Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Destroy the Pyrimids of Eygpt? WTF. Options · View
LadyX
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2012 8:49:52 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,773
Naughty_Magician wrote:
If you're going to discuss faiths, it makes sense to discuss them all to put things in perspective. Otherwise, its a fruitless exercise at bashing Islam.


I think we all understand the concept that discussing the problems within one religion doesn't require us to absolve other religions from wrongdoing. The transgressions of all manner of faiths, ideologies, and charismatic figures backed by police and army forces aren't in question here. The thread was about the call from religious leaders to destroy on of the great wonders of mankind, so the focus has remained on the particular religion in question.

Everything being said is up for discussion, by the way. But nothing discussed herein gets addressed by changing the subject to bad things that completely unrelated groups of people have done.
Buz
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2012 8:50:30 AM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 9,595
Location: Atlanta, United States
Naughty_Magician wrote:


If you're going to discuss faiths, it makes sense to discuss them all to put things in perspective. Otherwise, its a fruitless exercise at bashing Islam.


In the 20th Century (the most violent ever) religion played a small back seat in mass violence and warfare to racism, idealism, nationalism and communism.

Think along the terms "What have you done for me lately?"

Then without a doubt the faith that has been most violent over the last 25 years is definitely Islam. Islam has brought about a resurgence of ancient religious violence.




Naughty_Magician
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2012 8:59:53 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/21/2011
Posts: 1,800
Location: Sublime Heights, Germany
Buz wrote:


Then without a doubt the faith that has been most violent over the last 25 years is definitely Islam. Islam has brought about a resurgence of ancient religious violence.


If we're taking about the last 25 years, then yes, Islam has been a violent religion. However, when talking about faiths, we should not just observe a couple of decades. Therefore, we should give Islam the chance to come good (as Christianity has done, somewhat) instead of calling it the cancer of the world.

Had a dream I was king, I woke up still king!!
nazhinaz
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2012 11:49:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 295
Location: Longview, United States
Buz wrote:


In the 20th Century (the most violent ever) religion played a small back seat in mass violence and warfare to racism, idealism, nationalism and communism.

Think along the terms "What have you done for me lately?"

Then without a doubt the faith that has been most violent over the last 25 years is definitely Islam. Islam has brought about a resurgence of ancient religious violence.


Why limit discussions about faiths to merely 25 years; why not go back to centuries?
If we go back to what Nazis did with Jews during World War II; would we talk of Christians killing Jews?
Certainly it would be a wrong perspective. They were Nazis harming and slaughtering fellow human beings.
We must try to understand it from the perspective of social evolution of various societies being at varying levels of social development and NOT FROM THE ANGLE OF FAITHS.
The whole perspective will thus be blurred.
I am not a defender of Islam or any other faith or religion. To me all faiths are impediments in harmonious develpment of human societies. Socities be allowed to evolve on the collective human experiences and learnings(known as knowledge) over centuries rather milliniums.
Lets not hate or even accuse any faith, as all faiths are held by humans and hating certain faith may alienate the followers of that faith.
We should help lesser developed societies to evolve on scientific foundations.
Buz
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 6:50:45 AM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 9,595
Location: Atlanta, United States
Nazinhaz, those Nazis killing Jews were not Christians! Hitler by most historians was considered an athiest. He did use Christianity as propaganda, even allowed his PR specialists to call him the risen Christ. He was allowing his next in command Heinrich Himmler to create and establish a new state religion based on ancestor worship.

You can also say that Christians rescued the Jews from the Nazis and be historically accurate.

'What have we done lately' allows for the natural evolution of things. Christianity on average has become much more tolerant. And even at that many Christians do not consider Catholics to be Christian at all, especially their history, which actually breaks away from all true Christian precepts established by the founder, Jesus Christ. That priest, nun, celibacy thing comes from other religions, not Christianity, and is unBiblical, hence one of many things that led to the Protestant Reformation.

Actually athiesm was much more of a driving force intertwined with its connection to communism in the 20th century in the slaughter of millions of innocent people.

The vast majority of Christian churches are very mellow and non-violent now in the 21st century. Fanatical Christians are few in number, very few, paling in comparison with the number of fanatical Muslims.

Do you still blame the the grand child for the grandfather's crime? Currently it is the Muslims that are the most dangerous, most intolerant, most violent. (And I know that of course not all Muslims subscribe to that violent fanaticism).

