One planet, one religion

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



lil bitchiness
Let's imagine that there are numerous planets within the same solar system capable of supporting life. People residing on these planets cannot meet each other.

On each planet there is only single religion that isn't challenged by anybody, so entire world is practising practising Jew or practising Hindu or whatever.

Which planet would you rather live on had you the opportunity to chose where you'd like to be born? Keeping the similarities between the religions (as we know that many influenced each other), but imagining that they do not know of the other religions and they'd probably never find out, which planet do you think would be best run? Why?

What would be your order of preference be, starting with the planet you'd most like to live on and finishing with the planet you'd least like to live on.

I didn't include the religion list, as you can add any religion you'd like, including ancient religions as well as new age. Confucianism, although a philosophy, can be counted as religion too.

Omega Vision
Do we assume that its just one sect, or can there be multiple sects?

Christianity and Hinduism in particular suffer from hyper-compartmentalization.

dadudemon
I'd choose Mormonism with the Law of Consecration (a form of pure communism) in full effect.

Why?

Because I can still have my science (which I love) still believe in a universe/multiverse, believe in an active God, get creature respect (Mormons think animals have spirits and have to be respected and treated properly), get body respect, get computers, bla bla bla.

Basically, I want everything good about Mormons but none of the bad (such as the self-righteous attitude that many Mormons have or the judgmental attitudes that many Mormons have (which is stupid because that goes directly against canon doctrine)).



I would also go for some flavors of Buddhism.

Omega Vision
A Buddhist world sounds the best.

I almost said Atheism but for two reasons: first that would be boring and second atheism isn't a religion.

Digi
Taoist, if we're limited to world religions.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Digi
Taoist, if we're limited to world religions.
I love that whatever someone might think of Taoism they're all equally wrong if they think they know it.

Patient_Leech
I would choose the planet that worships Willem Dafoe.

Digi
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I love that whatever someone might think of Taoism they're all equally wrong if they think they know it.

Heh. The key term being "equally."

Taoism, at least some interpretations of it, isn't technically at odds with my staunch atheism. I won't say they're "compatible" because that would imply similarities, but they don't directly contradict one another.

Certain sects of it enjoy delving into the more mystic aspects like reincarnation and such, which is where they lose me. But the core philosophies are remarkably unobtrusive to my naturally skeptical nature. It's really just a non-dualistic way of accepting and loving reality.

Buddhism enjoys its rules more, and I dislike anything resembling concrete dogma. And Buddhism is also heavy on the mysticism that often strains my credulity. It being the other large Eastern school, it's also one I can't get behind at all. Living on their world would probably be pleasant enough though.

I actually briefly flirted with calling myself Taoist back in the day, but that also brings with it too many expectations of, I dunno, meditation and actual practice. I settled on simply saying "I think Taoism's pretty ok" and it's worked much better for me. Atheist stereotypes are more fun to argue against anyway.

Digi
Oh, damnit, how did I forget this.

Switching to "Jedi."

inimalist
some form of South American tribal spiritual thing

the ninjak
Satanism. A planet of theatrical atheists. With lots of Heavy Metal.

Planet Bhudda would be the planet I holiday in to relax and unwind.

Digi
Originally posted by the ninjak
Satanism. A planet of theatrical atheists. With lots of Heavy Metal

That sounds pretty awesome actually. But I think I'd get tired of it eventually.

ADarksideJedi
Interesting idea I would like to live on Mars and make it a christian planet. Pluto would be my least not sure why.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Digi
Heh. The key term being "equally."

Taoism, at least some interpretations of it, isn't technically at odds with my staunch atheism. I won't say they're "compatible" because that would imply similarities, but they don't directly contradict one another.

Certain sects of it enjoy delving into the more mystic aspects like reincarnation and such, which is where they lose me. But the core philosophies are remarkably unobtrusive to my naturally skeptical nature. It's really just a non-dualistic way of accepting and loving reality.

Buddhism enjoys its rules more, and I dislike anything resembling concrete dogma. And Buddhism is also heavy on the mysticism that often strains my credulity. It being the other large Eastern school, it's also one I can't get behind at all. Living on their world would probably be pleasant enough though.

I actually briefly flirted with calling myself Taoist back in the day, but that also brings with it too many expectations of, I dunno, meditation and actual practice. I settled on simply saying "I think Taoism's pretty ok" and it's worked much better for me. Atheist stereotypes are more fun to argue against anyway.
My World Religions Professor hung out with some California Taoists at one point, they basically just fished and surfed all day. He asked them once what they'd do if they couldn't catch any fish and they just shrugged and told him that it had never happened before.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Omega Vision
My World Religions Professor hung out with some California Taoists at one point, they basically just fished and surfed all day. He asked them once what they'd do if they couldn't catch any fish and they just shrugged and told him that it had never happened before.

Taoism FTW!


When I play Civilization, I make sure I'm first to discover Taoism or Confucianism, then convert the entire world.

My world would probably be Buddhist planet or Taoist. I'd least like to live on an Islamic planet then a Scientology planet.

