our state department on behalf of religious freedom - is a smart move. Even if you are an atheist. Religious freedom is for everyone, even those that choose to exercise their freedom to not have any.

[August]

because the promise of heaven is her reward ... Saints pray in heaven too you know :yep:

That's true. She could very possibly be canonized as a Saint if she remains true to her faith.

[TarJak]

Even if you are an atheist. Religious freedom is for everyone, even those that choose to exercise their freedom to not have any.Clearly not if you want to live in Sudan.

[Sailor Steve]

This is the key, because science can not currently answer that question. Thus, any belief of what "may" happen is as valid as the next for the person who chooses to believe it.
You are correct. No one knows anything about it, one way or the other, at all. Therefore no belief as to what "may" happen is valid, at all. My problem isn't with what people believe, or don't believe. That has nothing to do with anyone else but them. My problem is with people who talk as if their belief is fact, and anyone who doesn't believe as they do is either denying what they consider to be a fact or is just plain wrong. My problem has never been with what people believe, it's with people who claim to know. If you claim to know something to be true, then you should be able to prove it.

[August]

You are correct. No one knows anything about it, one way or the other, at all. Therefore no belief as to what "may" happen is valid, at all. My problem isn't with what people believe, or don't believe. That has nothing to do with anyone else but them. My problem is with people who talk as if their belief is fact, and anyone who doesn't believe as they do is either denying what they consider to be a fact or is just plain wrong. My problem has never been with what people believe, it's with people who claim to know. If you claim to know something to be true, then you should be able to prove it.

If someone really believes in something then they will hardly couch that belief in uncertain terms.

[Oberon]

And that is how wars begin. :03:

[banryu79]

YMy problem has never been with what people believe, it's with people who claim to know. If you claim to know something to be true, then you should be able to prove it.
Provable things are... by definitions... mesuarable. So we are speaking of mesuarable/reproducible, hence finite, things. We have worked out a good system know as science (as in scientific method) for that.

If God is infinite, it hardly would be also mesurable, lol :haha:

Our minds are limited, we are not onniscient (whatever that word means).
If we could comprehend God with our minds... well that wouldn't be God, lol again.

On the other side, if God clearly and unhambiguosly reveals itself to all humans beings (why not to the animals, they too are living, sensibe beings, or not?) I could no longer have a faith because I will be force to aknowledge that as a fact. I could no loger say: "I didn't belive in god existence" or: "I'm an atheist"... That would be nonsense, lol.

Worst of all, God will became a fact/phenomenon a part of what we call universe. How could it be infinite? In which sense? Mmm... is it lying to me about the fact that it is God? Does it... does it actually have an agenda? Heek! You know what? I don't want such a god as my God. lol.

Btw you know what? God or not life still goes on, god or not I still experience suffer and joy, I still can hate or love I still can choose to do horrible things (to myself or/and to others) and make poor excuses to justify myself or try hard to be a man... better, to be a good human being.

[CaptainHaplo]

My problem has never been with what people believe, it's with people who claim to know. If you claim to know something to be true, then you should be able to prove it.

That depends. I know what my relationship with the Almighty has taught me. However, personal experience that is "proof" to me can be mere happenstance to you. That doesn't make my knowledge any less valid - to me. But because we are talking a personal belief/view - there is no way that I can expect you to accept my facts, since you didn't "live" them. This is where many so called Christians go wrong - they can not see that what is a personal fact means little to nothing to someone else.

I know what I know.
You know what you know.
Neither of us knows everything.

So I am fine with you accepting things as fact or not based on your own criteria. I don't believe science can prove God, though it can be used to indicate the existence of God. God, being infinite, can not be measured, therefore I don't see God as ever being "provable" to science. That is why any belief in a "higher power" is based on faith. Faith is what makes a belief into fact - though it only does so for the person who believes. To many try to claim personal facts as global facts, and thus browbeat others into their way of religious thinking.

Do I know God exists? Yes. But that is a personal fact - because I can't prove it to anyone. I can relate my reasons for believing it is fact, but unless you have your own reasons to believe, you won't see it as fact. I understand that. Too many who attempt to convert others don't get that. We can share the "good news" - but we aren't supposed to try and force you to believe it. Something Islam should also learn.

Back to the original topic - has anyone contacted their federal level politicians on this?

[Skybird]

Although Islam is a violent religion, not all Muslims are violent. I once read a pamphlet from a Muslim that had a very peaceful message on it. And it wasn't 'Become a Muslim and we won't hurt you', it was 'We don't care what religion you are, we'll help you in times of need.'
Ask him, next time you see him, whether he would agree to rewrite the Quran and reform it so that it corresponds with this attitude and has all written passages claiming the opposite being deleted. ;) I predict you will be negativily surprised. Grab him tightly and don't let go, for he will weazel like crazy.

The Quran is the deciding criterion whether or not you can call somebody - correctly - a Muslim. Like you cannot be called Buddhist without following Buddha, or Christian when not folloiwng the teahcking of Christ.

And if all thios were just "menaingless" words, as some claim, then I wonder why so many people in the world so bitterly fight over and for these meaningless word collections, if they mean so little.

