Muslim magazine journalists pretended to be Roman Catholics :D

[Bells]

Have you read "The God of Small Things"?

In that the little girl always weeps for Christ when she goes to mass, because in her mind, everyone is eating bits of his flesh

At the moment he is more interested in why Jesus looks like a wafer. In short, he is too young to understand what it all means and is avidly curious about the notions of "God". So we take turns in taking him to Church most weeks. Although I suspect it is more for the ice-cream he gets on the way home for good behaviour.

Issue is of course, he voices his questions very very loudly in a very hushed church during the prayers before the Eucharist. Thankfully the church goers find it amusing.

But I will have to look into that book.

 

[GeoffP]

That would show a singular lack of faith.

That is an astoundingly dumb point.

I take it your not a catholic?

You take it wrong. I am.

 

[scifes]

No, that some of those interpretations are supremacist, so that they wanna kill people who won't follow their religion or just shut the hell up and take it.

sorry, didn't much understand what you mean..

 

[quadraphonics]

Don't native Americans carve out the heart of warriors?

"Native Americans" are not a single monolithic culture with a fixed set of practices.

That's like asking "Don't Asians kill anyone who observes a funeral party to prevent knowledge of burial locations?"

 

[Giambattista]

"Native Americans" are not a single monolithic culture with a fixed set of practices.

That's like asking "Don't Asians kill anyone who observes a funeral party to prevent knowledge of burial locations?"

Asians actually do that?

 

[quadraphonics]

Asians actually do that?

The ones burying Ghengis Khan did, according to legend.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

"Native Americans" are not a single monolithic culture with a fixed set of practices.

There is some irony to that.

 

[pjdude1219]

You take it wrong. I am.

so than why are you arguing against transubstantiation

 

[Tiassa]

Apostasy is the new thing

so than why are you arguing against transubstantiation

Because many modern Catholics don't give a shit about doctrine. They want to call themselves Catholic while rejecting the doctrine because, obviously, they know better than God.

In the twenty-first century, PJ, theology is personalized. Religious institutionalism is dying because people want to call themselves faithful while believing whatever they choose.

Most Catholics in the U.S., like the majority of their contemporary American Christian brethren, are apostate.

 

[quadraphonics]

There is some irony to that.

Where?

 

[GeoffP]

so than why are you arguing against transubstantiation

Well, let's stop and answer some questions:

Do you, seemingly as a Catholic, believe that the bread and wine becomes flesh and blood, in the general sense?

Do you, as a Catholic, believe that the bread and wine becomes actual flesh and blood in the literal sense, as you chew it?

Because, if you do, you're categorically insane unless you're having a much different experience of Catholicism - and specifically of Communion - than I. It's not literal flesh and blood, and couldn't rationally ever have been so defined by anyone, ever, barring a very strange and astoundingly grisly miracle. Has this, then, happened to you?

Because many modern Catholics don't give a shit about doctrine. They want to call themselves Catholic while rejecting the doctrine because, obviously, they know better than God.

Sheer and utter bollocks. Catholic doctrine has changed, then, not at all in the past, say, two thousand years? Nothing? No modifications of transmitted belief? Hmm? Nothing? And of these changes, some being liturgical, some being just folklore transmission, and some being geographical - which are the right ones? Is the present-day liturgy the absolutely correct one? Guitars in churches no good? Why don't we hear the Mass uniformly - as was the way, not so long ago - in Latin? Surely Latin is closer to God, somehow, innit? Which way does the priest face? Which did he face originally? Which way should he face? How about the Pentateuch - is it all properly Church canon? Are you sure? What was decided on at the Council of Nicaea? Was it really right? Are you sure, now? (Why, your holy soul may be riding on it!) Which books really ought to have made it into the NT? Which really should be Apocrypha? Should any of the books be Apocrypha? How many fingers should I genuflect with? How many Popes are we meant to have?

Etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum. Catholic beliefs have been, in their way, often transitory. If you want to say that:

In the twenty-first century, PJ, theology is personalized.

then you have to qualify to some degree. In a hundred years, the orthodox view may well have changed; and which, then, is the correct view? Shall we dial up God and ask? I think His lines are busy.

