|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 17, 2007 8:43:00 GMT -5
Is this the starting point? Report: King pardons rape victim
(CNN) -- Saudi King Abdullah has pardoned a rape victim who had been sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison in a case that sparked international attention, a Saudi newspaper reported.
King Abdullah issued the royal pardon on Monday, Al-Jazirah newspaper quoted a Saudi Justice Ministry official as saying.
A Saudi court ruled the 19-year-old had an "illegitimate relationship" with a man who was not her husband, and that the rape occurred after she and the man were discovered in a "compromising situation, her clothes on the ground."
The attacks took place in Qatif in March 2006 when the woman was engaged to be married.
The case has drawn international attention, provoked outrage in the West and cast light on the treatment of women under strict Islamic law in Saudi Arabia.
The woman was meeting with a man -- described by the woman's attorney as a former friend from whom she was retrieving a photograph -- when they both were abducted last March. Watch what is known about the royal pardon »
Seven men were convicted in their abduction and her rape and received sentences ranging from 10 months to five years in jail.
The Saudi lawyer who represented the woman faced a disciplinary hearing for "insulting the Supreme Judicial Council and disobeying the rules and regulations" of the judiciary. The hearing has been postponed.
Abdul Rahman al-Lahem said the rape case had elicited a fierce response, including calls for his beheading.
U.S. President George W. Bush said last week that King Abdullah "knows our position loud and clear" on the case.
Under Saudi law, women are subject to numerous restrictions, including a strict dress code, a prohibition against driving and a requirement that they get a man's permission to travel or have surgery. edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/17/saudi.rape/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 18, 2007 1:11:38 GMT -5
Kind of like George Gillette pardons Bob Gainey for trading Mike Ribeiro for Janne Niinemma.
Who was a better aquisition, Niinemma or Samsonov?
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 18, 2007 18:52:25 GMT -5
Is this the starting point? Report: King pardons rape victim
(CNN) -- Saudi King Abdullah has pardoned a rape victim who had been sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison in a case that sparked international attention, a Saudi newspaper reported.
King Abdullah issued the royal pardon on Monday, Al-Jazirah newspaper quoted a Saudi Justice Ministry official as saying.
A Saudi court ruled the 19-year-old had an "illegitimate relationship" with a man who was not her husband, and that the rape occurred after she and the man were discovered in a "compromising situation, her clothes on the ground."
Under Saudi law, women are subject to numerous restrictions, including a strict dress code, a prohibition against driving and a requirement that they get a man's permission to travel or have surgery. edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/17/saudi.rape/index.htmlIt is necessary to punish women that are raped. If women are allowed to be raped, where will Allah find the 72 virgins for all his martyrs? These women are not thinking of the big picture.  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 26, 2007 11:17:47 GMT -5
The National Post has a great series this week on religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 17, 2008 16:14:08 GMT -5
Just an update. The charges have been upgraded to first-degree murder. Believe it or not there are some European countries who have supported Sharia Law now. First-degree murder charges in Hijab teen's death
By IRENE THOMADIS, Sun Media
A photo of 16-year-old girl Aqsa Parvez taken from a Facebook tribute site, 'R.I.P. Asqa Parvez' created by Abdul Rahman Karim.
The father of a Mississauga teen killed last year has had his charges upgraded to first-degree murder.
Aqsa, 16, was found strangled in her family's Longhorn Trail home in December. At the time Muhammad Parvez, 57, was charged with second-degree murder.
The Grade 11 student reportedly clashed with her family for refusing to wear a traditional Muslim head scarf.
Her brother faces obstruction of justice charges in the case.cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2008/06/17/5903181.html |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 14, 2009 6:11:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 14, 2009 7:53:09 GMT -5
You do realize that those signs are fake - there's a website out there that generates church signs with a message of your choice. Very entertaining though. Funny that the Catholics are the ones saying dogs go to heaven though - they're the strict ones who tend to be fussy about such pedantic stuff. I've been to a services in another Christian faiths (Salvation Army I believe it was, although it was a long time ago) where you were welcome to bring your dog to the service with you so long as it didn't befoul the church. Being my dog to a Catholic Mass though, and I'm sure I'd be struck down in an instant. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 14, 2009 8:33:19 GMT -5
No I didn't realize that, though I should have. Taken in, I guess . . . by someone who I would expect to know better. Searched around too -- shoulda gone to snopes first.