If labels like Christian, Muhammeddan, Buddhist should have any meaning, then there must be clear criterions for what these terms mean in qualities, and what not. Arbitrarily attributing to them what in a debate opportunistically just helps to win in an argument, is not helpful. But that is what especially Muslims very often do. Since "Muslim" is no genetical trait anbd nothing about ethnciity or race, only ideology remains to decide what is Muslim and what not. And on the ideology, the Quran is what decides the definition.

You cannot violate basic content of the Quran - and at the same time insist you are "Muslim". You cannot reject the sermon on the mountain or other teachings by the Christ and claim you are Christian nevertheless.

So that Muslim you mention, the one with the pamphlet - either he is a real Muslim, then he must obey the Quran (which means his pamphlet is a lie), or he does not obey the Quran (like that pamphlet is in opposition to demands expressed in the Quran), then he is no Muslim, but a Muslim who claims to be Muslim while in fact he is not. If the latter, only confronting him with this self contradiction can help him to ever see the need to rethink himself.

To many well-meaning idiots in the West want to save Muslims from confronting them with their self-contradictions (like the above). But nothing good is to be gained by easing this pressure, because then indeed they have no motivation whatever to ever change and think about themselves and reform themselves - why should they, if the world adapts to them, instead of them needing to adapt to the world?

Islam has always been spared from this confrontation, or was strong enough to fight down any such attempts, may it be in form of foreign powers, may it be in form of own internal sects. And that is why it still is stuck with its head in the azz of history one and a half millenia deep. 1500 years of stagnation and non-evolution. Congratulations!

[Skybird]

That depends. I know what my relationship with the Almighty has taught me. However, personal experience that is "proof" to me can be mere happenstance to you. That doesn't make my knowledge any less valid - to me. But because we are talking a personal belief/view - there is no way that I can expect you to accept my facts, since you didn't "live" them. This is where many so called Christians go wrong - they can not see that what is a personal fact means little to nothing to someone else.

I know what I know.
You know what you know.
Neither of us knows everything.

So I am fine with you accepting things as fact or not based on your own criteria. I don't believe science can prove God, though it can be used to indicate the existence of God. God, being infinite, can not be measured, therefore I don't see God as ever being "provable" to science. (I know, many scientists do right that, claiming to have found the ultimate "facts", but the science business is a business and is much about career and money and prestige and so got corrupted like so many other originally good things today as well). That is why any belief in a "higher power" is based on faith. Faith is what makes a belief into fact - though it only does so for the person who believes. To many try to claim personal facts as global facts, and thus browbeat others into their way of religious thinking.

Do I know God exists? Yes. But that is a personal fact - because I can't prove it to anyone. I can relate my reasons for believing it is fact, but unless you have your own reasons to believe, you won't see it as fact. I understand that. Too many who attempt to convert others don't get that. We can share the "good news" - but we aren't supposed to try and force you to believe it. Something Islam should also learn.




:dead:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QAcyh0zJHzY/Te0Dlvxv1HI/AAAAAAAAAoM/gO8mCQSVFL4/s400/Running-around-in-circles.jpg

The simple fact is you know nothing. And that you mistake belief with knowledge. And that you want to have belief being lifted to the same level of authority and respectability, as knowledge.

In other words: the corruption of knowledge.

Science, if followed by its real meaning and run in a serious manner, will NEVER claim to have found the ultimate, the final, the utmost "truth". Science knows that it creates artificial orders, thought out by man, in which the objects of its observations get arranged according to man's will, in a way that they make most possible sense to man at the given time, allowing him to make his course-plotting through life and universe easier. These theories change, necessarily, therefore. It's always religions who claim to possess the final, the total, the absolute truth - and never giving any hint or evidence for that claim.

Believing is not knowing. You can avoid that as much as you want, it remains to be true. Usually I would not care at all, if only you would not discredit reason and knowledge by your queer distorting of terms.

[Wolferz]

Have the evil Muslims offed this lady yet? They might be timid about making her a martyr. It might be counter productive to their convert or die message.:-?

Besides, what will they do after wiping out all the infidels?...
Go back to killing their own of course.:haha:

[Skybird]

Have the evil Muslims offed this lady yet? They might be timid about making her a martyr. It might be counter productive to their convert or die message.:-?

Besides, what will they do after wiping out all the infidels?...
Go back to killing their own of course.:haha:
Peace under the flag of Islam means there cannot be peace as long as beside the House of Islam there is the still existing the House of War, which means any infidel place not converted to Islam. The mere existence of anything not Islamic is a provocation and an unforgiving offence to Allah and islam. Overwhelming it and either make it converting, or wiping it out, is divine obligation for every male Muslims (there is no free choice of conscience in that for male Muslims). Muslims not agreeing with that and showing more tolerance for sure - are heretics and/or apostates, they either u-turn, or are to be killed. There are no lasting peace deals to be made, Muhammad ordered, demanding only short lasting peace deals to be made, for there should only be cease fires lasting as long as is needed to "regroup" and form up the power to crush the infidel by breeding a new generation of warriors. The role of the Muslim male is to fight in this jihad, the role of Muslim women is to breed and give birth to more warriors. The first are cannon fodder, the latter are life stock.

Nazi Germany had the same role models for males and females.

[TarJak]

That's true. She could very possibly be canonized as a Saint if she remains true to her faith.
Fat lot of good that will do her. Unless of course you believe she will gain some sort of advantage in a place where nothing ever happens.

