I don't ? wow, islamophobia is hard to understand.usmarine wrote:
no you still dont get it. nvm. i am done with you.mafia996630 wrote:
I GET IT (lightbulb). Islam in the ME is a way worse then Islam in the uk, but Islam in the UK is still pretty fuked?usmarine wrote:
its like....college football. college football in Maine for example compared to Georgia. same game. same sport. WAY different passion by the people who follow it.
So how comes you say Islam and not Muslims ? Surly you can't blame a book for what people make of it and do because of it ?
yup. now go cry abput teh evil joosmafia996630 wrote:
I don't ? wow, islamophobia is hard to understand.
usmarine wrote:
yup. now go cry abput teh evil joosmafia996630 wrote:
I don't ? wow, islamophobia is hard to understand.
um..k.
yep yep yep those craZy mooslims are at it again /spit tabbacy and open shit beer
fixedloubot wrote:
yep yep yep those craZy mooslims are at it again /spit tabbacy and open shit beer and play the banjo.
I hope that was sarcastic. I really... really do...usmarine wrote:
nobody knows anything about religion tbh. its the people who think radical islam is created because of poverty that need to have their heads examined.Turquoise wrote:
Just a side point here, but how is being a non-Muslim a mark against someone's accuracy in researching Islam?
In many ways, being an outsider provides an objectivity to research that is nearly impossible to achieve if one is part of the subject researched.
For example, most theologians are either agnostic or atheist. Some of the best research of Christian history has been done by non-believers. Why can't the same be possible for Islam?
no it was not. you explain how osama was rich as fuck and lived off a million dollar per year allowance at college, then tell me poverty spawns radical islam. thats like saying all people join the military because they are poor.Turquoise wrote:
I hope that was sarcastic. I really... really do...usmarine wrote:
nobody knows anything about religion tbh. its the people who think radical islam is created because of poverty that need to have their heads examined.Turquoise wrote:
Just a side point here, but how is being a non-Muslim a mark against someone's accuracy in researching Islam?
In many ways, being an outsider provides an objectivity to research that is nearly impossible to achieve if one is part of the subject researched.
For example, most theologians are either agnostic or atheist. Some of the best research of Christian history has been done by non-believers. Why can't the same be possible for Islam?
I was actually responding more to your first sentence, but I'll go into the second one anyway.usmarine wrote:
no it was not. you explain how osama was rich as fuck and lived off a million dollar per year allowance at college, then tell me poverty spawns radical islam. thats like saying all people join the military because they are poor.Turquoise wrote:
I hope that was sarcastic. I really... really do...usmarine wrote:
nobody knows anything about religion tbh. its the people who think radical islam is created because of poverty that need to have their heads examined.
Poverty and ignorance provide an environment more conducive to radicalism. This isn't limited to Islam.
If you have less to lose, and a charismatic fanatic is able to convince you that you'll gain something like 72 virgins in the afterlife, then you'll probably be more likely to blow yourself up in the name of some deity. In other cases, people are promised that the financiers of an operation will take care of the family they leave behind.
So money has a big part in all this. Those guys that did the acid attack on the female students in Afghanistan had been paid a large sum to do the attack.
Again, poverty makes you more likely to do bad shit if the payment or some other benefit is convincing enough.
As for Osama, he's an example of a typical terror mastermind. The average terrorist is just a pawn. The people heading terror networks are quite different in nature. They tend to be motivated purely by ideology.
I wouldn't doubt it if Osama really does believe we're the Great Satan. In short, the guys in charge are the nuttiest of all.
i dont agree
as for my first sentence......how can you know about something that you cannot prove?
as for my first sentence......how can you know about something that you cannot prove?
Last edited by usmarine (2009-02-19 16:31:09)
I was referring to the history of religion.usmarine wrote:
i dont agree
as for my first sentence......how can you know about something that you cannot prove?
We cannot know about the afterlife or any deities, but we can become aware of the history of religion and the social contexts that led to the writing of scriptures.
In short, the point of theology is to understand the meaning of scriptures and why they were written.
It's essentially knowing the human side of religion, rather than the divine.
Unless in a Christian theology class you get talked about some of the divine meaning of things in scripture.