I have a newspaper article about a Catholic church that did an animal blessing service [and got in big trouble for it]; there have been many blessing services in different churches with various "reviews" from the congregants.
Reminds me of the guy who went to the church by his house and asked the minister if he'd do a funeral service for his beloved dog. The minister said "Bury animals? We don't do that here! I think there's a church down the street that doesn't have much for standards -- why not ask them?". The guy said "OK, but I was going to offer $500 to do the service", to which the minister replied "Why didn't you say the dog was a Baptist -- come on in!".
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 14, 2009 9:58:11 GMT -5
Funny that the Catholics are the ones saying dogs go to heaven though - they're the strict ones who tend to be fussy about such pedantic stuff. I've been to a services in another Christian faiths (Salvation Army I believe it was, although it was a long time ago) where you were welcome to bring your dog to the service with you so long as it didn't befoul the church. Being my dog to a Catholic Mass though, and I'm sure I'd be struck down in an instant. Umm... no. www.goveg.com/f-popebenedictxvi.aspIn fact, Pope John Paul II said that “the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren.” He went on to say that all animals are “fruit of the creative action of the Holy Spirit and merit respect” and that they are “as near to God as men are.” |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Apr 14, 2009 10:20:42 GMT -5
Ohhhh
It's what's on the signs that bug you. I just always get annoyed that churches recruit using signs on the street, often with harassing messages.
For me it's just that the sign exists.
I'm not so much for organized religion, especially the catholic and anglican churches. My sister and brother in law became godparents over the weekend (yes, their friends ruined their Easter weekend by making them attend a baptism on Saturday evening) and the stories they tell make it sound like the pastor was casting spells on them and the child. That ain't for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 14, 2009 10:26:48 GMT -5
Funny that the Catholics are the ones saying dogs go to heaven though - they're the strict ones who tend to be fussy about such pedantic stuff. I've been to a services in another Christian faiths (Salvation Army I believe it was, although it was a long time ago) where you were welcome to bring your dog to the service with you so long as it didn't befoul the church. Being my dog to a Catholic Mass though, and I'm sure I'd be struck down in an instant. Umm... no. www.goveg.com/f-popebenedictxvi.aspIn fact, Pope John Paul II said that “the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren.” He went on to say that all animals are “fruit of the creative action of the Holy Spirit and merit respect” and that they are “as near to God as men are.” That's not quite true. The Catholic Church believes that all living things have souls (because the soul is the essence of life) but that only human's possess an immortal soul (hence, only humans have an indestructable aspect of their essence which will continue on in an afterlife). To whit: Thus, according to JP II (unless Benedict has said something to the contrary (very, very unlikely) since he became Pope) all dogs do not go to heaven, although they do have souls. In fact, if you read your Bible it says very clearly (in Revelations twenty-something I think) that the dogs will be outside the kingdom of heaven, along with an assortment of n'ere do wells (murderers, sorcerers and the sexually immoral). |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 14, 2009 10:57:15 GMT -5
Without getting into a theological debate with you over the definition of Fluffy's soul my point was that Catholics are not the stick-in-the-muds you make them out to be. In fact, they routinely have masses just for pets, and I have yet to read any reports of mass lightning strikes during any of them. Heck, sometimes they do it right on top of Mount Royal, which you would think would just be inviting a good-old-fashioned-spiritual bar-b-q...