[Dread Knot]

Fat lot of good that will do her. Unless of course you believe she will gain some sort of advantage in a place where nothing ever happens.


They have put a 2 year stay on the execution so she can give birth and bring up the baby before they kill her.

I imagine in a hardline Islamic court this is what passes for leniency. :dead:

[Jimbuna]

They have put a 2 year stay on the execution so she can give birth and bring up the baby before they kill her.

I imagine in a hardline Islamic court this is what passes for leniency. :dead:

Chances are a new government and a different interpretation on the offence will come about before then...I certainly hope so for her sake.

[Betonov]

They're sweating her into submission.
She gives birth, becomes attached to the child, converts to avoid loosing him/her.
A mothers bond to her child is more powerful than a deity.

[Skybird]

There was a law case her ein Germany some time ago. I only flew over the news occasionally. It was about a young Muslim woman, 18 or 19, who had been seriously beaten up and raped by her "friend". State attorney sued the perpetrator. Girld said she would report before the court what happened. During the court sessions, on the day the was about to give her witness report, the girl suddenly surprised everybody by saying that the two one day ago got married, and that she now claims the right to not confess to the disadvantage of her newly appointed husband.

The deal was arranged by one of these freaking damn freedom judges that Islam knows, and that get tolerated in Germany although they bypass the legal system, hinder police work and victim protection, erode the law and the authority of courts and law enforcment, and help to entrench the parallel society of non-integrating Muslim colonists even deeper.

Praised be Allah, that the girl "voluntarily" saw her misdeed and regretted it, for man may deceive man, but the greatest deceiver of all is Allah! :yeah: Hallelujah!

[mapuc]

You are right most Muslim don't really live by their book Quran

They are or should I say they do have great fear of their Imam

The power an Imam has on his group is huge, you will not find any Muslim, moderate or radical, that would either ignore or answer back in a bad manner to an Imam when he is giving a Muslim an order or whatever it may be.

The same power had our own priest many decades ago. I know this from my Grandma who told me when I was teen, how her mom(Don't know what she is to me) it was with respect and fear when you met your local priest....today.....


Markus

[Wolferz]

The power of the holy men exposed. :roll:

I'll do my worshiping without their help thank you very much.:-?

[Mr Quatro]

Chances are a new government and a different interpretation on the offence will come about before then...I certainly hope so for her sake.

even though this article from the state department is nine (9) years old it should help us understand the plight this poor lady is going through:

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41731.htm


Saudi Arabia is a monarchy without elected representative institutions or political parties. King Fahd bin Abd Al-Aziz Al Saud suffered a stroke in 1995, and Crown Prince Abdullah has been the de facto ruler since that time. As custodian of Islam's two holiest sites in Mecca and Medina, the Government bases its legitimacy on governance according to Islamic law (Shari'a). The Basic Law sets out the system of government, rights of citizens, powers, and duties of the State, and provides that the Koran and the Traditions (Sunna) of the Prophet Muhammad are the country's Constitution. Neither the Government nor Saudi society, in general, accepts the concept of separation of religion and state. The King serves as Prime Minister and appoints the crown prince. The Crown Prince is First Deputy Prime Minister and heir apparent. The appointed Majlis al-Shura debates, rejects, and amends government-proposed legislation, questions some government officials, and has the power to initiate legislation. The Basic Law provides for an independent judiciary; however, some members of the royal family are not required to appear before the courts, and they and their associates have influenced judges.

[Wolferz]

Fat lot of good that will do her. Unless of course you believe she will gain some sort of advantage in a place where nothing ever happens.

They might want to rethink their position or risk finding 72 frigid virgins when they arrive in paradise after blowing themselves up.
Girls talk you know.:haha:

[August]

Fat lot of good that will do her. Unless of course you believe she will gain some sort of advantage in a place where nothing ever happens.


How do you know what happens or doesn't?

[Mr Quatro]

Well even though my state department article above was nine (9) years old it seems that Crown Prince Abdullah is still in charge.
He's just going on vacation for a while.

I hope he's not flying in his personal Boeing triple 777 :o

http://www.alriyadh.com/en/article/937386/Royal-Order-Deputizes-Crown-Prince-to-Administer-the-States-Affairs (http://www.alriyadh.com/en/article/937386/Royal-Order-Deputizes-Crown-Prince-to-Administer-the-States-Affairs)


Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, King of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
deputized His Royal Highness, the brother, Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, the Crown Prince to administer the affairs of the State and take care of the interests of the people during our absence outside the Kingdom.'

[TarJak]

How do you know what happens or doesn't?
Other than the descriptions that religions provide, and David Byrne, it's fairly logical that a place where you live forever in a permanent state of bliss with no risk attached to that existence would mean nothing much could be going on.


That and when you die, that's it. You're dead.

[August]

Other than the descriptions that religions provide, and David Byrne, it's fairly logical that a place where you live forever in a permanent state of bliss with no risk attached to that existence would mean nothing much could be going on.


That and when you die, that's it. You're dead.

Well I dunno about you but I have no problem being blissful when I do things, especially things that I find heavenly.

My point however is that for something you claim to know nothing about and don't believe in why do you take such stock in what others have described heaven to be like?

[TarJak]

I don't. My last paragraph is evidence of that. Along with the laws of entropy.

