Are all religions one ?
Nowadays some people have come forward with the claim that all religions are essentially saying the same thing. What is your take on the topic. Are all religions one or is one of them greatly superior to others or are all religions just rubbish?
this is strictly my personal opinion...
one in what sense?...and how can one be superior to other?...every religion has its flaws and its positive side..none is perfect..because all are man made religions..
yes those who have faith in their own religion do believe that their religion is best/superiorTe essnce is the same
RELIGIONS
The entire Buddhist monk’s life is but a preparation,
For his Death Point or moment of separation.
The Jains have santhara,
Quitting life consciously to join with the paramatma.
Hindus go into Samadhi,
Where there is no Congress, Shiv Sena, BJP or Samajwadi.
The Christian merges with the Holy Spirit,
Peace, no more desperate.
The Sufi mystic to become one,
Dances, twirls, prays, trances to get the job done.
Aghora means Illumined with Light,
Longing for Shiva in whom they delight.
Shamanism or the Art of Ecstasy,
The ultimate being one with the super entity.
There is no need to change your faith,
And on your old religion lay a wreath.Hi friend BlackSun
All Revealed Religions are from one source the Creator- God Allah YHWH; so logically they have to be one. All of them are truthful in origin; the difference is due to human manipulation or misunderstanding of them.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful MuslimMost all faiths have bits and pieces of the tapestry of truth. As individuals we are to discern for ourselves what is and is not true for us personally. To advocate that one has all knowledge is exhibiting an abundance of pride. The proper and most logical path is to accept that truth is everywhere and that we are to discover truth for us and to respect the truth for others.
I think all religions spring from the same inner source with an outer variations.Its just like humans with the same essence but various physical outlook.
Historically I've found that threads like this tend to be rubbish and are generally solely for Trolling!
Why don't you spend your new time here writing a hub about your Islamic belief instead of creating irrelevant threads?
Afterall, didn't you join this site to write?
Surely you aren't attempting to act in a Troll like manner, by baiting the members with this thread?
Factually, many of us are sick of entities like this baiting the forums when they have no constructive history here!Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Edward Gibbon
All religions seem to be talking about the same thing in different ways. It even seems to have come from Sumer. So yeah. It's not rubbish, its just hard to accept, especially if your self esteem is dependent on being the chosen or the saved or if you gave up your true love to obey the commandments.
Well I think the bible scribes were pretty close to Iraq and Afghanistan, so Sumer as a region would be modern Iraq yes?
I think the Mediterreanian. human civilizations that survived the last ice age was in Iran. They found pottery shards there that were 12,000 years old.
Torah text speak of the original torah being written in black and white "fire". TO understand what this means, you have to realize that the world "fire" could be anything iridiscent. So I tend to wonder if that black and white fire is a computer screen. But that's from reading too much asimov.Wot no colour monitors?
Yep, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan all pretty close to each other.I wish we could dig that place. Why on earth is that place unfriendly to science. I mean out of all places to be unfriendly, why there? It's like a deliberate trick of fate to keep our origins a mystery.
It is a bit hard to wander around at this time for sure! I don't see a lot of access being granted in the future either.
We have wonderful digs here in Australia. Animals and human going back 46,000 years.
The site in Northern NSW is pristine, the fossils often complete.
Much is being learned. Apparently a fairy didn't dunnit!I believe in the great forgetting,do you? I think all these religions are the remnants of old old knowledge.
With you on that! I started a new thread, see you there tomorrow. Have a wonderful sleep.
I'm going to hit the bed...I'm micro sleeping already. nice chatting with you ernest!
- ShadowKing!posted 13 years ago
0No, not likely. Why:
1. different beliefs in the numerical composition of their God(s);
2. different paths to salvation;
3. different High Priest(s) or High Priestess(es);
4. different "chosen people";
5. different focuses from their God(s);
6. different gender of their Creator; etc...7. ..... and the belief that those who don't select their god the same way are all gonna rot somewhere!