I am not blurring anything, rather focusing on the current reality! By helping third world nations scientifically, I certainly hope you do not mean that scientifically we should help fanatical Muslim countries develop their nuclear technology.

I do believe in helping third world countries to develop better agriculture so they can feed themselves and better education so that they can pull themselves up.




psyduck
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 1:20:00 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 5/7/2011
Posts: 9
Location: Australia
I'm not trying to justify anything here. Just want to give you guys a different perspective and let you dwell on it for a bit.

Maybe it isn't always religious fanatics that create war. Maybe sometimes war creates religious fanatics.

I mean, I'm a Muslim, living in Australia. I was born here, I consider myself Australian. I have heard many recordings of Muslim clerics around the world calling for me to go out and kill the infidels. I think they're all crazy. All of my friends and family do too. None of you infidels have ever done anything to me that I believe you deserve to be killed for.

Now let's say, I was born in Iraq. I was raised as a Saddam supporter. One day, we are invaded. My village is destroyed. My president and his whole government is overthrown. A power struggle ensues between Shia and Sunni Militants. We are civilians living in Sunni territory. A battle breaks out. My family is killed by Shia militants. They were innocent, trying to live like they did before all this madness occurred. My whole country has been destabilized. My whole life has been ruined. My family has been murdered. The people I grew up with are dead or injured. I'm not in the most stable of mindsets. Now I hear those same recordings from those clerics. The things these clerics are telling me don't sound all that crazy. Their words make sense. Not only am I allowed to avenge my family, I am told that it is my DUTY. Boom, I've become a religious fanatic.

Don't get me wrong, some people are fanatical for no reason. And I'm not trying to come up with a justification for being any sort of fanatic. I'm just trying to get you all to think, is it possible that most fanatics became so more due to their situation and less so their Religion?

Now some of you have put up quotes from the Quran that encourage Muslims to kill infidels.

I do not deny that these quotes exist. They do exist. It is our duty as Muslims to obey these commands.

However, these are all taken out of context. Our Religion is not solely based on the verses of the Quran. In fact, the Quran does not even teach us how to pray. We cannot even fully embrace our Religion if we were to rely solely on the Quran. So it's kind of silly to take single, out of context verses and use it as evidence. We have to take into consideration the teachings in the Quran, the teachings of the Hadith of our Prophet and the teachings and the interpretations of past and current scholars. The Quran itself cannot complete your faith. This does lead to many grey areas...and I might have kept things a little more black and white if I were God, but yea.

With the issue of the killing of infidels. The only time it applies is if they are oppressing the Ummah, and it applies only to the oppressors and those directly "supporting" them. This is the point where everything gets crazy.

Some clerics interpret the "support" part as anyone living in the West as our(your?) mere presence here, is in some way funding these infidel armies. This interpretation is wrong. The general consensus is that it has to be direct support. As in, if your taxes are funding it, that has nothing to do with you. Or if you are providing funds for an army in defense of your nation, it has nothing to do with you. However if you give $20mil out of your pocket to the army specifically to aid in the war against Muslims, then I am allowed to kill you and anybody who tries to defend you.

There are also many different opinions on what constitutes a legal Jihad (ie, some scholars say it can only be declared by the Khalifa) but that's not really a key point here. My point is, yes, there are quotes in the Quran that allow us, or even encourage us, to kill an infidel. But when put in context, these verses only ever apply to those of you who are trying to have us killed for being Muslim.

So any other sort of killing, is a sin and should be condemned.

Which brings me to something LadyX said about the Islamic community as a whole sort of (from what I understood) tolerating this radicalism and not standing up against it. Well, while I do agree with you. It's really not that simple.

First of all, it's hard for me and the millions of other Muslims living in peace around the world to get up and tell someone who is living in a war zone that they are being fanatic, without looking like a douche. I mean it's easy for me to see it as fanatic. I don't live in a war zone (well, it's not as bad as Afghanistan lol).

That aside, even if we were to condemn it. We really have no power. There is no "Islamic" government. There is no Islamic army. There is no real Islamic authority for these guys to listen to. I mean, if you think about it. Sadly, these guys are the only Islamic authorities. So, there's not really much we can do in that sense. If any of the so called "Islamic" nations were to get involved, they would be labelled as oppressors and supporters of the West etc. etc.