[Platapus]

That depends. I know what my relationship with the Almighty has taught me. However, personal experience that is "proof" to me can be mere happenstance to you. That doesn't make my knowledge any less valid - to me. But because we are talking a personal belief/view - there is no way that I can expect you to accept my facts, since you didn't "live" them. This is where many so called Christians go wrong - they can not see that what is a personal fact means little to nothing to someone else.


This was a disturbingly sensible reply. Had to double check to make sure I was still in GT. :salute:

[Armistead]

Like now I'm debating Genesis and Noah's flood. I was stating how several civilizations existed before and during the flood years and how they have a written recorded history during the exact time of the flood. In fact, most of these civilizations thrived during the so called flood period and none make mention of a flood. I used China as an example, giving mass evidence of their rich recorded history before, during and after the flood. Here's the response I got.

"The Chinese race came about *after* the flood. To say otherwise is to say that the Bible does not see the Chinese as being human. For, the flood was designed to destroy all mankind. All but but eight.

What are you thinking? You like getting attention by saying something controversial and different? Life is not boring when God has His way with you. You seem to think along the lines of having an anti-boredom sentiment. You may stir up the pot for a moment. But, what you throw in also makes it inedible."

Course, I pointed out more evidence, including a list of ancient structures still standing today perfectly that existed before the flood, no matter, I'm a heretic.

Faith can simply make average smart people totally stupid. That should scare us all...

[CaptainHaplo]

:dead:

The simple fact is you know nothing. And that you mistake belief with knowledge. And that you want to have belief being lifted to the same level of authority and respectability, as knowledge.

In other words: the corruption of knowledge.

Science, if followed by its real meaning and run in a serious manner, will NEVER claim to have found the ultimate, the final, the utmost "truth". Science knows that it creates artificial orders, thought out by man, in which the objects of its observations get arranged according to man's will, in a way that they make most possible sense to man at the given time, allowing him to make his course-plotting through life and universe easier. These theories change, necessarily, therefore. It's always religions who claim to possess the final, the total, the absolute truth - and never giving any hint or evidence for that claim.

Believing is not knowing. You can avoid that as much as you want, it remains to be true. Usually I would not care at all, if only you would not discredit reason and knowledge by your queer distorting of terms.

Skybird,

Do molecules factually exist? Atoms? Electrons, Protons and Neutrons? Is it fact that australopithecine existed? If you have never seen a molecule, an atom, or the remains of an australopithecine, how do you "know" that they exist? Or are you simply taking the word of some other people that they do?

For that matter, how do you "know" I exist, or you? I know I exist, but I can not "prove" you exist unless we were to meet face to face - a personal experience. Even if we were to do so, we could not prove to Sailor Steve that we both exist, unless he has met both of us in person. Sometimes knowledge and facts are personal in nature.

Does asthma exist? I don't have it - and thus never having experienced it, must take on belief that it is a real issue for some people. I am told by medical professionals that it exists, but the causes and effects are things I know as "fact" merely from an outside perspective. Using your definition, "true" science would require me to doubt the existence of asthma because I have not experienced it nor have I sufficient external proof to claim it is "factual".

So perhaps its about how much of "science" says something is real? If the debate on something is over - then it should be accepted blindly? Kind of like global warming (when we haven't had an increase in temps for 15 years), or maybe like the "fact" that the earth was supposed to be flat?

I am fine with people applying doubt and skepticism to things. But calling a personal fact a "corruption of knowledge" just doesn't wash, unless you want to say everything that you have not experienced is all hogwash. After all, its just other people telling you what is and what is not...... Same as the priests do....

Its ok to not believe another person's facts. But just because you don't believe them doesn't mean you have the right to deny they exist. If you think you do, go start stamping out asthma, or fibromyalgia, or the claims that electrons exist, or whatever else you find that you have not personally experienced proof of.....

[Armistead]

Skybird,



For that matter, how do you "know" I exist, or you? I know I exist, but I can not "prove" you exist unless we were to meet face to face - a personal experience. Even if we were to do so, we could not prove to Sailor Steve that we both exist, unless he has met both of us in person. Sometimes knowledge and facts are personal in nature.




Seriously....worse argument I've ever heard about science. We do indeed know someone is writing.

[Flamebatter90]

Fact, noun

a thing that is known or proved to be true.

synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude;

[banryu79]

Skybird,

Do molecules factually exist? Atoms? Electrons, Protons and Neutrons? Is it fact that australopithecine existed? If you have never seen a molecule, an atom, or the remains of an australopithecine, how do you "know" that they exist? Or are you simply taking the word of some other people that they do?

For that matter, how do you "know" I exist, or you? I know I exist, but I can not "prove" you exist unless we were to meet face to face - a personal experience. Even if we were to do so, we could not prove to Sailor Steve that we both exist, unless he has met both of us in person. Sometimes knowledge and facts are personal in nature.

Does asthma exist? I don't have it - and thus never having experienced it, must take on belief that it is a real issue for some people. I am told by medical professionals that it exists, but the causes and effects are things I know as "fact" merely from an outside perspective. Using your definition, "true" science would require me to doubt the existence of asthma because I have not experienced it nor have I sufficient external proof to claim it is "factual".

So perhaps its about how much of "science" says something is real? If the debate on something is over - then it should be accepted blindly? Kind of like global warming (when we haven't had an increase in temps for 15 years), or maybe like the "fact" that the earth was supposed to be flat?