Are all religions one? It depends on how you want to look at it.
All religions of the world operate on the SAME 3 doctrines.
(a) selfless(undefined)/doctrine #1
(b) oppression of desire(undefined)/doctrine #2
(c) a belief in god(undefined)/doctrine #3
In that respect, all religions are the same. But, not in anything else.each religion is a particular understanding of the One Source
Hi friends SparklingJewel
I agree with you; and that one source is the Creator-God Allah YHWH.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
Explain, with illustrations, examples, prayers, scriptures, and practices.
Because all of the above already associated with any religion point to their similarities of intention.
But if you know of a religion that does not want what Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism aspire to, let us know.
Ohh isn't that cute...another lil teacher has come to play with me.
oow look a classroom exercise...
Get a life Teri... and all you leant leftists should stop treating and speaking to people like they're children.
It is condescending and arrogant, at best.
Islam is a far different religion than all the others you named. You can sit here and tell me about the glossy veneer of similarities all you want.
I know better.
It's biggest difference is in the Nature of the god Islam worships, as compared to the gods of Buddism, Christianity and Judaism.
You want an example, read the Qu'ran & A'Hadith and then read the Ingeel and Torat, and tell me how you find the Nature of the dieties in question to mesh.
I will expect 5000 words on it by next week.
What is it with you leftists and the idea that all things are equal, and that there is more than one truth.
It is just not true.Hey TMM,
You seem to love to argue. The worse thing about you is that you cannot even tell when you are wrong.
As I posted earlier in this thread, ALL religions are the same.
And, had you read and understood the words that I used, when I posted, then you would know that you were wrong.
So, I'll say it again for you, since you missed it the first time, for whatever reason.
ALL religion are based on the SAME 3 doctrines, to begin with. The deeper you go into them, they all point to the same place, to achieve the same goal.
Doctrine #1- selfless(undefined) - a failed ideology.
Doctrine #2- oppression of desire(undefined) - failed ideology.
Doctrine #3- belief in god(undefined- god is undefined too) - failed ideology.
Not only are they all the same, but they are all failures, because when you use either as an example for a human being, it is automatically learned that a person cannot be selfless to the extreme and would in essence become selfish. Somewhat, like most of your posts. When you try to oppress desire- it leads to only one place, insanity(see how it fails). When a rational human being runs the belief in god by her/his conscience- they cannot believe 100% on pure faith. It's impossible for any evolved person with half a brain cell.
Sorry, that's the truth of the matter. But, you keep fighting.You can think what you want Cags.
I don't recall even adressing you or your ealier post, (which I read along with the others).
So get a grip.
Second... I am not bound by the laws of the universe to agree with you.
So too bad.
You and all the others are free to equate all religions all you want.
Have at it.
Have another hissy fit why dont you now. That seems to be all alot of people on here do when they are disagreed with... speaks volumes to me.Just proves you perpetuate lies yourself, so how can anyone take you seriously. But, thank you for responding and helping to prove it. Much appreciated.
"Same", means more than just a few things in common with regards to intent and failures, Cags.
They are not all the Same... maybe if one just casually looks at them. But not when it comes to the important things.
And that is just a plain fact.
I think your severe aversion to religion makes you inept at actually looking at them as anything other than the object of your hate and all just "Religion".Actually, again you show your lack of knowledge. Nice job.
Religion- is a business, ALL of them. In all countries, religions use money therefore they are a business.
The business methodology behind each business is to deliver a code of ethics, tied to a higher cause other than humankind.
So, again, you seem to not understand. They are ALL the same.
Just a thought.
I've read the Injil, or Injeel, because it's the Arabic word for the Christian gospel.
I've read the Tawrat, or Tauraat, because it is what the Jews refer to as the Torah, and Christians know as the Old Testament.
They are, indeed, both books in the Qur'an. I haven't read the other two all the way through, I confess. But I do know what a hadith is.
However, you don't say which hadiths you are suggesting I read; they are the aphorisms, or sayings, of Muhammad.