Well, all things that are claimed to be divine are still human.Warhammer wrote:
Unless in a Christian theology class you get talked about some of the divine meaning of things in scripture.
In other words, there is really no way to know the divine. All that we can do is make certain assumptions.
What theologians do is try to find the most accurate interpretation of what the original writers of a scripture intended. I suppose, in that respect, that can be considered knowing the divine if the passage is talking about the divine.
Still, even if something is divinely inspired, it is still written by humans.
You've hit my main problem with organized religion...it is created and sustained by man. Man is inherently flawed. Therefore, organized religion is inherently flawed.Turquoise wrote:
Well, all things that are claimed to be divine are still human.Warhammer wrote:
Unless in a Christian theology class you get talked about some of the divine meaning of things in scripture.
In other words, there is really no way to know the divine. All that we can do is make certain assumptions.
What theologians do is try to find the most accurate interpretation of what the original writers of a scripture intended. I suppose, in that respect, that can be considered knowing the divine if the passage is talking about the divine.
Still, even if something is divinely inspired, it is still written by humans.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Absolutely...FEOS wrote:
You've hit my main problem with organized religion...it is created and sustained by man. Man is inherently flawed. Therefore, organized religion is inherently flawed.Turquoise wrote:
Well, all things that are claimed to be divine are still human.Warhammer wrote:
Unless in a Christian theology class you get talked about some of the divine meaning of things in scripture.
In other words, there is really no way to know the divine. All that we can do is make certain assumptions.
What theologians do is try to find the most accurate interpretation of what the original writers of a scripture intended. I suppose, in that respect, that can be considered knowing the divine if the passage is talking about the divine.
Still, even if something is divinely inspired, it is still written by humans.
I don't know as much about Islam and Mohammed, but I know that Christ talked about how religion is something that should be private and personal and not "for show." It's sad to see how far away from that mindset much of Christianity is today.
I'm obviously not a follower of any religion, but I think if I did pick one, I'd be non-denominational and would focus more on theological research than on what any clergy have to say.
I'm a non-denominational Christian.
More people are moving away from organized religion because of things like what FEOS observed.Warhammer wrote:
I'm a non-denominational Christian.
Still, there are things to consider even as a non-denominational believer.
One of them is how much you trust the accuracy of translators. Is the Bible in its current state close enough to its original form to be accurate in conveying Christ's message? Also, was the Church righteous in deeming a lot of books as apocryphal?
Another concern (which also applies to ANY religion) is how accurate humans are at perceiving messages from the divine.
For example, if God exists, it is possible that the people who listened to him a long time ago and wrote the first chapters of scripture down were well-intended but incorrect in their interpretations.
Yet another concern is how most scriptures began as oral traditions before they were written down. Long before writing the first parts of the Old Testament, Hebrews shared many of the oldest stories through speech, not the written word. As we all know, stories passed down orally tend to change over time with embellishments and such.
So, there is a lot of grey area to consider with religion -- especially when considering the influence of the divine.
Probably Gnostic, tbh.Turquoise wrote:
Absolutely...FEOS wrote:
You've hit my main problem with organized religion...it is created and sustained by man. Man is inherently flawed. Therefore, organized religion is inherently flawed.Turquoise wrote:
Well, all things that are claimed to be divine are still human.
In other words, there is really no way to know the divine. All that we can do is make certain assumptions.
What theologians do is try to find the most accurate interpretation of what the original writers of a scripture intended. I suppose, in that respect, that can be considered knowing the divine if the passage is talking about the divine.
Still, even if something is divinely inspired, it is still written by humans.
I don't know as much about Islam and Mohammed, but I know that Christ talked about how religion is something that should be private and personal and not "for show." It's sad to see how far away from that mindset much of Christianity is today.
I'm obviously not a follower of any religion, but I think if I did pick one, I'd be non-denominational and would focus more on theological research than on what any clergy have to say.
Heresy.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Gnostics are quite fascinating. The Gospel of St. Thomas is as well.FEOS wrote:
Probably Gnostic, tbh.
Heresy.