Most Catholics in the U.S., like the majority of their contemporary American Christian brethren, are apostate.

Only technically.

 

[pjdude1219]

Well, let's stop and answer some questions:

Do you, seemingly as a Catholic, believe that the bread and wine becomes flesh and blood, in the general sense?

Do you, as a Catholic, believe that the bread and wine becomes actual flesh and blood in the literal sense, as you chew it?

Because, if you do, you're categorically insane unless you're having a much different experience of Catholicism - and specifically of Communion - than I. It's not literal flesh and blood, and couldn't rationally ever have been so defined by anyone, ever, barring a very strange and astoundingly grisly miracle. Has this, then, happened to you?

that's the way its taught. doctrinally it becomes the blood and body. my inablility to except such things is one of the things that ended up with me turning my back on catholicism.


my belief is irrelevant what matters is doctrine.

 

[GeoffP]

I disagree. As I discussed, the beliefs of the Church are not static, or not completely. Doctrine changes. What matters for me are the core elements, and my belief in them.

 

[Michael]

What happens to those who illegally convert in Malaysia?

Yes, SAM, what does happen? How about India? Is it illegal in India to convert? Maybe YOU should be imprisoned for the crime of being a Muslim.

Take a read of scifes posts.

Do they end up like Aafiya Siddiqui? Or like Aborigines in Australia? Or like Palestinians in Gaza?

With this statement I think maybe you'd have made agood plantation owner in other life.

Now, see here boy, whipping their backs is fine. Keeps them in line. And it Aint' nothing they ain't gonna survive. It's Keeping Gods/Allah's natural order of things. With the True and the Perfect over top of the Flawed and the Corrupted.

You live in a Judeo Christian society in Aboriginal Australia. Is that a good society?

Aboriginal Australia. Is that anything like Persian Iraq? Or is it like Jewish Palestine? Christian Constantinople? Christian Syria? Christian Egypt? Hindu India?

Now you're wondering why Malaysian Muslims are not more like you. Is that good?

No I'm not. I'm pointed out how the Religious Intolerance that is inherent and inseparable from Islam encourages Theistic Bigotry - as demonstrated here in Malaysian Law, a reflection of Malaysian Muslims' bigotry against Christianity and other non-Islamic faiths.

Enjoy re-reading scifes posts SAM. At least scifes is honest about it.


NOTE: The same parallels can be found in middle age Christian Europe. YOU yourself point out similar parallels in the treatment of non-Jews in Israel.


Which is something that's for sure.

What kind of society do you want Michael?

I understand that people need their security-blanky and pacifier. I'm not suggesting we pull them away. If people are going to suck on their pacifier SAM, let's make sure it's not too poisonous OK?

Re-read scifes posts.

I don't want your society one that erases everything human or not, that comes in the way of its greed.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Malaysian Muslims discriminating against Malaysian Muslims who convert to Christianity.


Is it that you think it's good to fight human greed with human religious intolerance and superstition? Are you saying brainwashing people with puff the magical-winged-fairy-horse is going to do something to eliminate GREED? Yeah, I see that one happening all OVER the Muslim word for the last 1400 years. No Greed at ALL. Just cotton candy and jelly beans.

:bugeye:

Please SAM.


ALL societies host greedy people. Indian. Arab. European. Japanese. Chinese. American. Aboriginal. Etc.... Yeah, using the "magical Gods" is one method to control behavior, including selfish greedy behavior. It certainly doesn't do much to control it. As a matter of fact. It's pretty crap as history can attest.

Another method is using information.

I'd prefer we try the later.

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven
-- founding any American Christian's Bible

I find it ironic that you feel for Christians who want to use Allah. You're perfectly happy living in a society, where people speak your language, wear clothes like you, eat like you, watch movies like you, because their identity was erased. Deliberately. And for your happiness to be complete, they should all worship like you.

I find it ironic that you support religious bigotry expressed in law. Oh, wait, no I don't.

Is that the society you want? And yes you are right most traditions in Islam are incompatible with the kind of society you will be happy to live in.

I like living in Japan and I'm happy if it stays Japanese. I like living in China. I'm happy it stays Chinese.


If (or when) the Chinese pass a new law whereby it's illegal to become Muslim - I expect you'll be right on side supporting the Communist Party. I for one will call bullshit.