So yea, quite the dilemma. These guys are all crazy as fuck, killing and blowing shit up, in the sake of trying to establish an Islamic state. And the only thing that can really bring them to justice, is a true, Islamic state.

And just to get back on topic. That shit is retarded. These "pagan temples" have been around forever. None of our prophets tried to destroy them. Why in the hell should we?
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:13:51 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
Um, I doubt it's actually going to happen though...
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:25:59 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,773
psyduck wrote:
I'm not trying to justify anything here. Just want to give you guys a different perspective and let you dwell on it for a bit.

Maybe it isn't always religious fanatics that create war. Maybe sometimes war creates religious fanatics.

I mean, I'm a Muslim, living in Australia. I was born here, I consider myself Australian. I have heard many recordings of Muslim clerics around the world calling for me to go out and kill the infidels. I think they're all crazy. All of my friends and family do too. None of you infidels have ever done anything to me that I believe you deserve to be killed for.

Now let's say, I was born in Iraq. I was raised as a Saddam supporter. One day, we are invaded. My village is destroyed. My president and his whole government is overthrown. A power struggle ensues between Shia and Sunni Militants. We are civilians living in Sunni territory. A battle breaks out. My family is killed by Shia militants. They were innocent, trying to live like they did before all this madness occurred. My whole country has been destabilized. My whole life has been ruined. My family has been murdered. The people I grew up with are dead or injured. I'm not in the most stable of mindsets. Now I hear those same recordings from those clerics. The things these clerics are telling me don't sound all that crazy. Their words make sense. Not only am I allowed to avenge my family, I am told that it is my DUTY. Boom, I've become a religious fanatic.

Don't get me wrong, some people are fanatical for no reason. And I'm not trying to come up with a justification for being any sort of fanatic. I'm just trying to get you all to think, is it possible that most fanatics became so more due to their situation and less so their Religion?

Now some of you have put up quotes from the Quran that encourage Muslims to kill infidels.

I do not deny that these quotes exist. They do exist. It is our duty as Muslims to obey these commands.

However, these are all taken out of context. Our Religion is not solely based on the verses of the Quran. In fact, the Quran does not even teach us how to pray. We cannot even fully embrace our Religion if we were to rely solely on the Quran. So it's kind of silly to take single, out of context verses and use it as evidence. We have to take into consideration the teachings in the Quran, the teachings of the Hadith of our Prophet and the teachings and the interpretations of past and current scholars. The Quran itself cannot complete your faith. This does lead to many grey areas...and I might have kept things a little more black and white if I were God, but yea.

With the issue of the killing of infidels. The only time it applies is if they are oppressing the Ummah, and it applies only to the oppressors and those directly "supporting" them. This is the point where everything gets crazy.

Some clerics interpret the "support" part as anyone living in the West as our(your?) mere presence here, is in some way funding these infidel armies. This interpretation is wrong. The general consensus is that it has to be direct support. As in, if your taxes are funding it, that has nothing to do with you. Or if you are providing funds for an army in defense of your nation, it has nothing to do with you. However if you give $20mil out of your pocket to the army specifically to aid in the war against Muslims, then I am allowed to kill you and anybody who tries to defend you.

There are also many different opinions on what constitutes a legal Jihad (ie, some scholars say it can only be declared by the Khalifa) but that's not really a key point here. My point is, yes, there are quotes in the Quran that allow us, or even encourage us, to kill an infidel. But when put in context, these verses only ever apply to those of you who are trying to have us killed for being Muslim.

So any other sort of killing, is a sin and should be condemned.

Which brings me to something LadyX said about the Islamic community as a whole sort of (from what I understood) tolerating this radicalism and not standing up against it. Well, while I do agree with you. It's really not that simple.

First of all, it's hard for me and the millions of other Muslims living in peace around the world to get up and tell someone who is living in a war zone that they are being fanatic, without looking like a douche. I mean it's easy for me to see it as fanatic. I don't live in a war zone (well, it's not as bad as Afghanistan lol).

That aside, even if we were to condemn it. We really have no power. There is no "Islamic" government. There is no Islamic army. There is no real Islamic authority for these guys to listen to. I mean, if you think about it. Sadly, these guys are the only Islamic authorities. So, there's not really much we can do in that sense. If any of the so called "Islamic" nations were to get involved, they would be labelled as oppressors and supporters of the West etc. etc.

