mick I edited my last post Dont let my arguments with the likes of Jip and PNP put you off discussing this with me. I am a respond in kind kind of personand can discuss at an intellectual level Most logic and reason is taken from books also, on closer inspection religion has a hand in most of the modern stuff Not sure about the percentage of people in churches, however this is my argument/discussion with you you are basing it on one religious group. Mosques, gurdawaras and synagogues etc are packed. There was a thng I saw recently which questioned the relevance of religion and 89% said it was relevant only 11% saying it wasnt. The thing I call hypocricy isnt the sayings like for gawds sake etc, In thsi thread it was based upon certain atheists wh claim atheism in one thread the actually 'hate' player who dont sing the national anthem and fascists who hate all things foreign yet dont know the history of the flag they proudly hold aloft I also dont accept atheist who celebrate christmas/easter etc, even the queen celebrates xmas on the 26th so all these monarchy loving (although that is a religious institution) jesus hating freaks should follow suit
I've come to accept that people follow traditions even though the true meaning of the tradition is completely lost. My children know very little of religion (apart from what the bible bashing teacher in the non religious school taught my oldest ) but they love Christmas. Hell I hate Christmas, you spend 6 weeks getting tortured by people in preparation for what is a single day of giving absolutely useless things to people who don't want them - there are entire economies based on useless ****ing items being given at Christmas. We could be curing cancer or trying to contact Alien races, but no we've got human beings working in Clinton Cards selling stupid ****ing teddy bears to lazy people, under pressure to produce some sort of gift to another person they may not even particularly care for. Yet still I buy my missus something nice and I spoil my children rotten - even though I don't care for the holiday, don't believe in the religious aspects and I'm a bit of a tight bastard to boot.
The thing that strikes me most about you is that you try to find stories in Islam that relate to the real life scenarios you are presented with - it appears that Islam is the answer and you are trying to find the questions to fit that answer.
Hmm i guess I can kind of see what you are saying, not sure if I agree as such. What i was trying to say with the last 'anecdote' was that things havent changed as much as we sometimes think In all honesty for me religion is a process with steps, so for me it was things like proof of creator, who is that creator etc. Once I accepted Islam was the truth the rest of it just follows and flows and i have yet to find a question to which the answer doesnt flow once the basis had been established Not sure if this will make sense but let me try, lets take the hot topic of age of marriage. So I have established step A which is proven to myself that thereis a creator, and step B which is that Islam is the true message from thecreator, step C that the Quran is the message (I am trying to keep it simple here). Now I get to the finer points such as marriage. It comes highly recommended and has a criteria ie must be mature, must be free will, etc. Now the maturity maybe age of puberty so say 14 (its not as society and current trends HAVE to be taken into account) but say it was, but the law said 16 and the law was 'man made'. To me because of step A, B and C being in place the man made law becomes irrelevant. As to me man made law could be anything and could say 5 as easily as 16 and is no better than what I as an individual might deem right. whereas a supreme law is just that, not based on ration (remember ration is dependent on time and place etc as in some countries female circumcision is rational etc).
You seem to differentiate between man made and Islamic laws - I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative here - but what makes you think that these are not one and the same? I mean there is absolutely no proof that having a young teen as a wife is not a man made law - since human men are the people who indulge in this practice? Apart from this glaringly obvious point, isn't it peculiar that all the great monoliths have a human incarnation as the centre of their religion - despite the fact that they are supposed to be praying towards a single non-human deity as well - the only things that separates us and our gods, is the humans, who have represented our very same god on earth?