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 14, 2009 12:20:23 GMT -5
Without getting into a theological debate with you over the definition of Fluffy's soul my point was that Catholics are not the stick-in-the-muds you make them out to be. In fact, they routinely have masses just for pets, and I have yet to read any reports of mass lightning strikes during any of them. Heck, sometimes they do it right on top of Mount Royal, which you would think would just be inviting a good-old-fashioned-spiritual bar-b-q... Not my definition - the Pope's. And I didn't say the Catholic faith is full of stick-in-the-muds. More that they're a stickler for details. They have rules, and they follow them to the letter. For example, I got married in Disney World (yes - I got married at Disney, no - Mickey Mouse didn't attend, yes - we did get a card from Cinderella, no - it wasn't terribly corny as the Disney theming was kept to a minimum). Both my wife and I were raised Catholic and although a Catholic mass was not an option we were really looking at (my wife has shifted to somewhere in the land between agnostic and atheist) we didn't really have an option anyways because it's a big no-no. If you get married, it has to be in a church. Done and done. And it's not just the Catholic priests in Florida - one of my wife's high school friends wanted to get married at the Wilds in Salmonier (a golf course country club about forty five minutes outside of St. John's, Newfoundland). No way, no how. And so they got married in a church. My sister-in-law wanted to have a particular song played at her wedding as an instrumental for the entrance of the bride's maids (or somesuch, I don't recall exactly what). Nope. The priest provided her with a list of acceptable music. If it aint on the list. I'm not saying Catholics are horrible. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school. I still cringe when I see a nun with a ruler. They have their rules and their ways and I respect that. If you don't have rules than what do you have really? But even now, with Vactican II half a century behind us, they still cling to a lot of the old outdated ideas that don't really mean all that much in today's world. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 14, 2009 14:17:37 GMT -5
If you don't have rules than what do you have really? Very good question. Here's another [at least I think it's good  ]: what good are rules if the masses don't follow them nor believe in them? Take . . . contraception. Many who consider themselves good Catholics by condoms, are on the pill, or just play good old Vatican roulette, which is a form of contraception in itself. I admit I'll going outside my realm of deep knowledge [other than the three years I spent at Catholic high school and the girls I dated their who preferred the doctrine of Billy Joel to the doctrine of the church]. [fwiw: when Revelation 22:15 talks about dogs being outside the kingdom it refers to (as the term was then) sodomites -- which could refer to homosexuals in general or just to temple prostitutes] [another interesting tidbit: my daughter married a Catholic guy (who had been to mass probably once in the previous dozen years, but still considered himself a practicing Catholic). From various reasons the marriage did not work out (one of the reasons being he didn't believe in God and she did) so they split up. The divorce was finalized; when she asked him for some info Revenue Canada asked for he told her he wasn't going to give it to her and didn't need to -- he had never been married -- the marriage had been annulled because a priest had not performed the ceremony -- even though there was a provincial marriage license. I found that interesting]. Not trying to inflame or be anti-Catholic . . . just that rules are often applied when they are convenient -- religious or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 14, 2009 14:38:06 GMT -5
Without getting into a theological debate with you over the definition of Fluffy's soul my point was that Catholics are not the stick-in-the-muds you make them out to be. In fact, they routinely have masses just for pets, and I have yet to read any reports of mass lightning strikes during any of them. Heck, sometimes they do it right on top of Mount Royal, which you would think would just be inviting a good-old-fashioned-spiritual bar-b-q... Not my definition - the Pope's. And I didn't say the Catholic faith is full of stick-in-the-muds. More that they're a stickler for details. They have rules, and they follow them to the letter. For example, I got married in Disney World (yes - I got married at Disney, no - Mickey Mouse didn't attend, yes - we did get a card from Cinderella, no - it wasn't terribly corny as the Disney theming was kept to a minimum). Both my wife and I were raised Catholic and although a Catholic mass was not an option we were really looking at (my wife has shifted to somewhere in the land between agnostic and atheist) we didn't really have an option anyways because it's a big no-no. If you get married, it has to be in a church. Done and done. And it's not just the Catholic priests in Florida - one of my wife's high school friends wanted to get married at the Wilds in Salmonier (a golf course country club about forty five minutes outside of St. John's, Newfoundland). No way, no how. And so they got married in a church. My sister-in-law wanted to have a particular song played at her wedding as an instrumental for the entrance of the bride's maids (or somesuch, I don't recall exactly what). Nope. The priest provided her with a list of acceptable music. If it aint on the list. I'm not saying Catholics are horrible. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school. I still cringe when I see a nun with a ruler. They have their rules and their ways and I respect that. If you don't have rules than what do you have really? But even now, with Vactican II half a century behind us, they still cling to a lot of the old outdated ideas that don't really mean all that much in today's world. When Mrs Dis and I decided we were going to get married, I had to ask permission from the army (kind of confused them when I asked, but the RSM eventually said, "no problem.") However, it didn't stop there. I had to go to my priest here on the base and apply for a dispensation of form. Well, to a young non-practicing Catholic, that didn't mean a whole lot. But, the way I remember it was, I had to apply for this to the bishop in Montreal to get permission to wed outside of the Catholic church and not presided over by a Catholic priest. It also meant that any children produced from the marriage would have to be raised as Catholics. Then the Catholics wanted us to go on a marriage course. This meant the future Mrs Dis and I would have to go live two weekends with a strong Catholic family to learn from them what a good marriage was. However, if the family didn't think we 'got it' we'd have to go back for more. Well, I applied for the dispensation about a week before we got married. The priest had forgotten about it but he told me it would be no problem. When we finally got married, the Luthern minister, a nice man by the name of Henry Enns (RIP) warned me that the priest may want to bless the marriage upon our return to Kingston. "Please don't let him do that." Well, we're approaching 27 years of marriage and we didn't have the marriage course and I never signed anything they wanted me to (the Catholics that is). I believe in God, but probably not God as defined by the Catholics, or by the Lutherns. Our son believes also but doesn't practice any religion. Our pets? Well, we've buried several ourselves. RIP. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 14, 2009 14:47:22 GMT -5
Very good question. Here's another [at least I think it's good ]: what good are rules if the masses don't follow them nor believe in them? Take . . . contraception. Many who consider themselves good Catholics by condoms, are on the pill, or just play good old Vatican roulette, which is a form of contraception in itself. I admit I'll going outside my realm of deep knowledge [other than the three years I spent at Catholic high school and the girls I dated their who preferred the doctrine of Billy Joel to the doctrine of the church]. Somewhere someone is singing "Every Sperm is Sacred" I'm sure. Your question is quite good, and I don't have an answer. It's a question a number of people - and people far more devout than I - have struggled with. As a lapsed Catholic I'm certainly not one to talk about it. However, from a theological point of view, I would suggest to you that half of them do it out of convienece and half make compromises about their faith. After all, all men are flawed. We are allowed weakness and failing - including condoms. [fwiw: when Revelation 22:15 talks about dogs being outside the kingdom it refers to (as the term was then) sodomites -- which could refer to homosexuals in general or just to temple prostitutes] I'm not quite sure what you're saying here - were they calling the sodomites dogs? [another interesting tidbit: my daughter married a Catholic guy (who had been to mass probably once in the previous dozen years, but still considered himself a practicing Catholic). From various reasons the marriage did not work out (one of the reasons being he didn't believe in God and she did) so they split up. The divorce was finalized; when she asked him for some info Revenue Canada asked for he told her he wasn't going to give it to her and didn't need to -- he had never been married -- the marriage had been annulled because a priest had not performed the ceremony -- even though there was a provincial marriage license. I found that interesting]. Speaking with at least a limited knowledge of the subject, your ex-son-in-law is wrong. A Catholic annullment only works within the eyes of the church, not in the eyes of the crown (although the crown can also annull a marriage, likely the source of the confusion). In the same way, the courts granting a divorce or an annullment does not impact on the view of the Catholic church. Two seperate instances - the only point wherein they are joined is that a priest is empowered under the law to create a marriage in the eyes of the crown. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 14, 2009 15:16:32 GMT -5
Somewhere someone is singing "Every Sperm is Sacred" I'm sure.  The interesting thing is that there is no biblical support prohibiting contraception. The "best" reference is Genesis 38, where Onan spilled his seed on the ground [this passage is also used to prohibit masturbation -- fwiw, I've never read the "you'll go blind" think in the Bible] -- a stretch at best. Onan's "sin" was that he did not want to sire a child for his dead brother. Contraception is a philosophical debate, not spiritual/theological [then again, I'm one of the "departed brethren" and think contraception is fine, so I may have to pull out of the discussion]. a thread on its own!!! A euphemism. Dogs were low on the chain. One rabbinic prayer read "I thank God I am not a woman, a slave, or a dog" . . . dogs being the lowest of the low [sodomites therefore as low as you can go]. Ya, but why would he listen to me, the father of the . . . well, let's not go there. I'm going to let Revenue Canada deal with it. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 16, 2009 0:22:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 16, 2009 21:28:22 GMT -5
I think religeon is quite simple to understand.
1. Start with an irrational belief based on feeling instead of fact.
2. Expand on the premise. While it may be impossible to understand the acts of the almighty, it's easy to write a Bible, Torah or Koran with lots of rules about what you can or cannot eat and on which days.