That is such a relief to people like us, that there are options to genocide and ethnic cleansing. To war and torture. To intolerance and oppression.

People like "us" SAM? I didn't realize most Muslims traveled the world in leisure.

Please SAM. You're almost Orwellian in your posts. This post is ABOUT... wait for it... wait for it..... wait for it.... Muslims in Malaysia passing a law whereby it's ILLEGAL for other Muslims in Malaysia to denounce Islam and take up a new superstition.

you know... intolerance and oppression.



One more time:
This thread is about Malaysian Muslims passing a law whereby it's ILLEGAL to convert to a different faith. MOST people can see that this it BIGOTRY.

How fantastic to envision a society where people apologise for hurt feelings rather than wipe their arse with your scriptures and tell you they have a right to be offensive. Civility is so underrated.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If I own a Constitution and I want to wipe my arse with it. It's mine. I can use it for toilet paper.

Now if only there was a way to keep people like you out of Muslim societies

Well, you don't have to worry about at all. Because it's happening from the inside out whether you like it or not. And there's not a damn thing you or anyone is going to be able to do to stop that. So why worry yourself over it? :shrug:

That's just the way it is. You, I, Obama and Bin Laden, whomever, we have nothing to do with it. It's just the natural way of things when people are given information and start to use it to think. It's been happening for centuries, but, ramped up these last few decades. And now, with the internet - well, it's exploding. All this change is making for all this instability and angst. Good evidence that change is happening and will continue to happen.


I happened to be on the right side of history this time around.
Long Live Tolerance!!
Lucky me :-]

 

[GeoffP]

Michael, well put.

Lizardoids, best feet forward.

 

[S.A.M.]

I disagree. As I discussed, the beliefs of the Church are not static, or not completely. Doctrine changes. What matters for me are the core elements, and my belief in them.

The Eucharist Host not being a core element of Catholocism?

What do you believe as a Catholic about Jesus, his resurrection and the holy communion? About transubstantiation?

I have attended Catholic mass for several decades and for some reason, have always had at least one Catholic friend.

I'm interested in comparing your views with theirs

 

[GeoffP]

The Eucharist Host not being a core element of Catholocism?

The Eucharist as what? The actual Body and Blood of Christ? Or a symbolic representation? I think you'd have a hard time genotyping Jesus from a piece of bread.

What do you believe as a Catholic about Jesus

Son of God, Lamb of God (and...is He then an actual Lamb? Good heavens!), He takes away the Sins of the world - have mercy on us. 'Son' of God (in a form of descendancy that not ever , conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary (although, not completely important that she's a virgin, but I'm willing to take everyone's word on this), suffered under Pontius Pilate, died and was buried. On the third day, rose again, ascended into Heaven and seated at the right hand of the Father. Communion of saints, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the body, life everlasting. And so forth.

, his resurrection

Yep.

and the holy communion?

Important - a medium of respect; a commemoration of His sacrifice.

About transubstantiation?

Symbolic.

I have attended Catholic mass for several decades and for some reason, have always had at least one Catholic friend.

I'm interested in comparing your views with theirs

I am indeed honoured at your interest. I thank you.

Geoff

 

[scifes]

i've finally read michael's post. and i couldn't help wondering;

Take a read of scifes posts.

Enjoy re-reading scifes posts SAM. At least scifes is honest about it.

Re-read scifes posts.

what did i say that's very worth while?
and why don't you add a 's at the end of my name
AND you didn't reply to my last post directed at you!

Please SAM. You're almost Orwellian in your posts. This post is ABOUT... wait for it... wait for it..... wait for it.... Muslims in Malaysia passing a law whereby it's ILLEGAL for other Muslims in Malaysia to denounce Islam and take up a new superstition.

you know... intolerance and oppression.

i already answered that, ok, let's try and use our environment here...
michael, do you support teaching creation along with evolution in schools? for the sake of tolerance?

you start by assuming god doesn't exist, hence all religions are wrong, hence the least they can do other than disappearing from the face of the earth is to at least modify themselves to not clash between each other, to co-exist, to acknowledge that the others are right.