I've always liked this one, on peacemaking:
"Shall I not inform you of a better act than fasting, alms, and prayers? Making peace between one another: enmity and malice tear up heavenly rewards by the roots."
So how about it, Mr. Mason? Peace?I prefer Bukhari or Moslem, and they are more than aphorisms, sayings of mohhammud. they are the guidde to understanding the Qu'ran.
They represent not only the model of perfection as lived by mohhamud and his daily ways and words.
But they are very important for understanding the chronology within which the texts of the Qu'ran is revealed, and the instances for which the revealations of the suras where issued from Allah.
it is the only way to understand the intent behind the suras and the revealation of the Qu'ran in whole. You are missing a very large aspect of understanding in islam without thier guidance.
Also you should read Ibn Ishaq's, Life of the prophet Mohhammud. Again it will explain alot of the spuratic and sometimes convoluttedly scripted uttering of Allah.
And I am sorry to inform you that by the law of abbrogation, that sentiment you love so much, is not in the Qu'ran.
It has been usurped and replaced with the following...
verse 9:5 the verse of the Sword is considered to be one of Mohhammud's last revalations and by that respect abbrogates all other verses of a concilliatory nature.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/ab … erses.html
You do know that abbrogation occurs in the Qu'ran don't you. All of the concilliatory verses towards Jews, Christians and non-believers were subjected to, "nask", "Obliterated" by Allah and replaced with the more violent verses which call for Jihad until the day of judgment...
Qu'ran 2:216
YUSUFALI: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
PICKTHAL: Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
SHAKIR: Fighting is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/quran_teaches.htm
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc … 2.qmt.html
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm
Where does any of that seem similar to you? Intent? I don't see it.
Yes.
Islam may indeed incorporate some features and stories from the Old and New testment. But theey are fragmented, disjointed exagerated confabulations of the real thing only.
And peace is not the standing order of Allah... jihad to establish Shari'a world-wide so that all confess there is no god but allah and momo is his prophet, is the only standing order and of the highest regard in Islam.
I myself refuse to ever state such a laughable and blasphamous thing. Islam is nothing more than a sick perverted mockery of the religion I follow. And an insult to every jew and Christian in the world.Way cool --
now I'm intrigued. A few questions, and a few points--
--since the suras were presented in order of length, from longest to shortest, I'm assuming you mean we should instead read them in their chronological order, as recommended by scholars, so that we can see how the newer sayings of Muhammad supersede the older ones? Ok, I get that. I don't care to read anything on the abrogation of the suras, as I'll explain later.
The fact that any aphorism on peace-making was later negated by one on war-mongering does not have any impact on whether or not I like the verse I quoted. The practices and traditions of pretty much all organized religion are abhorrent to me; that does not mean that there are not verses in the Bhagavad Gita ("he. . . who treats alike both friend and enemy"), or the Prayer of St. Francis ("Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace"), or the Qur'an ("if any one slew a person [. . .] it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people" 5.32) that I can like.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that I can like whatever I damn well please.
But that was not your point. You were wondering whether I knew that what Mohammad said later in his life automatically made what he had earlier stated null and void. No, I don't know that; because it isn't true, and I'm really not trying to be pedantic; if we were talking about newer State's laws superseding old ones, then I grant you that we would all be held to the letter of the most recent laws.
But the "laws" of any religion or church are meaningless, unless we choose to adhere to them.
I've never considered myself Moslim or Greek Orthodox, Buddhist, Jain, Daoist, Shintoist, Presbyterian, Jewish, or any other faith, as it usually entails following some dang stupid rules of one kind or another (the Benedictine Rule? ). So, to get back to the point: no, I can still like whichever of Mohammad's aphorisms I choose.
But that's not what you meant. You were saying that the strictest, most serious students of Islam must adhere to the teachings of Mohammad as dictated by the true chronological order of the suras, therefore all Muslims are warmongering, sinister and perverted tricksters? I hardly think so. Denigrating a whole religion in this manner is denying the humanity of young mothers feeding their babies, grandmothers, anyone who is not caught in the fallacy of organized scripture (chronological or otherwise).