3. Defend your beliefs against anyone who thinks differently from yourself.
4. Build an army of crusaders, al kaida warriors, orange or green gangsters, palestinians or jews.
5. Attack anybody who gets in your way.
* there are many religeous do-gooders that serve the poor, give to charity and support their neighbors.
** each group splinters (Catholics and Protestants (Protestants divide into dozens of sub groups, Sheites splinter from Sunnis (Important, kill eachother)))
The nice thing about it all is it doesn't have to be logical or make sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 16, 2009 22:56:55 GMT -5
I think religeon is quite simple to understand. 1. Start with an irrational belief based on feeling instead of fact. 2. Expand on the premise. While it may be impossible to understand the acts of the almighty, it's easy to write a Bible, Torah or Koran with lots of rules about what you can or cannot eat and on which days. 3. Defend your beliefs against anyone who thinks differently from yourself. 4. Build an army of crusaders, al kaida warriors, orange or green gangsters, palestinians or jews. 5. Attack anybody who gets in your way. * there are many religeous do-gooders that serve the poor, give to charity and support their neighbors. ** each group splinters (Catholics and Protestants (Protestants divide into dozens of sub groups, Sheites splinter from Sunnis (Important, kill eachother))) The nice thing about it all is it doesn't have to be logical or make sense. Yo HFLA You funy white man! In order 1. Start with an irrational belief based on feeling instead of fact Exactly the opposite; In order to deny a necessary being (which is necessary to explain both contingent being and necessary truths, e.g. the principles of an isoceles triangle, one must rationally posit a noncontingent or independent being. Such a being cannot have limits like extension in time-space. Such a being must be spiritual. The existence of the spiritual is easy to see in human free will which is necessary for the freedom to make intellectual judgments. If all is just mindless chunks of not-even-accidenatal matter, then you cannot reason, and reasoning would be just more mindless physical events going back to the Big Bang, that elegant theory of Fr. Gorges Lemaitre. Atheistic materialism is the view that the ultimate cause of this anthropic universe is irrational (an irrational belief). Stanley Jaki points out that pure chaos cannot even be conceived let alone realized. Atheism is just incoherent, and obviously so which is why almost no one takes it at all seriously. HAHAHa Like the Leafs only more hopelessly lost HAHAHAHa What the new atheist turkeys are good at is pretending religion and theism are all about fundamentalims. That's because they are fundamentalists. Western science only took off in the west BECAUSE it was based upon faith in reason. Science whithered elsewhere. (Stanley Jaki ) 2. 2. Expand on the premise. While it may be impossible to understand the acts of the almighty, it's easy to write a Bible, Torah or Koran with lots of rules about what you can or cannot eat and on which days. All theisms make more sense than dumbass materialism which cannot even arise to the level of stupid. Indeed it defines it in the good latin sense of 'stupare' -- 'to stun'. it's stunned with the ephemneral and contingent and says all the mind can rise to is the empirical. No empirical argument supports this silly self refuting argument. Judaism to some extent and Islam to a much greater degree accept a voluntarist notion of God. It's wrong. God cannot make a square circle, because he defines geometry. He, and I mean He, though God is of course transcendent of both sexes in this sexual universe, is the guarantor of order, speculative and moral . Big job, lousy pay. 3. I at least claim that I don't like to ague but I love it like the shape of women. Even more! I find Catholicism (no insult or denial of much truth and goodness in other faiths) is the only fully rational worldview on earth, despite having azzholes like me as totally unworthty members . I would also swear to God or piles of Chunky the Wonder Mote that I am morally certain that I have actually experienced the incommunicable loving Person of God personally in the sacraments, especially the sacrament of reconciliation. This shocked the hell out of me by the way and so to speak, and leaving quite a bit of hell behind. I think no attempt to rationalize the gospel history in naturalistic frameworks makes the remotest bit of sense, while allowing that the gospel intent was to be read in nuanced and informed approaches. 