100% agreed.
But worth noting that Christianity is a bit older so I suppose you could argue that Islam has yet to reach a stage where calling it out no longer elicits such strong reactions.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
100% agreed.
But worth noting that Christianity is a bit older so I suppose you could argue that Islam has yet to reach a stage where calling it out no longer elicits such strong reactions.
True, I think Islam is what, AD 1400 comparative to our Western timeline?
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/...hemselves-by-attending-ariana-grande-concert/
--What was the name of that concert? ‘Dangerous Woman concert.’ If we could tell you what we know—and we don’t have time today—but we’re going to talk about some of those things, they literally invited these kinds of things to happen. They almost cursed themselves with this concert. I tell you what, God’s not going to put up with mockery. ‘Be not deceived, God is not mocked.’--
--What was the name of that concert? ‘Dangerous Woman concert.’ If we could tell you what we know—and we don’t have time today—but we’re going to talk about some of those things, they literally invited these kinds of things to happen. They almost cursed themselves with this concert. I tell you what, God’s not going to put up with mockery. ‘Be not deceived, God is not mocked.’--
So this Evangelist Christian believes that the terrorist was indeed working on behalf of God?
When will the Christian leaders start condemning this sort of thing?
Ecumenicism at its best.
This is a fanatical and abhorrent view, but its interesting - this relationship between mockery and Christianity. Christ actually warned his followers that they would be mocked for their beliefs. This is not only to be expected, but relished and rejoiced as a sign of one's true path, as mentioned, particularly in The Gospel of Luke. Doesn't stop millions of Christians to press for cognitively dissonant legislature that bans all forms of mockery and disrespect, nor does it stop them from condemning the victims and vindicating the murderers in the case of Islamic terror.
You don't have to be as egregious a human being as that televangelist for any of that either.
What a thundercnut
Who writes Jim's speeches for him - someome from ISIS ?
Good stuff from Maajid
Several comments saying he's quoting a mistranslation, but what is the alternative?
Tbf she is right. If a man beats his wife in the context of self-defence then there is no problem with that. He could however beat anyone in this situation. Not sure what the point is in discussing a book that is what ... 1500 odd years old. Of course there will be things that are a bit outdated, same goes for the bible though.
To me, religion is an invention of man to ease the uncertainties of what happens after we die.
Sounds scary to just die and nothing happens.
Pearly gates, heaven and eternal happiness for living a good life? That'll do just fine.
No problem with people being religious, but if you try to shove down others' throats or use it as a means to hurt others, you can go eat shit.
Sounds scary to just die and nothing happens.
Pearly gates, heaven and eternal happiness for living a good life? That'll do just fine.
No problem with people being religious, but if you try to shove down others' throats or use it as a means to hurt others, you can go eat shit.
That's IS the point, because people believe these books to be the word of God, and if true they would obviously NEVER be "outdated".
If everyone just understand they were books written by men, who wanted power & control we'd be fine, but people genuinely do believe they are the word of an imaginary man in the sky.
Nar, it wasn't invented for that even if that is it's main use in the West today. It was invented for power & control of course.
That's IS the point, because people believe these books to be the word of God, and if true they would obviously NEVER be "outdated".
If everyone just understand they were books written by men, who wanted power & control we'd be fine, but people genuinely do believe they are the word of an imaginary man in the sky.
Yes, my point was that this is so obvious that a dicussion about it is boring, even more so if the guy asks her four times about something she obviously cannot justify. Move on man.
The context of the quote is clearly how to subjugate a 'disobedient' woman, not self-defence.
Well, many people claim the rules laid down in the Koran should be the guideline to today's life. And many others can't bring themselves to rejecting this claim, because they fear to become outcasts.
It's not an intellectual exercise. This general issue has a massive impact on social and political life and often enough violent consequences, so I don't think it's irrelevant to fight over it. These discussions are far too rare.
Yup. If you could convince your subjects that some omnipotent, divine being will punish anyone would doesn't behave themselves life becomes a lot easier.
When's our next fundamentalist going to come along. This thread is always boring when the only participants are sane people.
My Q&A is always open if anyone has anything to ask about Sikhism
Just tag me, or reply to this.
Just tag me, or reply to this.
Last edited:
Sorry as this will sound pedantic but I suppose what you mean is hit, an important difference.
On a diffferent note, whenever there's a tragedy the messages which accompany the flowers are full of religious language - sleeping with angels, watching us from heaven etc. I understand this but sometimes wonder what practising Christians or people of other faiths think when it's likely that the people who write theses message have never had a religious thought or done a religious act in thier lives ? What would Jim Bakker say ?
Personally, I reckon we all have these little pagan ways which help us through hard times.
Last edited:
Ironically it's this kind of attitude that holds the discussion back from 'moving on'.