What are we left with?
Seriously -- what are we supposed to do?
I choose to look for "sentiment" (which you seem to be sneering at? at least, forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's how your words came across) -- I choose to look for the expressions of feeling that promote peace, and pick them up wherever I find them. The day my father died (and you will no doubt make a snide remark about this), a Japanese friend gave me some chocolate on the way to the airport, "to comfort my mouth." I can not jeer in the face of sincere sentiment, even if the speaker does change his/her mind later and take it all back. What happens later or earlier has no impact at all on the moment.
If we choose, therefore, to comment on the expressions of any religious scripture promoting peace, what are we guilty of? --Of seeking conciliation.
If we choose, therefore, to comment on the expressions of any religious scripture promoting war (think "vengeance of the Lord," etc.) what are we guilty of? --Of seeking discord.
So, back to my earlier sentiment, TTM: Peace? Or would you like to go a few more rounds?I will go as many rounds as you like .
Where to begin...
1... I never claimed nor cared about whether it impacts whether you like something, or not.
My point was, that sentiment does not exist in the later verses.
And the prevailing sentiment in the qu'ran, and the standing order of the Qu'ran and Allah, is Jihad to claim the world.
That is a simple point.
Irrelevent of whether or not you like a verse cause it sounds nice and peaceful.
The fact is chronology matters in the Qu'ran and in ones understanding of the Qu'ran.
To dismiss it as if it is irrelevent and of no consequence, just examplifies the leftist view of feelings and nicey nice things, over-ruling the reality of the world and life.
I am very happy you liked the verse, but that has nothing to do with how a Muslim understands the Qu'ran and the final words of thier prophet.
Absolutely, nothing.
Do you think Muslims do not understand which of the verses have been abbrogated and by what later commands they were superceded?
I can assure they do.
"The practices and traditions of pretty much all organized religion are abhorrent to me;"
And I am sure that you also cannot fathom, nor grasp, that someone would live thier religion to the point where it was the prime drive of thier existence, in exclusion to all other things.
I am sure you think you do, and you can... but in reality you do not.
Not if you think the chronoological order of a holy book is inconsequential and of no need to mind. While thinking you understand thier mind-set and what they glean from that religion.
And I do not know what would make you think you do.
"if any one slew a person [. . .] it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people"
A perfect example of stolen ideas from the Torat used to try and lure the Jews and others into islam in the prophets day. You do know that is in the Bible?
"I can still like whichever of Mohammad's aphorisms I choose.
But that's not what you meant. You were saying that the strictest, most serious students of Islam must adhere to the teachings of Mohammad as dictated by the true chronological order of the suras, therefore all Muslims are warmongering, sinister and perverted tricksters?"
Yes you can like what-ever you like.
I am glad you understand that is not what I meant... but you seem a lil obsessed to turn this into a conversation about me not wanting you to like something... it isn't.
And I am not sure how repeating that makes you a great debater that I should fear more rounds with you.
But anyway...
"I choose to look for "sentiment" (which you seem to be sneering at? at least, forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's how your words came across) -- I choose to look for the expressions of feeling that promote peace, and pick them up wherever I find them"
Well I am happy for you about that... but those abbrogated verses hold no wieght in the lslamic world, and to toss them about as if they do, and to cause people who do not know better to believe they are the ruling verses Muslims live by, causes more harm and damage then good.
Or do you think the dis-honest propagation of the false intent of of Islam is a good thing.
Do we tell lies about something, to make it something it isn't, just so we won't argue... or so we will all accept it.
I say No! We do not.
You can say to all the Muslims you want that the verses you like and are so pretty should be the ones which hold sway in the Islamic world... but that doesn't make it so.
You are not of sufficient authority to abbrogate Allah's ruling verses. And to think you are just shows an arrogance I have come to expect from only the left.