4. Build an army of crusaders, al kaida warriors, orange or green gangsters, palestinians or jews. Horsepucky. The crusades were virtully completely a defense of the 45% or so of Christendom that had not been conquered or put to the sword in centuries of agressive, forceful Islamic expansion. Thank God these heros for the most part acting in good conscience saved what was left of western civilization. Read Thomas Madden. P.S. the English / American notion of the infamous "Spanish Inquisition" which was actually part of the reconquista in Spain and which followed the Turkish slaughter of 12,000 in the coastal town of Otranto, was mostly a response to the muslim threat around Granada, applied only to Catholics (conversos in particular) and is rightly called the "Black Legend" by the spanish. Rules of evidence to protect the innocent were spread around the world from these proceedings. There were indeed abuses decried by popes at the behest of his jewish friends, though prominent Jewish historians claim that the Jewish people sided wit the Muslims. See the Myth of the Spanish Inquisition for a fairly good BBC treatment. But quite often religious people do bad Saperlipopette for bad reasonsl Not even remotely considerable compared to the mass slaughter of so called 'enlightenment' societies and political theoriies..e.g. national socialism and Marxism. 5. Attack anyone who gets in your way. Say that again and I'll kill you. Atheiistic materialists are all freekin' whackjobs. eh?! Bring it on you pussy! Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 16, 2009 22:58:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 17, 2009 15:47:18 GMT -5
I think religeon is quite simple to understand. 1. Start with an irrational belief based on feeling instead of fact. 2. Expand on the premise. While it may be impossible to understand the acts of the almighty, it's easy to write a Bible, Torah or Koran with lots of rules about what you can or cannot eat and on which days. 3. Defend your beliefs against anyone who thinks differently from yourself. 4. Build an army of crusaders, al kaida warriors, orange or green gangsters, palestinians or jews. 5. Attack anybody who gets in your way. * there are many religeous do-gooders that serve the poor, give to charity and support their neighbors. ** each group splinters (Catholics and Protestants (Protestants divide into dozens of sub groups, Sheites splinter from Sunnis (Important, kill eachother))) The nice thing about it all is it doesn't have to be logical or make sense. Yo HFLA You funy white man! In order 1. Start with an irrational belief based on feeling instead of fact Exactly the opposite; In order to deny a necessary being (which is necessary to explain both contingent being and necessary truths, e.g. the principles of an isoceles triangle, one must rationally posit a noncontingent or independent being. Such a being cannot have limits like extension in time-space. Such a being must be spiritual. The existence of the spiritual is easy to see in human free will which is necessary for the freedom to make intellectual judgments. If all is just mindless chunks of not-even-accidenatal matter, then you cannot reason, and reasoning would be just more mindless physical events going back to the Big Bang, that elegant theory of Fr. Gorges Lemaitre. Atheistic materialism is the view that the ultimate cause of this anthropic universe is irrational (an irrational belief). Stanley Jaki points out that pure chaos cannot even be conceived let alone realized. Atheism is just incoherent, and obviously so which is why almost no one takes it at all seriously. HAHAHa Like the Leafs only more hopelessly lost HAHAHAHa What the new atheist turkeys are good at is pretending religion and theism are all about fundamentalims. That's because they are fundamentalists. Western science only took off in the west BECAUSE it was based upon faith in reason. Science whithered elsewhere. (Stanley Jaki ) 2. 2. Expand on the premise. While it may be impossible to understand the acts of the almighty, it's easy to write a Bible, Torah or Koran with lots of rules about what you can or cannot eat and on which days. All theisms make more sense than dumbass materialism which cannot even arise to the level of stupid. Indeed it defines it in the good latin sense of 'stupare' -- 'to stun'. it's stunned with the ephemneral and contingent and says all the mind can rise to is the empirical. No empirical argument supports this silly self refuting argument. Judaism to some extent and Islam to a much greater degree accept a voluntarist notion of God. It's wrong. God cannot make a square circle, because he defines geometry. He, and I mean He, though God is of course transcendent of both sexes in this sexual universe, is the guarantor of order, speculative and moral . Big job, lousy pay. 3. I at least claim that I don't like to ague but I love it like the shape of women. Even more! I find Catholicism (no insult or denial of much truth and goodness in other faiths) is the only fully rational worldview on earth, despite having azzholes like me as totally unworthty members . I would also swear to God or piles of Chunky the Wonder Mote that I am morally certain that I have actually experienced the incommunicable loving Person of God personally in the sacraments, especially the sacrament of reconciliation. This shocked the hell out of me by the way and so to speak, and leaving quite a bit of hell behind. I think no attempt to rationalize the gospel history in naturalistic frameworks makes the remotest bit of sense, while allowing that the gospel intent was to be read in nuanced and informed approaches. 