Mental Instability Diagnosis of Mohammed
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Flores,
Young, beautifull, loving, intelligent.........
Does your hubby know how lucky he is?
Love
Jan Ardena.
Young, beautifull, loving, intelligent.........
Does your hubby know how lucky he is?
Love
Jan Ardena.
Just for starters.
http://hrw.org/reports/2003/india0703/
Got the above site from World Events Forum. Posted by "skywalker".
It doesn't matter Cris, we can't become Buhdist because it's too strict in the most stupid ways. Sort of like self inflicted pain for no reason, justification, ect.
The rule that a monk should eat only after sunrise and before noon is one subscribed to solely by monks belonging to the Theravada; the Theravada rule states that the daily meal has to be commenced before noon--if for some reason the meal becomes interrupted, it may be resumed beyond noon, but in no case can it be commenced once noon has passed.
Let me cite you an example:
(1)If I flew from Delhi to London on a hopping jumbo, which took off from Delhi at 7.00 am. I would need to have breakfast before landing at Karachi. I would take off from Karachi at 7.00 am and need to have breakfast before landing in the Persian Gulf. Then if I take of from the Persian Gulf at 7.00 am and again have breakfast before landing at Istanbul. If I take off from Istanbul at 7.00 am and again need to have breakfast before landing at Frankfurt, after which I can have lunch before landing at London. Four breakfasts and a lunch, and still arriving before noon (London time).
What would my monk self to do in such circumstances? How do I ever calculate when noon have passed??...Monk rules don't cover any information on travelling, I would have to be a hermet to follow the monk rules, so I opt to stay with the more tolerable Islam, because at least I'm told that I'm off the hook when travelling and menstruating. I can even eat pork and drink alcohol if there is nothing else to eat or drink and my survival depended on it.
Starving me to death without giving a waiver or exemption to the stupid rule is the most brutal type of violance you can impose on a human. At least Islam is full of waivers and exemptions and human judgement is taken out of the equation leaving our fate to an imaginary peacefull god as you always tell me....How can an imaginary god be violant Cris? Can you perhaps explain that to me?
Flores,
Imaginary gods are of course incapable of violence. But the issue was religious violence.
Religious violence, especially theistic inspired, is the result of adherents believing that their god will be pleased if they take certain violent actions. In Islam the term Jihad has several interpretations and many Muslims have interpreted this to mean that Allah does in fact sanction violence in order to defend against those who oppose Islam. Whether this was the intention of Islam or not is not too important. The issue is that the religion has a loophole where violence is the result.
Christianity on the other hand specifically encourages one to love their enemies as well as their neighbors. And the concept of Jihad does not exist. Interestingly the Crusades were permitted because the pope at the time accepted the concept that ‘loving ones enemy’ only referred to those who were also Christian, i.e. if my enemy is a Christian then I must love him. Those from different religions were then seen as fair game for attacks and violent assault.
In these two examples we can see how people twist, misinterpret, or re-interpret their scriptures to fit their personal desires. Both these religions also teach compassion and tolerance for others and I see this commonly among Christians when I debate with them, however, to date the Muslims here see me as a threat when I criticize their beliefs and I receive a tirade of personal abuse from them, you being an obvious example.
It would appear that the Jihad concept where we take this to mean a defense of Islam is indeed strong in most Muslims and it necessarily degrades their ability to be tolerant in the face of opposing ideas. As far as I can see I have never directed any personal abuse at you yet you take every opportunity in attempts to ridicule, insult, and abuse me, whether the issue is relevant to the topic or not. Other Muslims here have done exactly the same in the past.
My objective observations are that Islam appears to encourage, whether intentional or not, anti-social and violent behavior against anything and anyone who oppose its tenets. This does not generate a good environment for civilized and intelligent debate.
Is your demonstrated contempt for me inspired by your religious beliefs or is it simply part of your personality?
Imaginary gods are of course incapable of violence. But the issue was religious violence.
Religious violence, especially theistic inspired, is the result of adherents believing that their god will be pleased if they take certain violent actions. In Islam the term Jihad has several interpretations and many Muslims have interpreted this to mean that Allah does in fact sanction violence in order to defend against those who oppose Islam. Whether this was the intention of Islam or not is not too important. The issue is that the religion has a loophole where violence is the result.
Christianity on the other hand specifically encourages one to love their enemies as well as their neighbors. And the concept of Jihad does not exist. Interestingly the Crusades were permitted because the pope at the time accepted the concept that ‘loving ones enemy’ only referred to those who were also Christian, i.e. if my enemy is a Christian then I must love him. Those from different religions were then seen as fair game for attacks and violent assault.
In these two examples we can see how people twist, misinterpret, or re-interpret their scriptures to fit their personal desires. Both these religions also teach compassion and tolerance for others and I see this commonly among Christians when I debate with them, however, to date the Muslims here see me as a threat when I criticize their beliefs and I receive a tirade of personal abuse from them, you being an obvious example.