"If we choose, therefore, to comment on the expressions of any religious scripture promoting peace, what are we guilty of? --Of seeking conciliation."
So we kill the truth to have conciliation...
That is so ass backwards I will just shake my head and leave it at that.
"If we choose, therefore, to comment on the expressions of any religious scripture promoting war (think "vengeance of the Lord," etc.) what are we guilty of? --Of seeking discord."
When we speak of Islam and its militant verses we are speaking of the ruling verses and the fnal words of thier prophet. We are speaking on the strictures imposed on the ummah, by thier god, and his desire for the world.
We are speaking the truth about islam's intent.
You do know... that you may inded find moderate muslims, but there is no such thing as moderate Islam.Have you heard of the Sikhs, founded by the prophet Guru Nanak,Hindus ,Christians and Muslims have joined it as its represents One god.
All Hindus,Christians and Muslims are not fanatics.
The Prophet Muhammad said"To your religion be true as I to mine."
Hi friend Teresa McGurk
It is a wrong notion that Quran has been arranged in order of length, from longest to shortest
Please see a separate thread on it:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/48649
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful MuslimThank you for the information. I realize that the suras have been rearranged into chronological order, but I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand the whole document.
Thanks,
T.
(A note to the more seasoned Hubbers here who think I'm foolish for engaging in this debate, that it wasn't worth the effort, and that it's stupid to encourage such debates by prolonging them: that's in fact one of the points I'm trying to make by illustrating it in action. Also, sometimes, a girl's just in the mood for a good slanging match.)
TMM--"I will go as many rounds as you like."
Yes. That is what warmongers do. Everything becomes struggle, competition, fear ("they want to take over the world--don't you know that, little lady? you're living in a dream, and one morning you're going to wake up and they'll have stolen our temples and turned them all into mosques! And I haven't even started to tell you of the single-minded ardor of the suicide-bomber. When are you going to realize that they have been programmed and brain-washed into thinking that their only mission is to adhere to Moslem laws and steal our very way of life?")
TMM--"To dismiss it as if it [chronology in the Qur'an] is irrelevent and of no consequence, just examplifies the leftist view of feelings and nicey nice things, over-ruling the reality of the world and life."
Oh, no--I never knew any of that, because I live in a cosy bubble, decorated by Disney and peopled with furry cartoon characters called Sneezy, Snuffy, and Snorkle. I haven't ever noticed that if you read the Qur'an in the proper order, the chronological progression of the verses, you know that the main sentiment of M's later phase advocates claiming the world. Just as I was too busy knitting socks for poor orphans in the snow to notice that the progression of Christianity in Africa in the 19th century was to a) steal natural resources wherever they could be found and then b) cover it all over with the fiction that Christians are saving the poor heathens by building churches and taking away their very way of life? Just as I was way too involved in crocheting doilies in my fully insulated parlor to notice that Palestinians are having their land, homes, and means of supporting themselves stolen from them, because it says in the Torah that it's not their land, and whatever is said in the Torah is correct, verified by the great fact-checker in the sky, and so gives license to steal?
TMM--"Irrelevent of whether or not you like a verse cause it sounds nice and peaceful."
"Nice and peaceful"? "nicey nice things, over-ruling the reality of the world and life"? What
are you so afraid of?
TMM--"I am very happy you liked the verse, but that has nothing to do with how a Muslim understands the Qu'ran and the final words of thier prophet."
No, it doesn't. I never said that it did. Why would I say anything so patently silly?
TMM--"And I am sure that you also cannot fathom, nor grasp, that someone would live thier religion to the point where it was the prime drive of thier existence, in exclusion to all other things. I am sure you think you do, and you can... but in reality you do not."
I grew up in Belfast.
I know nothing about what religious division causes. I know nothing about discrimination, military law, internment without trial, road blocks manned by gunmen, men and women being shot in front of their children, small scraps of human flesh on black rubble, young men in bars being brain-washed into thinking that the only way to end religious division is to kill, maim, slaughter, and in this way reclaim the land that had been stolen from our ancestors by the British, so we could live the one true religion again as Allah intended. I don't know anything about any of that.