4. Build an army of crusaders, al kaida warriors, orange or green gangsters, palestinians or jews. Horsepucky. The crusades were virtully completely a defense of the 45% or so of Christendom that had not been conquered or put to the sword in centuries of agressive, forceful Islamic expansion. Thank God these heros for the most part acting in good conscience saved what was left of western civilization. Read Thomas Madden. P.S. the English / American notion of the infamous "Spanish Inquisition" which was actually part of the reconquista in Spain and which followed the Turkish slaughter of 12,000 in the coastal town of Otranto, was mostly a response to the muslim threat around Granada, applied only to Catholics (conversos in particular) and is rightly called the "Black Legend" by the spanish. Rules of evidence to protect the innocent were spread around the world from these proceedings. There were indeed abuses decried by popes at the behest of his jewish friends, though prominent Jewish historians claim that the Jewish people sided wit the Muslims. See the Myth of the Spanish Inquisition for a fairly good BBC treatment. But quite often religious people do bad Saperlipopette for bad reasonsl Not even remotely considerable compared to the mass slaughter of so called 'enlightenment' societies and political theoriies..e.g. national socialism and Marxism. 5. Attack anyone who gets in your way. Say that again and I'll kill you. Atheiistic materialists are all freekin' whackjobs. eh?! Bring it on you pussy! Paul Oh yeah! Sticks and stones........... Can't tell if you're pulling my leg. I'm still mired in the world of Newton where vision, tactile, smell, taste and sound dominate my interpretation of the universe. When Einstein complicates things by showing that reality consists of more than we can see or hear and some of the postulations of the universe and sub-atomic scales are counter intuative, I cringe, even at science. Today the concepts of warped spacetime and multiple connected universes are more than I can handle. I don't need 20 different universes with pirates off the African coasts holding hostages and different results in each one. This universe is already more than I can handle. Simultaneous instant causality with no connection between events is beyond my feeble brain. This is a wonderful complex universe, far more complex than we can observe. I have trouble envisioning an all powerful omnipetant god looking after 5+ billion people and allowing teachers to rape and kill their students, our government supporting regiems that allow the rape and mutilation of women, good people killed in car accidents by impaired drivers with long histories of repetative actions. Good friends suffering Alzheimers and cancer. So many unfair random events. If there was such a thing as a loving caring god, It's time to use some TARP money and replace him with a government appointed god who will do a better job. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 17, 2009 16:21:43 GMT -5
*sniff* *sniff* .... what's that I smell .... oh, a locked thread coming.
We can air our opinions without putting down someone else's ...
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 17, 2009 17:07:18 GMT -5
Better get in before the lock-down, then  I have trouble envisioning an all powerful omnipetant god looking after 5+ billion people and allowing teachers to rape and kill their students, our government supporting regiems that allow the rape and mutilation of women, good people killed in car accidents by impaired drivers with long histories of repetative actions. Good friends suffering Alzheimers and cancer. So many unfair random events. And I would have trouble envisioning a puppet-master god who pulls strings and has such control that no one can make a decision outside of his/its. I much prefer to live in a free-will based world where there are consequences for actions taken. Unfortunately, that means that there are consequences for my decisions that affect me and those around me, such as multi-national corporations abusing the world to line the pockets of the shareholders/owners while peons wind up with cancer. I can blame god for letting it happen, or I can make a stand against the corporation and make sure they close. Choice. Someone chose to drive drunk. It's God's fault he or she disobeyed the law [and ignored common sense] or that the laws of the land are so lax that someone can be charged umpteen times and not do jail time for DUI? We all have our definition of loving and caring -- mine means one who lets me make decisions . I love my children, yet don't lock them in a bubble -- they are out and about. They have been taught rules of good, smart, and decent living -- but ultimately they chose whether or not to follow them. They get in trouble -- is it my fault for allowing them to make decisions on their own, or theirs for ignoring what was taught -- and in the teaching, btw, a listing of consequence.