I am fine with people applying doubt and skepticism to things. But calling a personal fact a "corruption of knowledge" just doesn't wash, unless you want to say everything that you have not experienced is all hogwash. After all, its just other people telling you what is and what is not...... Same as the priests do....

Its ok to not believe another person's facts. But just because you don't believe them doesn't mean you have the right to deny they exist. If you think you do, go start stamping out asthma, or fibromyalgia, or the claims that electrons exist, or whatever else you find that you have not personally experienced proof of.....
[Warning: rant mode on]

1) Science, is a method.
2) Experiments, a part of the scientific method, are based on reproducibility.

Science does not define or describe reality: science produce models (theories).
This models are always temporary in nature: they are valid till some experiments can prove they are not longer valid.
The beautiful thing about the scientific method is that IS NOT PERSONAL: no matter who does the experiment, the same results are produced. This thing alone enable us to share and understand a given model without the need to agree on anything personal each other. This, imo, has been a huge conquest.

Science is just a tool to measure what we call *reality*, an instrument that we use to produce MODELS to predict outcomes (to know, to a certain degree how things work as mechanisms) of this *reality*. Let's say the *external reality*, to me more esplicit.

In this regard, the scientific method has been very successful, better than wathever religion system we used in the past (and, I bet, in present and future) for the same scope. This means religion is useless? That science is all we need? Not at all, obviously. But it means we should stop to make unneccessary confusion about the two.

[Skybird]

Skybird,

Do molecules factually exist? Atoms? Electrons, Protons and Neutrons? Is it fact that australopithecine existed? If you have never seen a molecule, an atom, or the remains of an australopithecine, how do you "know" that they exist? Or are you simply taking the word of some other people that they do?
I'm free to learn how to handle complex scientific examination machines and check them tiny little bits and chips out like others did before me. The terms you used mean models, theories, btw. And as such the concepots constantly have been refined. The difference between a scinetific theory and a relgious claim is thzgat the first can be made an object of exmaination and research, the second not. But you insist the second to be a fact - your fact, your personal fact. But there ain't no such things such as "personal facts". There are facts which then can object for excmaination TO ALL AND EVERYONE, or absence of facts. For a schoizophrenic patient, the voice in his head is real. Still, the only thing that is real here, is the fact that thgere is a delusion. The phenomenon of that delusion itself exists, the patient "hears" that voice for sure, but what it shows, is unreal.

You mix subjectivity and objectivity. Facts are objective always, or they are not facts. There are no "subjective facts". Subjective only are: interpretations. And interpretations themselves again can be made object of examination to check whether they make sense or not.


For that matter, how do you "know" I exist, or you? I know I exist, but I can not "prove" you exist unless we were to meet face to face - a personal experience. Even if we were to do so, we could not prove to Sailor Steve that we both exist, unless he has met both of us in person. Sometimes knowledge and facts are personal in nature.
Indeed many people on the internet claim to be somebody else than they are. ;)

But you fight empoty air again there. It does not matter, for the sake of your argument'S focus, whether we talk over the wire or watch each other in the eye. What reaches our brains is the inpout of stim,ul.i from our perception organs only. I have often said that the world is not what our senses allow us to see it like. We do not prove its shape and form and essence by just perceiving it - by that we only prove that our senses work the way they have been designed in the cause of evolution. And they formed that way becasue that way proved to allow us to orientate oursaelves in this world around us, no matter how that world really is. The veil of Maya still deceives all. Our eyes are not precise enough an optical instrument to project sharp images onto our retina, the picture indeed is unclear, like if you are missing 4-5 dioptrines and wera no glasses. Still the brain sharpens the image, in other words: it interpretes the input from the optical nerves. How can it do that if it never has had a blueprint as a standard by which to judge what clear, sharp image quality means?


Does asthma exist? I don't have it - and thus never having experienced it, must take on belief that it is a real issue for some people. I am told by medical professionals that it exists, but the causes and effects are things I know as "fact" merely from an outside perspective. Using your definition, "true" science would require me to doubt the existence of asthma because I have not experienced it nor have I sufficient external proof to claim it is "factual".
True science would require you to retest the claims science makes about asthma existing, its causes and therapies. And that is what science does. ;)


So perhaps its about how much of "science" says something is real? If the debate on something is over - then it should be accepted blindly? Kind of like global warming (when we haven't had an increase in temps for 15 years), or maybe like the "fact" that the earth was supposed to be flat?
How often must I tell you once again that serious science NEVER would claim ultimate, total, absolute, final truths - that that is against nature and essence of science. Every serious scientist knows that the mere presence of an observer already has an effect of the subject or matter he observes. With the scientific philosophers emerging from quantum physics, that became clear at the latest. Today'S sience business unfortunately to wide degrees has flalen victim to opporutnistic bribery and corruption, and peop,e think about how to serve their careers and reputation, and how to secure more money, and publish more articles. Quality is suffering due to that, and politically wanted stuff gets squeezed into "scientific" work, which is especially true for climate science, since here science is meant to serve as a propagandistic argument for wanted monetary redistribution in the world (IPCC), and immense subsidies for industries promising jobs and generating profits (German "Energiewende"). Science in many areas is in a pitiful state, I could also list pseudoisicences like social sciences or psychology, not to mention fake brtaqnches like genderism which is about pure ideological indoctrination. Still: the meaning and criteria for what is meant by and qualifies as scientific methodology, remains unchanged. You complain about its massive abuse only. And regarding global warming, you again simplify yourself while you attack them to do so. But the issue is more complex, and the focus should be on other aspects of it anyway. And may key factors of it get completely ignored, while those beign poicked out more and more serve as excuses for huge social engineering and brainwashing experiments.