So yea, quite the dilemma. These guys are all crazy as fuck, killing and blowing shit up, in the sake of trying to establish an Islamic state. And the only thing that can really bring them to justice, is a true, Islamic state.

And just to get back on topic. That shit is retarded. These "pagan temples" have been around forever. None of our prophets tried to destroy them. Why in the hell should we?


Lapplause What a great post! Thanks for sharing your perspective; definite food for further thought.

Your self-claimed awesomeness is further justified. f-hihi

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 5:25:29 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
Buz wrote:
Many people have thought that Napoleon Bonaparte had his cannoneers shoot the nose off The Spinx. But that is not true.

Actually in 1378 AD. a local Sufi Sheik thought the Sphinx to be idolatrous and attempted to blow it up with explosives. His name was Sayim al-Dahr.


and all this time I thought it was Oblix who climbed up and broke it....d'oh!
nazhinaz
Posted: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 2:11:05 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 295
Location: Longview, United States
Buz wrote:
Nazinhaz, those Nazis killing Jews were not Christians! Hitler by most historians was considered an athiest. He did use Christianity as propaganda, even allowed his PR specialists to call him the risen Christ. He was allowing his next in command Heinrich Himmler to create and establish a new state religion based on ancestor worship.

You can also say that Christians rescued the Jews from the Nazis and be historically accurate.

'What have we done lately' allows for the natural evolution of things. Christianity on average has become much more tolerant. And even at that many Christians do not consider Catholics to be Christian at all, especially their history, which actually breaks away from all true Christian precepts established by the founder, Jesus Christ. That priest, nun, celibacy thing comes from other religions, not Christianity, and is unBiblical, hence one of many things that led to the Protestant Reformation.

Actually athiesm was much more of a driving force intertwined with its connection to communism in the 20th century in the slaughter of millions of innocent people.

The vast majority of Christian churches are very mellow and non-violent now in the 21st century. Fanatical Christians are few in number, very few, paling in comparison with the number of fanatical Muslims.

Do you still blame the the grand child for the grandfather's crime? Currently it is the Muslims that are the most dangerous, most intolerant, most violent. (And I know that of course not all Muslims subscribe to that violent fanaticism).

I am not blurring anything, rather focusing on the current reality! By helping third world nations scientifically, I certainly hope you do not mean that scientifically we should help fanatical Muslim countries develop their nuclear technology.

I do believe in helping third world countries to develop better agriculture so they can feed themselves and better education so that they can pull themselves up.


You are certainly correct.
Hitler was not an atheist, or Christian or let me say, he was hardly a human being.
So were Stalin, Mousollini and their likes in history, recent or past.
And that exactly is my point; its not any faith but inhuman madness that allows to kill any person not agreeing with a particular faith, religion or viewpoint.
I don't believe or even think that any one killing another human being without the backing of laws can ever be justified, in the name any religion or faith.
I also agree as I do know that Chirstian as a whole have become a more tolerant faith.
Once the Pope recorded that it was wrong to punish those holding views against Chirstian faith, it certainly has become a more tolerant faith.
But may I point out that Chistianity came as a regilgion about 700 years earlier than Islam?
And for Pope to say sorry for views against Christian beliefs, took about 500 years.
I am certain that Islam too facing the realities of scientific knowledge, would be a much more tolerant faith later in this century or a bit more.
Just look arround, muslims living in UK, Austalia (One posted just below your comment) USA and other countries where science has taken over and faith or religion ahs been religated to the background; Muslims too are much more tolerant, subscribing the laws of their lands.
nazhinaz
Posted: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 2:27:13 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 295
Location: Longview, United States
psyduck wrote:

These "pagan temples" have been around forever. None of our prophets tried to destroy them. Why in the hell should we?