So the guy should ask her for the fifth time whether or not it's wrong that the Quran allows the husband to hit his wife? Err ... okay.
If she refuses to answer the actual question, yes. Questions like this should be asked over and over, it should go on 1000 times and more if that's what it takes.
By the way, putting 'Err ... okay' doesn't help your cause here. Then again, neither does your ignorance as displayed with posts like this:
Let me just start by apologising for the errokay mess, that was not okay.
The way I see it the problem is that people take a book literally that is from stone age, which can quite easily be shown by citing passages from said book: the moral attitude displayed is at times not compatible with modern values (like in this case). This is so obvious that I'd guess most of the leading scholars of any religion have stopped taking the 'holy' book by his word. Some however did not. That's a problem we should discuss.
Asking someone from this other group about their rationale for this behaviour is a fair way of doing it imo. If however this person won't answer a question but instead chooses to dodge it, then that's a clear sign of having an inferior point of view. You can of course ask again to show that this is the case, but after that you should move on as your point is already plain obvious, would you not agree?
You won't ever get someone (or only very rarely) like this to say, "oh I'm sorry, you're right. Let me just take all this back". Even less in public, when they come to represent a certain group of people. That's different when you're discussing it with someone on a one-on-one.
I'm curious, what do Sikh's actually believe? I know many have the last name 'Singh', and you guys have domes on your temples that are not gold (that would be a mosque) and you offer free meals to anyone walking in off the street (which is awesome btw), but I've never genuinely met a Sikh, and I'm just curious what it's all about. Is it similar to Hinduism i.e. lots of different gods?
I dunno about other religions, but this is certainly not the case in Islam.
Lots to answer here but no worries!
So Sikhs essentially believe that there is only 1 God but it's not your typical bearded man in robes idea (rather our gurus fit that image). God in Sikhism, is kind of like the force in Star Wars except it is sentient. But God is an entity basically pervading everything in the universe but also transcending it too. Technically that means God is actually pervading you and me too, and that's what us Sikhs call the 'soul'. The objective for a Sikh is to achieve enlightenment in which case they'll be attuned to reality of the universe. We believe human desire and instinct, i.e. Ego is the barrier from us achieving this
You're right Sikhs are usually identifiable by the usually middle name, but sometimes surname Singh, which means lion. Females usually have the middle name Kaur, which means princess. It can be easy to mix up our Gurdwara (Sikh temple) with other places other worship - Mosque, or a Mandir (Hindu), but the best way to identify a Sikh place of worship is really tall saffron flag that should be outside every Gurdwara. Actually arguably the most famous gurdwara at all is covered in Gold, and is commonly known as the Golden Temple.
Every Gurdwara should provide a free kitchen with 24 hour service for anybody. Donations are welcome, but not compulsory at all, the food is all free. This was started by the Gurus because people would come to visit them from all over India and be weary from their travels, so a free kitchen was provided for them. Also it has a symbolic meaning as everyone sits on the floor together, no matter your status, wealth or caste. India at that time (and many ways still is today) was divided by caste especially.
Sikhism has a close relationship with Hinduism, and Guru Nanak (founder) was born into a Hindu family which often leads to idea that Sikhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. This isn't true however and it's an independent religion in it's own right that would be here regardless of Hinduism.
Hope this helps.
No worries my friend, and good on you for reacting to my post how you have. I apologise too for the ignorance comment.
The problem here shouldn't be how man takes these words though, the problem should be that these are supposed to be the words from God himself. If they are not future-proof, then shouldn't it be questioned as to why not?
No, I wouldn't. Both in religion and politics, there are questions that should be asked. It's not ok for people to be allowed to dodge questions that they can't answer, and no I don't agree that their refusal to gains us anything. It's not about the moral high ground or point scoring, it's about getting through to people that the way they think has flaws. That's how we learn and grow, we accept freely or begrudgingly, but we accept. She flat out refuses to go against words in a book, that both you and I seem to accept is old and flawed. That kind of thinking, that kind of being, that's what is the main problem with religion and it's ability to control the lives of not only the people that follow it, but all of us.
I get what you are saying, but what's the alternative? We need to be progressive, especially religions. If you can't answer a question, if you have to squirm and change subject, then maybe you are wrong.
That doesn't make the viewpoint right, nor does it mean we should ignore that viewpoint.
That would be the underlining problem, I agree. But both are real problems and if we have two roads to make progress on that are not exclusive we ought not just take one. Even though what you mentioned has the capability to make the second road expendable the nature of the problem (as in human ideology) begs to differ imo.
I think you misunderstood me then. I was strictly refering to this radio interview (or was it TV?) posted above and that is never about making progress in a discussion but about sharing points of view, pitting them against each other. It's for the people watching/listening to take notice of their respective opinion. I would agree that this is not ideal, but it's the way it works. What you say holds true for society as a whole though; when we engage in discussions.