but if god does exist, then the fight between them is the most important in existence, one where no prisoners should be taken, one with no compromises, you just don't get the magnitude of the potential importance laying within the possibility of god existing, you're just following a policy of no-see no-hear no-talk no nothing. god doesn't exist, religions are playthings, what should we do now.

and you've been doing that ever since you've been here, rambling about intolerance and diversity, going about it with your selective comprehension, here, last post of your thread;

this thread launches eliminating the possibility that god(s) exists.
a negative can't be proven.
hence,
this thread is nonsense.

if you want to say that you think prophets are lairs because they claim god exist, just say so...
oh wait,

you already did..

if there was ever an atheist blinded by belief, it's you...you're a negative image of a theistic nut.

blissfully the rabid thread has died, but my post remained unanswered... then you repeat your fallacy in a new thread, and future threads to come i believe.. i've said it again here;

yes yes yes i get it trust me i do, but what you fail at seeing is that while self righteousness is wrong most of the time(because few deserve it and many claim it), it still is worthy of one or some, to try and get this across to you, YOU imagine a world where half the world are born crazy, and they're strong enough to enforce their illogical laws, will you agree to have the law half logical and half not? for the sake of diversity and colorfulness and tolerance?

this of course is an extreme example, to show that you can't always play the tolerance card, and when everyone tries to play the "intolerance of what's wrong" card, while they might be all wrong, in that neither of them is correct and the rest wrong, there IS a possibility that one of them IS right and the rest wrong, making him the only one who has the right to play said card, even if all are raising it.

i even started a whole thread about it[which i didn't follow since it got diverted]

One more time:
This thread is about Malaysian Muslims passing a law whereby it's ILLEGAL to convert to a different faith. MOST people can see that this it BIGOTRY.

most people also see that god exists, your point being?
most people see that right shouldn't be intolerant of wrong, so?
why don't christians or your dear xians apply that to muslims? maybe cuz deep down they know they're wrong?
the US jailed the boxer mohammad-ali for refusing to go burn some vietnamese he's never saw or have a quarrel with, that was by the law, you don't like it, you leave, may it be islamic or otherwise, laws are there to govern people, not to have them sing of how righteous they are.

you also do not know why converting from islam is wrong, hence illeagal, you don't know how it's done or its procedures, you know a lot of wrong and little right about islam which you are judging.

it's like the world has finally been atheisticized, religion is a thing of the past and teachers are not allowed to teach creationism in school, and anyone who does teach it get's his teaching license withdrawn... idk, is that intolerance?
even if said teacher is seated to undergo a heavy course of all the [to be discovered] sealing proof and evidence, the one that makes evolution correct beyond doubt, and the teacher still refuses to comply, should his license be withdrawn?
shouldn't right be tolerant of wrong here? why not?

hope you get the picture.

 

[Michael]

what did i say that's very worth while?
and why don't you add a 's at the end of my name
AND you didn't reply to my last post directed at you!

I'm pretty sure I answered you. What's your question?

ok, let's try and use our environment here...
michael, do you support teaching creation along with evolution in schools? for the sake of tolerance?

There's nothing wrong with teaching creationism in school. As a popular topic in the mainstream I think it should discussed - in Philosophy course for example. To be taught in a "science" course, you need to have something called "evidence" that is "measurable".

you start by assuming god doesn't exist, hence all religions are wrong, hence the least they can do other than disappearing from the face of the earth is to at least modify themselves to not clash between each other, to co-exist, to acknowledge that the others are right.

Yes that's about right.

but if god does exist, then the fight between them is the most important in existence, one where no prisoners should be taken, one with no compromises, you just don't get the magnitude of the potential importance laying within the possibility of god existing, you're just following a policy of no-see no-hear no-talk no nothing. god doesn't exist, religions are playthings, what should we do now.

There are no Gods Scifes (Or Alien Overlords). It's really is THAT simple. I know you'd like there to be Gods. Just like Scientologists would really like to think the $250,000 they paid to go to see Xemu/Xenu was money well spent. But, there isn't and it wasn't.


In the past religions served many purposes.
- Some of those purposes are no longer relevant.
- Others are incompatible with modern societies.
- Some are still of use.
Let's weed out the stuff that sucks from what is still useful. Pretty simple.

and you've been doing that ever since you've been here, rambling about intolerance and diversity, going about it with your selective comprehension, here, last post of your thread;

Why is it illegal for Muslims to convert to Christianity? Why do You support these BIGOTED laws?