It would appear that the Jihad concept where we take this to mean a defense of Islam is indeed strong in most Muslims and it necessarily degrades their ability to be tolerant in the face of opposing ideas. As far as I can see I have never directed any personal abuse at you yet you take every opportunity in attempts to ridicule, insult, and abuse me, whether the issue is relevant to the topic or not. Other Muslims here have done exactly the same in the past.
My objective observations are that Islam appears to encourage, whether intentional or not, anti-social and violent behavior against anything and anyone who oppose its tenets. This does not generate a good environment for civilized and intelligent debate.
Is your demonstrated contempt for me inspired by your religious beliefs or is it simply part of your personality?
Cris,
i think you are kidding. As per "Markxism", violent aberrations give the identity for hinduism/buddhism to be stamped as violent religions and by the same standard peace is an aberration in islam that exists only with few true muslims, like sufi saints. So, islam is the most peaceful religion.
Last edited:
No the issue is god and not people. If you wish to speak of people, then pursue a degree in phsycology or sociology. Since imaginary gods are not performing violence, then believing in those gods is not violent. Any other human violence should be attributed to criminal behavior not religion.
I wish Jenyar and others can hear you....Even though you jump rope well, they would have a kick out of this.
Absolutely, you are a classic example of this phenomena.....See below YOUR OWN twisting of the meaning of the simple word Jihad...or striving.
You are very ignorant. Can you explain to me how can you stretch the meaning of a word that simply means striving to mean defense of Islam. What does my striving to be a better person have anything to do with Islam? Do you attend evening Bin Laden camp or are you just jesting....cause I'm sick and tired of jestfull crap.
Who is that Islam? Can you give us his address please. I want to ask him a couple of questions. You speak of Islam like it's a PERSON holding a gun to people's head and asking them to do as told or they'll be shot. Be objective and blame the perpetraitors for the deeds and not the innocent writing that can't talk back at us. Do you also advocate that we kill Einstein because he showed us how to create a nuclear bomb? Is it Einstein and other scientists fault that we choose to be dumb and abuse the knowledge.
Debating that Islam that you claim is bogus and violent is not a very intelligent thing Cris. Perhaps you start debating tangible topics like sociology, phsycology, ect.... that you have some experience with. Four years of chasing the imaginary gods in sciforums is more than enough...wouldn't you say?
Think simple Cris....Why do you always deviate from the facts of the matter. Me and you are speaking, no imaginary dogs in the room, so you are the only one inspiring my contempt. Unless you believe some imaginary voice exist.
PS. I should have listened to the all wise Thefountainhed, he's one dude with lots of prudence.
Flores,
You seem to be misunderstanding my approach here. I am not trying to trick, or offend, yet you still mix your statements with largely ad hominem attacks. Why do you do that?
Regarding Jihad: My comments were about how others confuse the meaning of Jihad. You seem to have not read my text properly and have jumped to the wrong conclusions. You also seem to be unaware of the debate in the world that currently surrounds the meaning of Jihad and how it has been interpreted. Here is a simple description from which I hope you can see how some can easily misconstrue the word and see it as advocating violence.
http://www.islamanswers.net/jihad/meaning.htm
Moving on -
You said: - “How can an imaginary god be violant Cris? Can you perhaps explain that to me?”
And my response was: “Imaginary gods are of course incapable of violence. But the issue was religious violence.
To which you replied: “No the issue is god and not people.”
I think you simply lost your train of thought and forgot what you were talking about.
For further clarification I was trying to emphasize that anything imaginary is incapable of any action whether violent or not.
I have no idea what the rope reference is about.
You seem to be misunderstanding my approach here. I am not trying to trick, or offend, yet you still mix your statements with largely ad hominem attacks. Why do you do that?
Regarding Jihad: My comments were about how others confuse the meaning of Jihad. You seem to have not read my text properly and have jumped to the wrong conclusions. You also seem to be unaware of the debate in the world that currently surrounds the meaning of Jihad and how it has been interpreted. Here is a simple description from which I hope you can see how some can easily misconstrue the word and see it as advocating violence.
http://www.islamanswers.net/jihad/meaning.htm
Moving on -
You said: - “How can an imaginary god be violant Cris? Can you perhaps explain that to me?”
And my response was: “Imaginary gods are of course incapable of violence. But the issue was religious violence.
To which you replied: “No the issue is god and not people.”
I think you simply lost your train of thought and forgot what you were talking about.
That is a non sequitur. If followers believe that their god expects them to be violent then that is what they will do whether their idea of a god is violent or not.
For further clarification I was trying to emphasize that anything imaginary is incapable of any action whether violent or not.
I think both qualify. If a Muslim interprets Jihad to mean holy war and that he should kill those who oppose Mohammed and Islam then that is both religiously inspired and a criminal action.
Your statement seems to imply that you do not understand the route teachings of Jesus. Do you understand the concept of ‘turning the other cheek?’