I am fine with people applying doubt and skepticism to things. But calling a personal fact a "corruption of knowledge" just doesn't wash, unless you want to say everything that you have not experienced is all hogwash. After all, its just other people telling you what is and what is not...... Same as the priests do....
There is no such thing as "personal fact". That is a lousy excuse only by which you want to deceive others over your attempt to sell the object of your interpretation as a fact of reality "as is". You could as well claim thnat the city a fata morgana shows you is real, because you call it a a "personal fact". Maybe you indeed are schizophrenic and hear God's voice in your head, but still it would not be a fact of reality that there is a God who speaks to people isnide their heads. [/quote]


Its ok to not believe another person's facts. But just because you don't believe them doesn't mean you have the right to deny they exist. If you think you do, go start stamping out asthma, or fibromyalgia, or the claims that electrons exist, or whatever else you find that you have not personally experienced proof of.....
The right to claim they do not exist, I have for sure, whether it would be reasonable to do so, is something different.
Asthma, electrons, fibromyalgia all could be made objects of my examination, if I wish that and invest the time and resources, or I trust in the good work of others before me and read what they had to say about their examinations of these things. Your claim that you hear a deity talking to you or that it is out there, cannot be made an object of testing. It's just in your head, and that might be a too vivid fantasy, or lacking education, or schizophrenia - I don't know, or in your own words: I cannot even know whether you really exist, maybe you are only an object of my own creative imagination, and I made you the way you "are" just to entertain myself in this ongoing dialogue that I write all by myself?

The point is just this, and I have said this many times in varying formulations. The world is what it is, no matter whether we perceive and understand it in full or not. It is. If now you claim there is a quality who wqant to add to it in explanation, like a divine creatur and eye in the sky watching your precious fate, then you either prove cour claim to show that you are right, becasue the burden of evidence undinably is on you (you add something to the world, not me), or you better keep your idea to yourself else you risk of being seen as person suffering from hallucinations. Not what you believe is what has brought me into arms onc e again, or lead to your exchange with Steve. Your claim of it being real like the table I sit at, while avoiding objection by declaring it a restricted part of reality that only is open for you to access - that is what this all is about.

There ain't no such things like personal (=subjective) facts. There only are personal (=subjective) interpretations, which can make sense, or not. Call your belief your way to interpret the meaning of your life, and I tock the box, leave you alone, and we both live our life. But call the object of your faith a fact, and I will demand you to prove it.

On the existence of gods, I think in probabilities. And the probability for deities existing is so extremely small that I do not care to seriously take it into account anymore (nor do I see any need to assume they exist, nor would I argue it is desirable deities would exist). I do not say God does not exist. I say it is absurdly unlikely that God exist. More certainty scientific methodology does not allow, than weighing probabilities. All human experience is empiry in action. And as long as we do not stretch ourselves to embrace all universe, we always necessarily base on not the totality of events taking place, but only a tiny sample. Which leads us to comparing null and alternative hypothesises, sometimes with SPSS, but mostly by handsight. :know:

[Mr Quatro]

I don' know why I was all mad at Saudi Arabia, guess I read it too quick.

This article plainly says that it is Sudan: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/23/husband-christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-for-faith-says-wont-convert/ (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/23/husband-christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-for-faith-says-wont-convert/)

Along with other tag words like her husband is an American citizen. Sounds like they are looking for retribution money from Christian ministries to me :yep:

after which money has been paid they will drop the case. This is becoming normal in countries like Malaysia for example. Blackmail is all it is.


An American citizen whose pregnant wife has been sentenced to death in Sudan for refusing to renounce her Christian faith told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren Friday that his wife is staying strong in her convictions despite her ordeal.
Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, 27, whose Christian husband Daniel Wani holds American citizenship, has been held in a Sudanese prison along with her 20-month old son for more than three months.

[Tribesman]

Well this topic has taken many turns.
Time for another turn perhaps?
Definition of marriage.
Since this all appears to start off from an accusation of adultery by some upset relative did the marriage break some local traditional marriage norms in regards to families trading women as commodities.
Does it all stem from one disgruntled man feeling that he had not got enough goats in exchange for his relative under his definition of marriage?

As for some of the other stuff raised.
Apostacy? the punishment shall be given in the afterlife according to their scripture, so the "muslims" seem to be getting that legal issue completely arseways again.
I notice a few mentions of the word "infidel". That is of course a Christian word. In an Islamic context that word cannot be applied to Christians or Jews as they like Muslims are people of the book. Since this woman is alledgedly a Christian she cannot be an infidel.

[Jimbuna]

Back OT:

She has given birth to a girl. A great opportunity for the Sudanese government to show clemency....I hope.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-27586067

[Skybird]

The most superior civilization has shone again.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27593504

Primitives Dreckspack. :down:

[banryu79]

The most superior civilization has shone again.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27593504

Primitives Dreckspack. :down:
I want to comment my feelings just on this sentence (from the link you posted):


A Pakistani woman has been killed by her relatives outside Lahore High Court for marrying against their wishes.
The bolden part above is what strikes me so bad.
Not the official motivation of the killing, but the identities of the killers.
It is just so... wrong.