TMM--"if you think the chronoological order of a holy book is inconsequential and of no need to mind [then you are] thinking you understand thier mind-set and what they glean from that religion. And I do not know what would make you think you do."
I don't know how you gleaned that from what I DID say, because I didn't say THAT. I don't understand the mindset. I'm too nicey nicey, remember? All I can understand are rainbows and bunnies.
The quotation from the Torat about "if a man slew one he slew the whole people." You say that it's "A perfect example of stolen ideas from the Torat used to try and lure the Jews and others into islam in the prophets day. You do know that is in the Bible?"
Yes. It's the same scripture, whether it is studied by Moslem or Jew. It isn't there to lure Jews to do anything. It's the same scripture, the Torat/Torah: they are the same text called by different names. Both religions share the same text. Just as some Christians share it too, even though it promotes law over compassion, the same text--but the name is not Torat or Torah; they call it the Old Testament. Same book.
About my saying "I can still like whichever of Mohammad's aphorisms I choose."
TMM--"you seem a lil obsessed to turn this into a conversation about me not wanting you to like something... it isn't."
Let me see if I understand this in the way you meant it. You think I care what you think about what I like?
TMM--"Well I am happy for you about that... but those abbrogated verses hold no wieght in the lslamic world, and to toss them about as if they do, and to cause people who do not know better to believe they are the ruling verses Muslims live by, causes more harm and damage then good. Or do you think the dis-honest propagation of the false intent of of Islam is a good thing."
My saying that I prefer verses promoting peace over verses promoting the singleminded takeover of the world is not dishonest propagation of the false intent of Islam. It's saying that I prefer verses promoting peace.
No matter the source.
Because someone is looking for peace (and, apparently, "nicey nicey things"; presumably that means, also, "leftist arrogance"), it does not translate into saying TMM: "to all the Muslims [. . .] that the verses you like and are so pretty should be the ones which hold sway in the Islamic world... ."
That is simply a misunderstanding. You seem to think I am trying to evangelize, proselytize, preach, to everyone, by hiding reality under "nicey nicey."
Erm, no. Where did I say that? If I like something, does that automatically mean that I think everyone should stop what they are doing, take off that vest with the (American-made?) C4 (plastique) strapped to it and one of those fancy (German?) wireless detonators, and come live with me in an insulated bubble? Oh yes. Let's all drink tea, because I think Mohammad said some really nice things, before he got strange in the head and started ranting a bit.
TMM--"Do we tell lies about something, to make it something it isn't, just so we won't argue... or so we will all accept it. I say No! We do not. You are not of sufficient authority to abbrogate Allah's ruling verses. And to think you are just shows an arrogance I have come to expect from only the left."
Ah. You are annoyed that I choose to ignore something big, something real, something that frightens you. No one likes to have their fears ignored or belittled. The growing surge of Islam is pervasive -- Indonesia, Britain (the second denomination after Church of England in England itself is Islam), hang on, here's a list, although it's based on figures about 30 years old, so we should probably increase several of these percentages?: http://arabicpaper.tripod.com/country.html.
Next, you take my statement ("If we choose, therefore, to comment on the expressions of any religious scripture promoting war--think 'vengeance of the Lord,' etc.--what are we guilty of? --Of seeking discord"), and reply with this:
TMM--"When we speak of Islam and its militant verses we are speaking of the ruling verses and the fnal words of thier prophet. We are speaking on the strictures imposed on the ummah, by thier god, and his desire for the world. We are speaking the truth about islam's intent."
Yes. No argument. But you are missing the point: when someone repeats and repeats and repeats the intent of Islam, he/she is contributing to the spread of Islam. Don't say that this is a facile statement, because it isn't.
TMM--"You do know... that you may indeed find moderate muslims, but there is no such thing as moderate Islam."