I have no idea what the rope reference is about.
This is where you have not read my text correctly. Do you not see that we are in agreement here? I am not your enemy on this.
Ask those who commit violent acts in the name of Islam and holy war? I’m not doing any stretching.
Then read and understand what I write rather than assume I am being confrontational.
I’m forming the opinion that English is not your first language. You seem to easily misinterpret fairly simple and basic language constructs and you are having trouble with obvious comprehension. I’m not sure that is worth my while attempting to debate with you when you seem unable to understand English.
Then prove me wrong by sometimes being courteous to me as I am always courteous to you. So far every Muslim that has debated here has portrayed the same abusive style that you are demonstrating now. From these experiences I have little choice but to view Islam in an unfavorable light.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
That is exactly what you are doing. In this case you drag up a website which you know will offend muslims.
What kind of violence are you referring to, malicious or self-defece?
You then went on to say; Religious violence, especially theistic inspired, is the result of adherents believing that their god will be pleased if they take certain violent actions.
This has no bearing on religious violence or any instruction by Allah to muslims;
Fight in the cause of Allah THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU, but do not transgress limits.............................
And turn them out from where they have turned you out;
for tumult and opression are worse than slaughter;..........
let there be no hostility
except to those who practice OPRESSION.
Your argument is one of ignorance.
"Islam" applies to God, the submission to God, to be more precise.
Flores said;
Since imaginary gods are not performing violence, then believing in those gods is not violent.
To which you replied;
That is a non sequitur. If followers believe that their god expects them to be violent then that is what they will do whether their idea of a god is violent or not.
By your logic, Flores's point is correct based on the premise you supplied. Your reply simply validates that, by stating that they will do what their god expects them to do.
However, your whole premise is silly, and i sense her boredom in engaging in such childish arguments.
What exactly do you mean by oppose?
Cris, she is asking you some questions, most probably to see how you have arrived at this non-sensical understanding of jihad.
Your understanding of jihad, for whatever reason, is wrong, but you seem to believe it to be true. Flores is explaing what jihad means, but still you cling to your meaning, and then attribute any wrongfull acts (911) as jihad. You probably cannot see it, but you are being purely confrontational. In fact the whole thread is DELIBERATELY confrontational.
I suggest you read what is written and take on board other peoples POV, understand what they are saying, and then make your reply.
LOL!!! When all else fails....... Ad Hominem!
Cheap and simple way out, eh Cris?
Its my ball and i'm not playing anymore.
At best Cris, i would say you probably know the dictionary meaning of the word.
1) You don't debate (as far as religion is concerned), you try your best to debase adherants.
2) It is not your intention to see any religion in a favorable light, but to entice the adherant to become angry by telling them they are delusional fools, believing in fantasies and are incapable of real intelligence. And by posting websites that will hopefully acheive this. If you succeed you say i told you so.
You are indeed, a very opressive person.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Cris
My objective observations are that Islam appears to encourage, whether intentional or not, anti-social and violent behavior against anything and anyone who oppose its tenets. This does not generate a good environment for civilized and intelligent debate.
Is your demonstrated contempt for me inspired by your religious beliefs or is it simply part of your personality?
Those who have undergone Islamic indoctrination here at sciforums, perhaps many years or a lifetime do not take kindly to having their religion discussed in ways that question its authority – they become hostile and elude from the subject. Perhaps it is not so much the belief or the personality, but a combination of both in that the belief has altered the personality.
It would appear that the Jihad concept where we take this to mean a defense of Islam is indeed strong in most Muslims and it necessarily degrades their ability to be tolerant in the face of opposing ideas.
The opposing ideas appear to be viewed as somewhat of an attack or degradation towards the religion, and trigger a defense mechanism, which inherently blocks out the acceptance to entertain those ideas.
I cannot imagine how a free world and an Islamic world can survive together.
In fact, I don’t see how an Islamic world could survive.
My objective observations are that Islam appears to encourage, whether intentional or not, anti-social and violent behavior against anything and anyone who oppose its tenets. This does not generate a good environment for civilized and intelligent debate.
Is your demonstrated contempt for me inspired by your religious beliefs or is it simply part of your personality?
Those who have undergone Islamic indoctrination here at sciforums, perhaps many years or a lifetime do not take kindly to having their religion discussed in ways that question its authority – they become hostile and elude from the subject. Perhaps it is not so much the belief or the personality, but a combination of both in that the belief has altered the personality.
It would appear that the Jihad concept where we take this to mean a defense of Islam is indeed strong in most Muslims and it necessarily degrades their ability to be tolerant in the face of opposing ideas.
The opposing ideas appear to be viewed as somewhat of an attack or degradation towards the religion, and trigger a defense mechanism, which inherently blocks out the acceptance to entertain those ideas.
I cannot imagine how a free world and an Islamic world can survive together.
In fact, I don’t see how an Islamic world could survive.