It tells me something very wrong was going on there. I wonder if it is the result of a cultural/educational process, and if yes I wonder about how much this aspect factors in VS personal conscience and choice. And how much the group psychology factors in.

These kind of stories make me think about how life in general could be for these women, even the ones that are not killed, I means given the kind of mindset and disposition shown by her (male) relatives...

I stongly hope the social/familiar background for the majority of these women is better that the one I perceive from the news...

[Skybird]

Young women get abused, beaten and pressed into enforced marriages here in Germany frequently in Islamic parallel societies, unfortunately. Sometimes they even get murdered. The family then tells the police that it as their youngest son, sometimes still a teen, because they calculate for youth law giving easier penalties.

Young men also fall victim to this, just that usually they do not get killed, but enforced marriage is at their cost quite often, too. The poatriarchalic structure in their families is such that they mostly cannot stand the pressure from father's commands.

Germany, 21. century. Happens in England, Holland, Sweden, France, and hell knows where else every day.

Beside Sharia law, it is this pathologic family structures that needs to be broken up and fought against. Patriarchalism, and the climate of massive, superstitiously refined sexual suppression and sexual frustration. What the Islamic world massively needs is a sexual revolution. And that does not mean some more hysteria about gay rights and women quota, but the liberalization of relkations between male and female. But that is a frontal attack on Islam'S methods to secure its communal power and control, so figure the chances. Any tyrant knowing his stuff knows that to secure his power he must destroy the natural bonds and loyalties of natural families, and replace them with communal control, like enforcing the gender schemes of ruling males and obedient females. Their shall be no loving equality between both, it is a threat to Islam's claim for power and control.

But over here they try to boost public and official tolerance for parallel justice done by Sharia law. Meanwhile, police officers with migrant background have repeatedly said in newspaper interviews that as migrants they are seen even more as hostiles by their cultural peer groups, then German officers, because their people see them as traitors. The police has given up: the Germans for resignationb, the migrants for fear of their health and the wellbeing of their families. Politicians ignore the problem, demand more tolerance for foreign justice traditions and replace unwanted details of reality with ideology depticting a vision of an infantile paradise.

[Jimbuna]

Coincidentally, this is the latest initiative in my area:

Tackling Forced Marriage in the North East

20 May 2014

http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/news-story/tackling-forced-marriage-north-east

[Mr Quatro]

Coincidentally, this is the latest initiative in my area:

Tackling Forced Marriage in the North East

20 May 2014

http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/news-story/tackling-forced-marriage-north-east

Coincidentally?

I haven't heard that word before so I had to look it up:

Coincidentally | Define Coincidentally at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coincidentally)

dictionary.reference.com/browse/coincidentally
adjective 1. happening by or resulting from coincidence ; by chance: a coincidental meeting.
2. existing or occurring at the same time. Origin: 1790–1800 ...

[TarJak]

Forced and arranged marriage is not restricted to Islamic culture. There are numerous cases here of out occurring in Hindu, Sikh and also Chinese families. Even more so in India and China.

[banryu79]

Forced and arranged marriage is not restricted to Islamic culture. There are numerous cases here of out occurring in Hindu, Sikh and also Chinese families. Even more so in India and China.
Yes, even here in my country, Italy, we have cases of forced marriage occurring well outside islamic cuture, as the ones you cited above. I'm trying to inform mysef better on this, it is the best thing I can done atm (and I think it is a very good thing everybody can do VS nothing).

I found an offical document from my governament (I looked in the gov site) about the matter and it ooks like the most neglected thing ATM about forced marriage is that most people doesn't even know of it. Even association (here in Italy) that helps women victims of violence only recently started to recognize that forced marriage is one potential cause behind many violence stories.

I also learnt from that document that the "Tackling Forced Marriage in the North East" that Jimbuna spoke about is currently the most "active thing" done in Europe in general to tackle the problem (even if in a local area, ATM).

I think that it would be a very positive thing if the general public will know of this phenomenon, I hope somebody coud be intrested to produce a good movie based on one of the real stories I red: they showed that the phenomenon is very complex, it has got many faces and aspects and is not a simple and easy thing to manage.

[Skybird]

And there are Mafia assassination not just in Sicily as well. Pointing that out proves - what point exactly? That the Mafia in Sicily is more harmless?

[Tribesman]

And there are Mafia assassination not just in Sicily as well. Pointing that out proves - what point exactly? That the Mafia in Sicily is more harmless?
It proves that if someone was saying "its a mafia thing" they are dealing in half truths, which means their arguement is dishonest.:yep:
Though what strikes me as really dishonest is your objections to the distasteful practice in these societies.
If by some miracle you get through with your global genocide dream to achieve your strange "utopian" ideal of patriachal feudalism with its program of eugenics based breeding would forced marriage be the societies norm and would the genocidal regime maintain its ideals by corrective punishment on those who refused to adhere to its ideal... you know like removing them permanently from society?:hmmm:
Logic would suggest that this must be the case, which means that due to your ideology you are the last person who can condemn these barbaric practices as you yourself are an advocate of such measures:oops:

Once again your own words come back and bite you in the posterior.