Don't give HA any ideas -- I think he's already applied for the job! [actually, I think demanded is a better word]. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 17, 2009 17:43:36 GMT -5
Differing opinions and raised emotions concerning religion? Really? I mean it's not as if wars have been fought over it or anything. Can't we just agree to disagree without the disparaging remarks? Don't most religions teach understanding, love, and acceptance? I don't think anyone's going to convert anyone either way here. It'd be like trying to convince HA to raise money for Al Gore. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 17, 2009 18:28:55 GMT -5
Differing opinions and raised emotions concerning religion? Really? I mean it's not as if wars have been fought over it or anything. Can't we just agree to disagree without the disparaging remarks? Don't most religions teach understanding, love, and acceptance? I don't think anyone's going to convert anyone either way here. It'd be like trying to convince HA to raise money for Al Gore. My disparaging remarks are not intended to disparage anyone who holds beliefs. I criticise the beliefs, not the holders. I love the Hab's. A friend of mine moved from Montreal to Toronto and has a job in media sales that causes him to entertain clients at leafs games. He is now a leafs fan. I hate the leafs, but not my friend. Loyalty to a team is much like religeon. No rational reason to prefer Red to Blue, over the years the players change, the arena changes, the owners change, but our loyalty remains. I also accept that belief in a supreme being can not be proved or disproved. It is a choice. A choice based in emotion. A choice that reflects the choices made by our parents, our environment, friends and peers. Each religeon has it's special incidents: Abraham ready to kill his son as an offering. Revering the child of a woman who claims to be a virgin. Forcing women to cover themselves from head to toe and not allowing them to educate themselves. Each religeon also has it's high points. Far more inhabitants of the earth believe in god than are athiests. Can they all be wrong? The pope is a wise and learned man, as is the Archbishop of Canterberry. They agree on more than they disagree. Both are wise but reached different conclusions. If you put ten scientists in a room you get at least 11 different opinions. Nobody has a monopoly on intelligence |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 17, 2009 21:56:03 GMT -5
Choice. Someone chose to drive drunk. It's God's fault he or she disobeyed the law [and ignored common sense] or that the laws of the land are so lax that someone can be charged umpteen times and not do jail time for DUI? Ok ... I'll play devil's advocate. The driver made a choice: to drink and drive. What choice did the victim make? To be there? I think what HFLA is trying to say is that his god would ensure that any accident resulted in one death - the driver. It was his choice afterall .... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 17, 2009 21:57:59 GMT -5
It's far too easy for debates like this to become personal. Hopefully it doesn't degenerate.
I was raised a Roman Catholic. I remember my mother (RIP) with the rosary beads; she'd start and we'd finish ... one Hail Mary for every bead ... from the beginning of Lent to the end every day after supper.
However, as I grew older it was Catholicism, itself, that pushed me away from it for a number of reasons. The main reason had to be, that if you were born Catholic you were automatically guilty of everything.
"Through my fault ... through my fault ... through my most grievous fault" No thanks.
Nowadays I talk to The Maker of all Things myself, directly. I don't subscribe to any one religion. In fact, I don't subscribe to any at all ... the mere word 'religion' can be positive reference to those who simply want to practice their faith; however, 'religion' has become a stigma to others who use the word as a crutch to substantiate everything, right or wrong, they want to do.
At the same time I do respect some religions. For instance, I have great respect for Buddhists. The ones I've met have their act together and are good with who they are.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 17, 2009 22:07:03 GMT -5
Far more inhabitants of the earth believe in god than are athiests. This comment as strange as it may sound, is similar to how I first started questioning religion. Depending on your definition of God - more people on earth DO NOT believe in Him. But I'm sure someone will say that isnt right ... 6 billion people on Earth. And about 4-5 billion of those people believe in a being NOT named God. Now I am sure some will say, but Allah, Buddha, Doa, are one in the same in some fashion ... but I harken back to the Bible "Though shall have no other God but me" and "Before no idol bend thy knee". So more than 4 billion people in the world are breaking the first, second and third commandment. Are they all wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 18, 2009 3:49:52 GMT -5
Oh goody, a religious thread. Like playoff hockey is not enough to fray things..... Don't give HA any ideas -- I think he's already applied for the job! [actually, I think demanded is a better word]. How else cna I control the masses AND the virgins? All I want to know, which religion should I sign up for that will help me make money the easy way? I'll settle for some lottery numbers. 'Cause this "working for a living" is getting tiresome... It'd be like trying to convince HA to raise money for Al Gore. Now that's not fair. I would raise money to buy him one one of those "I LOVE MYSELF" mirrors that are all the rage in Hollywood. |
|
]: what good are rules if the masses don't follow them nor believe in them?