Shakyamunison
A Buddhist world. It would be nice to have nations work out their problems instead of going to war.

Symmetric Chaos
Something not Eastern, I think I'd kill myself if I was surrounded by mysticalist bullshit 24/7.

Of course it seems like the fundamental flaw in this question is that if it is a planet where everyone is the same religion then it would be very strange for a person who isn't of that religion to be there. Imagine trying to have a conversation with people who have zero exposure to other religions.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Something not Eastern, I think I'd kill myself if I was surrounded by mysticalist bullshit 24/7.

And your not now? confused

Mindship
Planet Tantrex (tantric sex) FTW.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mindship
Planet Tantrex (tantric sex) FTW.

Please explain what Tantrex is.

Mindship
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please explain what Tantrex is. 'Tis a portmanteau of 'tantric' and 'sex'.


*sigh*

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mindship
'Tis a portmanteau of 'tantric' and 'sex'.


*sigh*

Isn't that were you have sex but do not have orgasms? Doesn't sound like fun to me. wink

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Isn't that were you have sex but do not have orgasms? Doesn't sound like fun to me. wink

On the up side, there's less mess overall and no argument about who'll sleep on the wet spot.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
On the up side, there's less mess overall and no argument about who'll sleep on the wet spot.


laughing

Symmetric Chaos
How specific are these planets?

A Christian planet would be different from a Protestant planet would be different from a Presbyterian planet would be different from a east-coast liberal upper-middle class modern reform tradition Presbyterian planet.

I doubt Shakya would be happy living on a planet that follow Shugendō Buddhism where everyone tortures themselves to death in hopes of reaching enlightenment.

Mindship
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Isn't that were you have sex but do not have orgasms? Doesn't sound like fun to me. wink Not having an orgasm, per se (at least not right away), can still bring one to extreme pleasure, pleasure one can keep experiencing over and over and over, as long as one stops just before going off the edge. And I believe, at some point, you are allowed to finally leap. Depends what you're after.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...I doubt Shakya would be happy living on a planet that follow Shugendō Buddhism where everyone tortures themselves to death in hopes of reaching enlightenment.

No, I wouldn't even want to live on a Nichiren Buddhist world. Diversity equals beauty. A world with only one point of view is incomplete.

Digi
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How specific are these planets?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
On the up side, there's less mess overall and no argument about who'll sleep on the wet spot.

haermm

Quite specific, apparently.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How specific are these planets?

A Christian planet would be different from a Protestant planet would be different from a Presbyterian planet would be different from a east-coast liberal upper-middle class modern reform tradition Presbyterian planet.

I doubt Shakya would be happy living on a planet that follow Shugendō Buddhism where everyone tortures themselves to death in hopes of reaching enlightenment.


If you wish to add other sects as individual planets, I think that would be fair.
My point is more about which planet would be better based on a single philosophy (so removing religious conflict), so I guess each planet for each sect would work.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If you wish to add other sects as individual planets, I think that would be fair.
My point is more about which planet would be better based on a single philosophy (so removing religious conflict), so I guess each planet for each sect would work.

So, do you believe that removing religious conflict is a good thing?

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, do you believe that removing religious conflict is a good thing?

That's not what I wanted to discuss. I can't answer that because I haven't thought about it.
I wanted to discuss which religious philosophy would be the most favoured to live with.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That's not what I wanted to discuss. I can't answer that because I haven't thought about it.
I wanted to discuss which religious philosophy would be the most favoured to live with.

OK, but this thread has potential offshoots that could be interesting to talk about. Like what would happen to these planets over time. However, it is your thread.

Mindship
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I wanted to discuss which religious philosophy would be the most favoured to live with. Isn't this a roundabout way of asking, which religion do you think is the best?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Mindship
Isn't this a roundabout way of asking, which religion do you think is the best?

Well...I think it is more like, "Which religion do you think is best as a single-global religion?"

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well...I think it is more like, "Which religion do you think is best as a single-global religion?"

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/b6e/12d/10f/resized/storage-wars-dave-meme-generator-yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeup-2c7ae6.jpg?1303872734.jpg

Mindship
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well...I think it is more like, "Which religion do you think is best as a single-global religion?" Just wonderin'.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Mindship
Isn't this a roundabout way of asking, which religion do you think is the best?

No. Best religion could mean the ''correct'' religion. Most favourable to live in isn't necessarily the best religion, but it may have the most favourable practices in terms of community.

If Satanism is comprised of people who value Satan as a 'rebel' and insists that all should be free to do whatever they want, wear whatever they want, eat whatever they want, but at every full moon sacrifice chickens or some other weird shit in a field, doesn't make their religion the best, but the living conditions most favourable to certain people.

Equally, certain individuals may like eating meat, but being on a Buddhist planet, killing animals for food isn't going to be practised (or killing of anything for that matter) and there may be many other social measures which may be implemented that may not suit certian individuals.
We could possibly assume that there wouldn't be as much oppression as it would on an Islamic planet.

That doesn't mean Buddhism the ''best religion'' but it certainly makes it a better living planet than an Islamic one.