The most superior civilization has shone again.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27593504
That's an interesting one.
The brides family agreed to the marriage, they agreed to the price.
After two years engagement the marriage went ahead but the brides family insisted on doubling the price.
When they didn't get the extra money they removed the goods from the purchaser.
I suppose soiled goods have little resale value and are just unwanted stock.
Strange business practice that traditional marriage thing, or is it just a variation of normal business practice with somewhat different commodities.

[Jimbuna]

Coincidentally?

I haven't heard that word before so I had to look it up:

Coincidentally | Define Coincidentally at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coincidentally)

dictionary.reference.com/browse/coincidentally
adjective 1. happening by or resulting from coincidence ; by chance: a coincidental meeting.
2. existing or occurring at the same time. Origin: 1790–1800 ...

Then you have it at no 2 :cool:

[Jimbuna]

An excellent outcome :sunny:

Sudanese authorities are to free a woman who was sentenced to death for having abandoned the Islamic faith, a foreign ministry official says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-27651483

[Mr Quatro]

Glad that's over with ... God probably got tired of hearing all those prayers
and said,

"Oh, alright let her go already ... I've got more important matters to tend to"

[Flamebatter90]

^
You are one of those who sees a doctor heal someone and praises god for it, aren't you?

[Sailor Steve]

Let's keep it civil.

[Flamebatter90]

Sorry, Sailor_Steve, it was not my intention to start anything, and I could have worded that better.

Shall we try again? Quatro says, Christian God saved her.. saved from whom? Allah? Sharia? Which one is right?

ETA: And I'd like to know which are the RIGHT ones and why?

-ETA2: Or to put it simply: Which is the RIGHT religion?

[mapuc]

Sorry, Sailor_Steve, it was not my intention to start anything, and I could have worded that better.

Shall we try again? Quatro says, Christian God saved her.. saved from whom? Allah? Sharia? Which one is right?

ETA: And I'd like to know which are the RIGHT ones and why?

-ETA2: Or to put it simply: Which is the RIGHT religion?

That's some very good question indeed.

My simple answer:

It's up to the each individ to believe these things.
It's up to the individ if this thinks his or her religion is the right one and no one shall point finger at that person saying your religion is wrong mine is the right one.

Markus

[u crank]

Or to put it simply: Which is the RIGHT religion?

That's easy. Mine is right and all the rest are wrong. :smug:

:03:

[mapuc]

That's easy. Mine is right and all the rest are wrong. :smug:

:03:

Haven't many wars started because of that?

Markus

[Schroeder]

Thread lock in 3...2...1...:-?

[BrucePartington]

Haven't many wars started because of that?

Markus
Far too many. Throughout known history, more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other reason. This is the 21st century, time to (a-hem).....evolve.

[Flamebatter90]

That's easy. Mine is right and all the rest are wrong. :smug:

:03:

Exactly.

[u crank]

Haven't many wars started because of that?


Far too many. Throughout known history, more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other reason.

Human beings, for what ever reason, have started every single war that has ever been waged.

This is the 21st century, time to (a-hem).....evolve.

I wonder if there were no religions, would there be no wars? That is something I would not bet a nickel on.

On the other hand if there were no humans...:O:

[mapuc]

On the other hand if there were no humans...:O:

Offtopic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUqHECc5rPo

And back on topic again..


Markus

[BrucePartington]

I wonder if there were no religions, would there be no wars? That is something I would not bet a nickel on.

On the other hand if there were no humans...:O:
Not to derail the thread (too late), but I hope you didn't think I implied that religion was the sole reason humans have waged wars. Aside religion, the fight for resources and territory were the reasons that started many wars. And this we see also in nature. Just tune into National Geographic channel.

Now, while I can understand (but not approve/condone, mind you) that a primitive tribe, or a nation fights/wages war with its neighbours contesting valuable territory/resources, I find it to be preposterous to wage any such wars for religious reasons. To this day, the "powers that be" are still using religion to manipulate the masses to go to war to kill and die for them.
Religion has provided social and individual benefits, but it was/is also an excuse for horrific and massive violence, and as such, a source of fear.
Peace.

[u crank]

Not to derail the thread (too late), but I hope you didn't think I implied that religion was the sole reason humans have waged wars.

No, of course not. I understand what you were saying.

Now, while I can understand (but not approve/condone, mind you) that a primitive tribe, or a nation fights/wages war with its neighbours contesting valuable territory/resources, I find it to be preposterous to wage any such wars for religious reasons.


Well there's the trick then. I don't think that the wars, most of them anyway, are waged for religious reasons but rather for religious excuses. There is a subtle difference. Religion is, along with racism one of the easiest ways to incite/control the masses. The real reasons for war are usually as you say for 'valuable territory/resources' and for other economic reasons. War is a money maker for certain individuals.

To this day, the "powers that be" are still using religion to manipulate the masses to go to war to kill and die for them.

So true. So sad.

Peace.

:up:

[banryu79]

...
Well there's the trick then. I don't think that the wars, most of them anyway, are waged for religious reasons but rather for religious excuses. There is a subtle difference. Religion is, along with racism one of the easiest ways to incite/control the masses. The real reasons for war are usually as you say for 'valuable territory/resources' and for other economic reasons. War is a money maker for certain individuals.
...

I concur. Religion is just one of the possible casus belli.