Well. There we can be in complete accord. Unfortunately, in the present era, in hundreds of madrassas in Pakistan (for example), young boys are being trained in Islamic extremism. No, they aren't the only ones. What do we do? Go there and ask them to please stop? Tell a policeman? Shove it down everyone's throat that this is happening right now and that they'd better listen because it's a real threat and it's happening now?
But then, whole point of this thread in this forum is to examine the question of whether all religions are one. The question can be taken in many ways, but several people here think that all religions--if taken to an extreme--have dangerous implications and are potentially threatening institutions.
What gives Jews the right to steal Palestinians' land, and is this threat not a dangerously extreme interpretation of whatever Jews say is the will of their god?
What gives Catholics in Belfast the right to murder people in the name of uniting Ireland? Don't tell me there is peace there now, because several nights ago over 80 police officers in Belfast were injured in rioting in one single night.
What gives any religion the right to impose their views on anyone else? In the name of a god, too?
You will say that I am ignoring the real threat of Islam, and that it is bigger and more dangerous than any other threat in the world in the present era?
Tell that to the people who live in fear of persecution by other religions--the people who are firebombed out of their homes because they are Protestants living in an increasingly Catholic neighborhood. Does the threat of Islam cancel out any other threat by religious extremists in any other part of the world? Does it cancel out politically motivated genocide, too? The Chinese suppression of public dissent? The Hutu-Tutsi conflict in Rwanda, that is not based in religious or regional struggle, but in the perception of one class as potential enslavers of another? Hundreds of thousands of Rwandans raped and then hacked into pieces -- some estimates put the figure at over a million dead -- and both the Hutus and the Tutsis are Christian? What about the American bombing of Afghanistan and Iran, in the name of spreading democracy? Go ask any little Afghani girl if she's happy now that the complete infrastructure of her country has been destroyed, and the tribal drug lords are back growing poppies and making opium the number one cash crop again in the country? Does the threat of Islam supersede all other suffering and potential strife that exists?
Do we ignore one threat in favor of another? Do we plant fear and discord wherever we go, giving our perceived enemies fuel for their militant progression?
Or do we talk about peace?
I'm not trying to win a debate, TMM; I'm asking you a question: what should we do?Your the one who turned this into some "conflict"... you words not mine, also "Rounds" was your words.
I am simply using your terminology.
It isn't a conflict to me... cause in the end, your still wrong.
We, I and most others, do not ignore the truth to embrace a fluffy lie just to keep the peace.
But that concept is most likely beyond you.
You can fill miles of boxes with your dribbling attacks, it sdoesn't bother me.
It just proves my point.
And the answer to your question as before... is we should confront Islam with the truth. Not pass along fabrications of what we want it to be.
And who are you talking to with your explanation of why you are engaged in conversation with me?
Do you really fancy yourself that beloved by the masses, to think they actually care about your conversation with me?
Must be nice...
That is that arrogance I have spoke of before that is only possessed by a Leftist. You make a show of explaining why your talking to me so some on here will think your are the man.
So to speak... sorry, no insult meant just a figure of speech.
TMM--"You do know... that you may indeed find moderate muslims, but there is no such thing as moderate Islam."
Well. There we can be in complete accord. Unfortunately, in the present era, in hundreds of madrassas in Pakistan (for example), young boys are being trained in Islamic extremism. No, they aren't the only ones. What do we do? Go there and ask them to please stop? Tell a policeman? Shove it down everyone's throat that this is happening right now and that they'd better listen because it's a real threat and it's happening now?
Yes we address it now. It is a real and thriving threat that people like you seem to think will go away if we are real nice to the muslims.
We certainly do not ignore it and cover it up with what you want to believe Islam should be.
And to end... I don't care to discuss israel, or belfast or all the other clinky links in the chain of obfuscation you have linked together above.
We were discussing, ignoring the truth and speaking lies in order not to offend anyone.
Well... that just isn't me.
And you do know the difference between my position and yours?