I haven't misunderstood it at all, it's just selective gibberish, focusing one of your standard obsessions. The notion of saints is explicitly Christian, as it denotes somebody that's close to Christ. A claim to holiness for certain individuals isn't exclusively Christian, of course. As usual, it's you who has misunderstood. A Muslim doesn't recognise the Christian version of god or the notion of Christ as the messiah, so recognising someone's closeness to that messiah is clearly impossible. Hindus don't worship the Abrahamic god either, so they'd be even less connected with this notion of holiness. That's not what hypocrisy is. Somebody can claim to hold a belief and act completely in opposition with that belief, as long as they don't pretend otherwise. A drug addict telling people that drugs are bad and that people shouldn't take them isn't a hypocrite, as long as they're open about their addiction. The concealment of that addiction and claims to sobriety would be hypocrisy. "You shouldn't do drugs, as they'll **** your life up, like they have mine" is not a hypocritical statement. The hypocrisy is in the deception. Despite that clearly not being the case. Judaism is no more true than any other faith and there's fault on all sides in the Israel/Palestine situation, which has always been my stance. You've frequently accused people of being Jews for disagreeing with you on that and it's obviously meant as an insult. No, you didn't. You linked to a neo-Nazi site making unsubstantiated claims. This is about the third time that you've insisted that I've cited or linked to Sam Shamoun, which I've never done. I had no idea who he was until you made these claims. You've discussed him with Jip repeatedly, not me. Absolute gibberish, especially as abiogenesis has nothing to do with how the universe started. More drivel. You simply don't like people shooting your ridiculous claims down and assert that the attempt to do so makes them automatically wrong, because you have no answers. When did I say that? There's no problem with examining the claims of history to find the truth, but that's clearly not what you're doing. As I've said repeatedly, the exact figure isn't relevant. Congratulations on completely missing the point, as usual. I disagree with everything that those people stand for. They're scumbags. The sad thing is that you actually agree with me, yet you go to them for your claims about the holocaust. You wouldn't believe a single thing that they claim about any other issue, yet you're happy to stand alongside members of the NF and KKK on this. For some reason this doesn't seem to have made the slightest dent in your confidence about their claims.
As I mentioned to you in my other post (which you havent addressed yet by the way, why is that?) its not just these organisations that have queried these figures Jewish and scientific studies have discredited the figures. In fact the 6m figure was based on a nazi's evidence, which I find kind of Ironic really for want of a better word Auschwitz alone went from 4m in the 40'/50's to 1.1m in 1989 and most scholars and jewish researchers reckon the Jews in that figure were less than 1m. This 'amendment' was not due to right wing organisations but due to scientists/scholars/jews/non jews etc etc I suggest you give it a rest because you havent a clue what you are talking about Here is that bit you havent gone through point by point After Nuremburg trials the deaths at Auschwitz were put at around 2.5m by the commandant The russains and poles put it 3-4m The sign outside the camp said 4m untill 1989 when it was OFFICIALLY changed to 1.1 million Thats 1.1m total not just Jews but including Jews. so thats 2.9m that didnt happen so if the final figure after nuremburg was 6m total you need to at least subtract 2.5m from it straight away As for just holocaust deniers, what like Gerald reitlinger? or raul hilberg ( a jew no less), or how about Franciszek Piper? who estimated les than 1m jews a figure many other scholars agree with Now I can see you rapidly wikking all this and resorting to the 'well auschwitz was never 'really' part of the 6m figure' like the Nizkor Project attempts to do However bare 2 things in mind 1- it still makes the 6m figure a load of rubbish if its more. My point is/was lets find out for sure 2- that particular project itself doesnt say 6m full stop. It says 'the estimate of 5-6m' so it could be 5, however the 6 is very important so hence 6 sided star and 6 days of creation etc. You have to remember this 6m figure was used in WW1 too, and as I mentioned previously before then too What I find most disturbing in your diatribe is that you always forget 1 very vital thing The 6m figure that is 'accepted' today IS form NAZI's , you heard of wilhelm Hottl? check it up. His testimony is in essence where the figure comes from. SO technically YOU are citing nazi figures Of course if you think they are all deniers too, bring the evidence
put simply because of step A, B and C I highlighted previously and please be argumentative. I dont get the incarnation bit?
According to Fan: - Having the St. George flag in your signature makes you a hypocrite if you don't believe in God because the flag is directly linked to Christianity. - Muslims forcing five year olds to get married has nothing to do with Islam. There lies the logic of the mentally ill
I would respond, however knowing your history you will be after mick for my IP address so you can get your solicitor on the case <scaredoflegalaction>