I was born into a muslim family, read Koran, can translate it and know about Hadith and Fiqa too.
But saddly I must say, your statement cannot stand the test of history.
Baaitullah was a temple of Pagans and the Prophet Muhammad himself destroyed all pagan gods and "purified" it.
And I can quote hundreds of examples if not thousands.
Look at Mahmud Ghaznavi, what he did in India during his famous 17 campaigns.
Lets call spade a spade.
There certainly are such examples in history and we should not justify.
We must acknowledge the historical facts without reservations.
I fully endorse you that millions of muslims living peacefully in developed SECULAR countries of the World are mostly peaceful, law abiding, harming no one.
It is NOT DUE TO ANY RELIGION OR FAITH.
IT IS DUE TO SCIENTIFIC SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THESE COUNTRIES.
LET'S HOPE AND PRAY THAT MUSLIMS LIVING IN OTHER COUNTRIES TOO FOLLOW YOU.
And lastly, if there was any Islamic State, which I doubt would ever be, it would be as revengeful as the earliest ones.
What punishments Taliban Government met to thieves, adulterers etc.
Can you, me or any one justify?
We or at least I do feel shamfully sorry for what they did.
AND MIND YOU THESE ARE PUNISHMENTS LAID DOWN IN KORAN ITSELF.
psyduck
Posted: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 6:34:19 AM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 5/7/2011
Posts: 9
Location: Australia
Quote:
Your self-claimed awesomeness is further justified. f-hihi


It isn't self-claimed. There are even verses in the Quran that verify my awesomeness. ;)

Quote:
Baaitullah was a temple of Pagans and the Prophet Muhammad himself destroyed all pagan gods and "purified" it.


Uhh.

1. Baaitullah wasn't built as a pagan temple, it was built as a house of worship by Abraham and his sons.
2. It was never destroyed, merely reclaimed.

Quote:
Look at Mahmud Ghaznavi, what he did in India during his famous 17 campaigns.


I never claimed that every Muslim ruler was just. Some people are terrible when given authority. That will never change, religion or no religion. It is a shame we as humans haven't yet evolved beyond it, but that's just the way it is.

Quote:
And lastly, if there was any Islamic State, which I doubt would ever be, it would be as revengeful as the earliest ones.


Not necessarily. But if that is your opinion, then that's cool.

Quote:
What punishments Taliban Government met to thieves, adulterers etc.
Can you, me or any one justify?
We or at least I do feel shamfully sorry for what they did.
AND MIND YOU THESE ARE PUNISHMENTS LAID DOWN IN KORAN ITSELF.


In regards to Islamic punishments. If you learn Islamic law, you'd understand that while punishments can be severe, substantial evidence is required before such a sentence can be passed down. This is what makes it reasonable. Under proper Sharia law, it is nearly impossible for someone to be sentenced to death unless they testify against themselves.

So again, just like the "must kill infidel" quotes, you are out of context. Yes, the punishments are listed in the Quran. But just like any other civilized culture, you have to be trialed before you are sentenced.

Now I understand that in some countries these sentences are being handed out unjustly and it's a shame. These people either do not possess enough knowledge to be in a position to hand out such punishments, or they are simply oppressors. Sadly, the world is full of oppressors. I don't see it as a fault in Religion. I see it as a fault in humanity.
nazhinaz
Posted: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:19:04 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 295
Location: Longview, United States
It is hardly relevant that how substantial evidence is required.
Important is the severity of the punishment.
Does stealing justify amputation of hand?
Adultry is a wilful act; both parties willfully participating into.
Does one think that willfully giving one's body in sexual act is punishable by stoning?
Testifying against one's own self does not justify the severity of sentence.
The issue is not substantial evidence; issue is sentencing of a crime.
Can any civilized society think of awarding such punishments in the modern era?
Surely NO.
These sentences were relevant only during the era of Judha (about 4000 years back) or during 7th Century (Prophet Muhammad era).
These sentences were based on the concept when women were considered property of males as chattels.
But with developed civilized societies, wherein women are equals, these punishments have become redundant and inhuman.
I am simply bewildered at the justification; SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
psyduck
Posted: Sunday, July 22, 2012 3:52:04 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 5/7/2011
Posts: 9
Location: Australia
Quote:
It is hardly relevant that how substantial evidence is required.
Important is the severity of the punishment.


The severity of the punishment is merely a reiteration of the severity of the sin. It is not a proper representation of the legal system. These punishments are the maximum punishments that can be given for that sin, but that does not mean that every case or every accusation receives this punishment. Each case is dealt with individually and a sentence of differing harshness is handed out depending on the evidence provided and the circumstances surrounding the case. In fact, like I mentioned before, it is almost impossible for the court to have enough evidence to sentence you to the maximum punishment, especially in regards to sins carrying the death penalty. The only time they do have enough evidence, is if you were to testify against yourself. Even then, you are entitled to withdraw your testimony at any moment up until the punishment is actually carried out.

Quote:
Adultry is a wilful act; both parties willfully participating into.
Does one think that willfully giving one's body in sexual act is punishable by stoning?