Yes, absolutely. That was my point. And it's for everybody to see after the first - slow Joe the second - question.
It doesn't make it right of course. I'm saying that we as civilian equal amongst each other have no other means to persuade the thinking of these people than engage in discussions and they can refuse to do so, as is perfectably reasonable, if they want to. An ongoing engagement on this very topic would very well be the very definition of a waste of time, would you not agree? To make the connection to the interview I'd say that after two dodged questions the person implies refusal.
@swooshboy
In response to the excellent article you posted from Esquire I've posted here so as not to distract from the tragedy itself and also because it seems a more relevant thread given some of the content.
Early on a woman is quoted as shouting something like "Oh God, save their souls". At first I found this startling but reading between the lines later in the article I get the impression that some families, catholic in this case I suppose, could not entertain the idea of suicide as this would put the souls of their son in danger and therefore denied that the falling man was their son
This creates further layers of tragedy. No one has claimed the man as their own, maybe he has not been given the funeral rites he would have been given in other circumstances, the family of this man do not know or accept this was their son. In terms of theology, which I know next to nothing about, many people may indeed believe he is not in heaven but in purgatory. A desperate situation for those who are believers.
In response to the excellent article you posted from Esquire I've posted here so as not to distract from the tragedy itself and also because it seems a more relevant thread given some of the content.
Early on a woman is quoted as shouting something like "Oh God, save their souls". At first I found this startling but reading between the lines later in the article I get the impression that some families, catholic in this case I suppose, could not entertain the idea of suicide as this would put the souls of their son in danger and therefore denied that the falling man was their son
This creates further layers of tragedy. No one has claimed the man as their own, maybe he has not been given the funeral rites he would have been given in other circumstances, the family of this man do not know or accept this was their son. In terms of theology, which I know next to nothing about, many people may indeed believe he is not in heaven but in purgatory. A desperate situation for those who are believers.
We seem to have pretty much eradicated country conflicts. Then we pretty much stopped racism.
This religious bullshit should be next. It is holding us all back.
This religious bullshit should be next. It is holding us all back.
Is religion reaching to to those affected by the fire in London?
And then everyone will find something else to blame for the worlds troubles. Why not target the biggest imaginary concept that has 'humans' doing the most heinous shit to other humans, money? Or more specifically money as it exists, backed by nothing in a system that promotes the earning of money by large cooperation's through any means necessary.
Or old men like Murdoch with a semi monopoly over the information that goes into peoples heads every time they look at a TV set or newspaper? The world is partly messed up by human design and whilst poor people's kids continue to blow each other into little pieces in the name of god or to put food on their kids plates; the fat cats who meet up to discuss 'the direction of the world' once a year at Bilderberg and their equivalents are laughing.
China has the largest irreligious society on the planet, with a ridiculously large percentage of atheists making up the population. Go take a look at the list of the human rights abuses and massacres of their own and the people of Tibet and their treatment of animals and tell me what's holding them back.
Last edited:
That too.
"They ran into the building. If it wasn't for these young Muslim boys helping, (more) people would have died, they were the first people with bags of water helping people"
Donating cloths, drinks, food etc.. afterwards.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...es-regulations-health-safety-st-a7796081.html
"I've heard stories of heroism, from Christians, from Muslims and from others, looking after their brothers and sisters, their neighbours and doing the job that we expect from this brilliant community because of the fantastic community that is here in this part of London."
Religious people are just people at the end of the day, do you expect them to turn a blind eye to suffering?
Last edited:
Senior figures in the Church of England "colluded" with a former bishop who abused young men, an independent review has found.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40368573
Tough on Cadbury and cinemas who won't show religious adverts, less so on sexual predators.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40368573
Tough on Cadbury and cinemas who won't show religious adverts, less so on sexual predators.
Religion is intangible.
Plenty of people, both religious and non-religious alike have come together to provide support for the victims of the attack. You've already been given a couple of examples above. If you click here you'll see efforts from people and organisations of various faiths and affiliations providing support.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....ools-to-stop-teaching-evolution-official-says
Oh dear. You can only feel sorry for Turkish kids.
Oh dear. You can only feel sorry for Turkish kids.
I find it impossible to believe that God (an.elevated and highly developed spiritual being) would allow anyone to write, in his name, that women should be obedient and can be beaten if disobedient.
A truly elevated spiritual being would never favour the oppression of one sex over another and would never advocate violence.
That's my take on it anyway. Sadly it seems that she and I disagree on that.
God works in mysterious ways...
Disclaimer: Short vid may be disturbing to some, viewer discretion advised. It's not death or nudity but an extremely rare disease, epidermolysis bullosa, that makes the skin fall off.
Disclaimer: Short vid may be disturbing to some, viewer discretion advised. It's not death or nudity but an extremely rare disease, epidermolysis bullosa, that makes the skin fall off.