Oh yeah I agree with you there, I thought of those things as well.Turquoise wrote:
More people are moving away from organized religion because of things like what FEOS observed.Warhammer wrote:
I'm a non-denominational Christian.
Still, there are things to consider even as a non-denominational believer.
One of them is how much you trust the accuracy of translators. Is the Bible in its current state close enough to its original form to be accurate in conveying Christ's message? Also, was the Church righteous in deeming a lot of books as apocryphal?
Another concern (which also applies to ANY religion) is how accurate humans are at perceiving messages from the divine.
For example, if God exists, it is possible that the people who listened to him a long time ago and wrote the first chapters of scripture down were well-intended but incorrect in their interpretations.
Yet another concern is how most scriptures began as oral traditions before they were written down. Long before writing the first parts of the Old Testament, Hebrews shared many of the oldest stories through speech, not the written word. As we all know, stories passed down orally tend to change over time with embellishments and such.
So, there is a lot of grey area to consider with religion -- especially when considering the influence of the divine.
On your St. Thomas statement is that the one where sinners go to hell and later on will be in heaven anyway for a straight to the point sense.
Translation. I can not be bothered to stick to any set belief so I choose to pick and choose those beliefs that I find easy to adhere to or I personally agree with, avoiding all scripture that is difficult to follow or I simply don't want to follow. Thus I am a Christian by MY definition.Warhammer wrote:
I'm a non-denominational Christian.
The Gospel of St. Thomas contradicts a number of commonly held beliefs. For one, it stresses that the Church is not essential to salvation. This pissed off the Catholics.Warhammer wrote:
Oh yeah I agree with you there, I thought of those things as well.Turquoise wrote:
More people are moving away from organized religion because of things like what FEOS observed.Warhammer wrote:
I'm a non-denominational Christian.
Still, there are things to consider even as a non-denominational believer.
One of them is how much you trust the accuracy of translators. Is the Bible in its current state close enough to its original form to be accurate in conveying Christ's message? Also, was the Church righteous in deeming a lot of books as apocryphal?
Another concern (which also applies to ANY religion) is how accurate humans are at perceiving messages from the divine.
For example, if God exists, it is possible that the people who listened to him a long time ago and wrote the first chapters of scripture down were well-intended but incorrect in their interpretations.
Yet another concern is how most scriptures began as oral traditions before they were written down. Long before writing the first parts of the Old Testament, Hebrews shared many of the oldest stories through speech, not the written word. As we all know, stories passed down orally tend to change over time with embellishments and such.
So, there is a lot of grey area to consider with religion -- especially when considering the influence of the divine.
On your St. Thomas statement is that the one where sinners go to hell and later on will be in heaven anyway for a straight to the point sense.
Wikipedia actually sums up this difference pretty well....
"The teaching of salvation (i.e., entering the Kingdom of Heaven) that is found in The Gospel of Thomas is neither that of "works" nor of "grace" as the dicotomy is found in the canonical gospels, but what might be called a third way, that of insight. The overriding concern of The Gospel of Thomas is to find the light within in order to be a light unto the world."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas
Because of various differences in perspective from the canonical books of the Bible, the Gospel of St. Thomas was deemed apocryphal, but in many ways, it seems to preach a more comprehensive and intellectual interpretation of Christ's message.
It's almost Buddhist in this respect....
Uh... no.... that would be the perspective of a fanatic assessing nondenominational Christians.lowing wrote:
Translation. I can not be bothered to stick to any set belief so I choose to pick and choose those beliefs that I find easy to adhere to or I personally agree with, avoiding all scripture that is difficult to follow or I simply don't want to follow. Thus I am a Christian by MY definition.Warhammer wrote:
I'm a non-denominational Christian.
For example, those dogmatic Muslims you don't like so much feel that way toward liberal Muslims.
So, unless you like to be similar to fanatics, try being a little less judgmental.
Wow, who could have guessed the thread's change in direction.
Anyone who's been a regular on this forum for more than six months.mafia996630 wrote:
Wow, who could have guessed the thread's change in direction.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
O dedicated one, please do forgive my innocence.FEOS wrote:
Anyone who's been a regular on this forum for more than six months.mafia996630 wrote:
Wow, who could have guessed the thread's change in direction.