Imagine a day when someone comes to you and tells you that your belief is illegal. Maybe it'll be a Communist? Or a Militant Atheist? Or a Christian? Or another Muslim. Whatever. Suppose they burned down your home with your family in it - for the crime of your belief. On that day. Those posts' will probably make some sense.

blissfully the rabid thread has died, but my post remained unanswered... then you repeat your fallacy in a new thread, and future threads to come i believe.. i've said it again here;

Ron Hubbard claimed to have spoken with Aliens from other Planets. One was named Xenu/Xemu. He then fleeced other people (well can call them suckers) out of decades of life and millions of dollars. He kept many suckers trapped on a boat where he'd use brainwashing techniques (like praying 5 times a day to Xenu and changing their names). Until the suckers were 100% sure there was a Xemu. Some wouldn even die for Xemu (and Ron).


We may not be able to mathematically "prove" there is no Xemu.
I'm sure there isn't a Xemu.
Therefor Ron was a liar.



Do you agree? Or do you think there's a Xemu Scifes? Was Ron Hubbard a liar? Is it possible to have this conversation or is it all just too "unknownable" double negative knowledge?

Geee, huck huck, I don't know, maybe dar is a Xemu. :bugeye:



It's time to grow up.

i even started a whole thread about it[which i didn't follow since it got diverted]

Again, WHY do Muslims in Malaysia make a law making it illegal to convert to Christianity?

Do you see ANYTHING at all wrong with such a law?



What about this:
Do you think Slavery should be illegal?
Why?


IF Slavery were LEGAL, would it be RABID to protest to Slavery?

most people also see that god exists, your point being?

If you take most of history, then most people actually believed in multiple Gods. They also believed in a flat earth. Many practiced Slavery (like the protagonist Mohammad in the fairytale Qur'an).
So, what's your point?

most people see that right shouldn't be intolerant of wrong, so?

Most people see Slavery as wrong. Just because some bigots think it's right, isn't going to change that fact that it's wrong.

Again, what's your point?

why don't christians or your dear xians apply that to muslims? maybe cuz deep down they know they're wrong?

Apply THAT to Muslims? Making their religion illegal?

The Spanish Catholics gave Muslim's living in Spain time to leave Spain. Any that remained were either murdered or converted to Christianity. What do you think about that? Catholics would visit each EX-muslims house to make sure they were good little Christians and were eating pork. If not they'd offer them some pork to eat. The Muslims shut up and ate their pork, prayed to Jesus and their great great great grand kids are Christians. Some of whom hate Muslims. Isn't that ironic?

You must love that bit of history? You seem to support it.

the US jailed the boxer mohammad-ali for refusing to go burn some vietnamese he's never saw or have a quarrel with, that was by the law, you don't like it, you leave, may it be islamic or otherwise, laws are there to govern people, not to have them sing of how righteous they are.

No one was jailed for refusing to burn people. What's you point anyway?

you also do not know why converting from islam is wrong, hence illeagal, you don't know how it's done or its procedures, you know a lot of wrong and little right about islam which you are judging.

There's nothing at all wrong with converting from Islam. That's your bigotted brain telling you that due to years of brainwashing. Just like WASPs think it's "wrong" for black people to reproduce with white people. Just like Spanish Catholics thought Islam was wrong and killed every single last Muslim left in Spain.


Thinking that's OK Scifes?

it's like the world has finally been atheisticized, religion is a thing of the past and teachers are not allowed to teach creationism in school, and anyone who does teach it get's his teaching license withdrawn... idk, is that intolerance?
even if said teacher is seated to undergo a heavy course of all the [to be discovered] sealing proof and evidence, the one that makes evolution correct beyond doubt, and the teacher still refuses to comply, should his license be withdrawn?
shouldn't right be tolerant of wrong here? why not?

See my above point. Creationism SHOULD be discussed in School.

 

[GeoffP]

scifes, again you're alluding to the old "it's not oppression if it's right" argument. Classic Quran 2: 256 Wahhabi stuff.