I can support mine with valid verses from the Qu'ran... I can let Islam speak for itself... and it will agree with me.
And you all need to get past this obsession with "fear" you have.
It really scues your understanding of where someone is really coming from. I know you all like to think it is a grand insult and justifies your own reasoning... but it really old amd tired.
Just cause someone doesn't agree with homosexuality doesn't make them a homophobe, and just cause someone doesn't agree with propagating lies about the peaceful nature of Islam... doesn't mean they are an islamophobe.
To be honest people can disagree and not like something without being afraid of it.
Well maybe you liberals cannot.
But most can.
And on a personal note.
About your Dysgraphia. I was wondering and I asked you yesterday, if that is progressive? Will it eventually get to the point where you wil lose all fine moter skills and stuff?
I am just wondering.
I think it is a sad thing that someone who obviously like to write as you do, and who obviously has alot to say... suffers from such a thing.
They are all the same in the sense that they are all works of fiction
Sure. Let's ignore all other conflict, dismiss any possibility of peace as a fluffy irrelevant dream, and think about nothing but Islam.
After all, that is what Moslems would like.No not at all.
But I will not combine so many different conflicts with so many different reasons and instigators all together, in order to pile over and run off in a thousand directions.
If you want to discuss Belfast, then discuss Belfast.
If you want to discuss Israel, ... or any of the other conflicts you wanted to, then do.
But don't think that we can discuss them all at the same time and not end up in a mess.
I do believe I have discussed Isreal in numurous threads on here. I don't believe we have discussed Belfast or the conflict there... but we can.
Like I said... stop taking things from one extreme to the other.
And I have not dismissed peace as fluffy...
I have dismissed your view that we should all just talk about the positive conciliatory void verses of a religion, just to make sure the muslims don't get mad and there are no hard feelings.
That idea, I dismiss and laugh at.
And the muslims around the world love the way the left propagates the myth of Islamic tolerance and love. You do them more of a favor in your actions than you even realize.
all religions cannot be one.... as their teachings are so different. I would love it if we were united in one thought, one hope for the future, etc..... but alas it is not happening at present.
Religions are as different as you and I are.
The god they profess to believe in may be the same God.
But the religions are as different as the colors in a rainbow.
Satan worshipers have a Church..??? Is the church what you are worshiping? It don't matter if it is Satanic or Christian or Muslum??? If it is a religion that you are worshiping??? You are worshiping in vain; ...
at least in my opinion!!!Joy56 its is happening ,education and knowledge are breaking down boundaries.
Related Discussions
- 537
Atheists are superior to all religious people because....
by arthriticknee 14 years ago
There is no Atheist text.This ensures Atheists can't manipulate the ambiguous writings from 2,000 - 3,000 years ago to justify their actions.As far as I am aware, no one has committed mass murder in there name of there being no God.The vast majority of modern religions have had countless atrocities...
- 46
What kind of a person a person who claims that the god/s of all religions is/are
by Ramilyn 10 years ago
What kind of a person a person who claims that the god/s of all religions is/are same?Does he really believe it or he's just saying it to be safe?
- 16
Which is the Superior Religion on Earth Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist and w
by Nitish Kumar Chaudhary 10 years ago
Which is the Superior Religion on Earth Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist and why ?
- 42
Is religion and health the same thing?
by nikki1 14 years ago
What are your thoughts?
- 94
Can a society exist without a religion?
by Sonal Shrivastava 7 years ago
I think the question is an interesting one.But to answer it we need a real definition of its meaning.Latin word “Re-Ligare”. “Ligare” means “to bind” or to “connect”. Adding the “re” before “ligare” causes the word to mean “Re-Bind” or “Re-Connect.”Also the another defintion says...
- 103
All religions are the same
by sandra rinck 14 years ago
I like to get waist deep into the study of religions, I even often times get swept up in certain aspects of some and then sound a trumpet like a fanatic... it happens, what can I say.But what bothers me about most of them... Monotheistic ones is that they all say:This is the true religion and Jesus...