I do not understand your point. But I'll answer you. Do I agree adultery should be punishable by stoning, no. However I do agree that it is a sin. But I am not here to debate morality. My entire point from the beginning was (and still is) simply, don't take things out of context.

Quote:
Testifying against one's own self does not justify the severity of sentence.
The issue is not substantial evidence; issue is sentencing of a crime.


The issue is lack of understanding, of both the religion and this argument. You seem to blame an entire religion for the (alleged) atrocities committed by the Taliban because "THESE ARE PUNISHMENTS LAID DOWN IN KORAN ITSELF. "

I am trying to get you to understand that the Quran can not be quoted directly, for our religion is not based solely on what is in the Quran. There is a lot of context behind what is written and this context must be understood before we can follow the religion, or in your case, judge it.

Quote:
Can any civilized society think of awarding such punishments in the modern era?
Surely NO.


I don't have any statistics or anything, but I'm sure a quick google search will provide enough evidence that there are quite a few societies that still carry out capital punishment.

Quote:
These sentences were relevant only during the era of Judha (about 4000 years back) or during 7th Century (Prophet Muhammad era).


Okay.

Quote:
These sentences were based on the concept when women were considered property of males as chattels.
But with developed civilized societies, wherein women are equals, these punishments have become redundant and inhuman.


...what? I don't know how to respond to this because I don't even know what this has to do with anything. I'm not even sure I even know what your argument is.

I'm assuming you are trying to say that Adultery/Fornication are no longer valid in this modern age because the whole idea of marriage is a concept of men somehow claiming possession of women.

If that is what you are trying to say, then I will say once again. I'm not here to debate morality and ethics. You can believe what you want to believe about Religion, about sex, about marriage, about everything. I am not trying to convert you. I am not preaching to you. I could care less about what you believe in. What I do care about is people misquoting the Quran and claiming it to be evidence. It happens within the Religion and creates radical Islamists. It happens outside of the religion and creates radical anti-Islamists. My point is, BOTH parties are wrong. To understand the religion, you need to understand the context. Before you do that, you cannot follow it correctly and it is unfair to judge it.
nazhinaz
Posted: Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:33:48 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 295
Location: Longview, United States
It is so easy to say others are quoting Quran out of context.
I feel thats the end of reasoning and logic.
I still hold that wilful fornication is no more against the prevalent moral values.
What I can suggest is, if you willing to make an attempt to look at my reasoning, please do read just one book, "Origin of State and private Property" by F. Engles.
It traces social evolution and has relied mostly from Australian old tribes and moral codes adhered too.
Its an interesting read and maybe you can figure out origin of moral valuses in a society and their gradual evolution.
I will end this debate here.
psyduck
Posted: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:39:24 AM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 5/7/2011
Posts: 9
Location: Australia
Quote:
It is so easy to say others are quoting Quran out of context.
I feel thats the end of reasoning and logic.


This debate was never about reasoning or logic. It was never about whether or not what's written in the Quran holds any moral value any more. If that is what you wish to discuss, then we can take that to another thread.

Quote:
I still hold that wilful fornication is no more against the prevalent moral values.


I never disagreed with you.

Quote:
What I can suggest is, if you willing to make an attempt to look at my reasoning, please do read just one book, "Origin of State and private Property" by F. Engles.
It traces social evolution and has relied mostly from Australian old tribes and moral codes adhered too.
Its an interesting read and maybe you can figure out origin of moral valuses in a society and their gradual evolution.


What I can suggest is, that you do not assume you know anything about me or my points of view in regards to morality and ethics.

My quarrel is not with the critique of the Religion and its morals. I encourage people to be critical, especially when it comes to powerful ideologies such as Religion. My quarrel is with critique without understanding. Nothing bugs me more.

Quote:
I will end this debate here.


As will I.
MotleyCrue101
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2012 2:41:05 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 40
I'm sorry. But all these people praising religion really need to look at what it has done

WWII/Holocaust- killed 6 million Jews and those with disabilities, leading to studying and experimenting on human minds.

Israel and Palestine? no words even needed

9/11 in New York City

the list goes on...

Fighting over religion is basically fighting over who has the better imaginary friend. Fighting caused by a voice in their heads. thinking they're hearing orders. If there is a God why would that almighty person be instilling it in people's heads what needs to be done. sorry, but it needs to stop
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.