Again, this would be up to an individual - certain persons may feel that living in a polygamous society would be more comfortable or what not, and Buddhist planet would be boring.

In short, no, it's not about the ''best religion''.

Robtard
Native American Indians seem to decent religions from what I know, respect the Earth, don't take too much from "her". Seems like it would be sensible. Spirits of this and that etc.

I'd just want to be able to advance pasted living in a teepee and bathing in dirt.

inimalist
written language is where it all goes wrong, man

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Native American Indians seem to decent religions from what I know, respect the Earth, don't take too much from "her". Seems like it would be sensible. Spirits of this and that etc.

I'd just want to be able to advance pasted living in a teepee and bathing in dirt.


Interesting. Yeah, a form of Shintoism (animism) can be found among some NA peoples. Fairly harmless and it is in tune with yin and yang (balance...n'all that).

StyleTime
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No. Best religion could mean the ''correct'' religion. Most favourable to live in isn't necessarily the best religion, but it may have the most favourable practices in terms of community.

If Satanism is comprised of people who value Satan as a 'rebel' and insists that all should be free to do whatever they want, wear whatever they want, eat whatever they want, but at every full moon sacrifice chickens or some other weird shit in a field, doesn't make their religion the best, but the living conditions most favourable to certain people.

Equally, certain individuals may like eating meat, but being on a Buddhist planet, killing animals for food isn't going to be practised (or killing of anything for that matter) and there may be many other social measures which may be implemented that may not suit certian individuals.
We could possibly assume that there wouldn't be as much oppression as it would on an Islamic planet.

That doesn't mean Buddhism the ''best religion'' but it certainly makes it a better living planet than an Islamic one.

Again, this would be up to an individual - certain persons may feel that living in a polygamous society would be more comfortable or what not, and Buddhist planet would be boring.

In short, no, it's not about the ''best religion''.
It may just be a semantic issue, but that sounds awfully similar to how someone selects the "best".
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well...I think it is more like, "Which religion do you think is best as a single-global religion?"
It's at least this.

It's not a bad thing of course. May as well go for the "best" if you're on a planet of exclusively that.

Omega Vision
On the issue of Satanism, there are so many flavors/sects with next to no relation to one another that I don't even recognize it most of the time.

On one hand you have the branch of Satanism that is really just Christianity with a skewed locus (indulgence rather than abstinence, Satan in place of God/Jesus) while on the other you have the insane branch of devil worshipers who sacrifice animals and possibly people. Then between them you have the Nordic Satanists who perversely worship Satan as a kind of gateway to getting rid of God and returning to the Old Norse Gods (no really, look it up, there are some Black Metal musicians who actually believe this).

To me, most Satanists are people who would be atheist or agnostic but crave some form of ritual/spirituality and think Satan is cooler than Buddha or the Dao.

I'd like to have a conversation with a real Satanist though to pick their brain and find out why they believe what they believe (not the Type 2 satanist though, I'll steer clear of them)

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by StyleTime
It may just be a semantic issue, but that sounds awfully similar to how someone selects the "best".

It's at least this.

It's not a bad thing of course. May as well go for the "best" if you're on a planet of exclusively that.

How's this?
I select ''the best'' religion for me based on how it spiritually fulfils me and how much sense it makes not what I'm allowed to do in their society. Other people may have a different criterion.

Besides, saying 'best' religion is just ridiculous, hence, having many planets with different ones to chose. It's ridiculous because each person needs something different from a religion in order to be spiritually fulfilled, so like I said, it's the reason for many planets having different religion, as opposed to me asking ''which religion do you think would be best for planet earth''.

Religion is a personal choice, so the question is actually amongst which people would you prefer to live.
This in no way is asking 'which religion is the best'.

Mindship
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Religion is a personal choice, so the question is actually amongst which people would you prefer to live. In that case...meditators versed in scientific method who seek peace, knowledge and freedom; and for the sake of balance, occasionally like to roughhouse and get their freak on.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Mindship
In that case...meditators versed in scientific method who seek peace, knowledge and freedom; and for the sake of balance, occasionally like to roughhouse and get their freak on.

Nice. I'd totally live on that planet. Actually, they might be the first to gain the ability to investigate other planets...zomfg, i should write a story about this or something. It's all coming together.

What about the least?

Mindship
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What about the least? Not sure. Which planet has the most ignorant and brutal dogmatists, with bumper sticker commandments, especially 'Do as I say, not as I do'?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mindship
Not sure. Which planet has the most ignorant and brutal dogmatists, with bumper sticker commandments, especially 'Do as I say, not as I do'?

Most of them.

StyleTime
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How's this?
I select ''the best'' religion for me based on how it spiritually fulfils me and how much sense it makes not what I'm allowed to do in their society. Other people may have a different criterion.

Besides, saying 'best' religion is just ridiculous, hence, having many planets with different ones to chose. It's ridiculous because each person needs something different from a religion in order to be spiritually fulfilled, so like I said, it's the reason for many planets having different religion, as opposed to me asking ''which religion do you think would be best for planet earth''.

Religion is a personal choice, so the question is actually amongst which people would you prefer to live.
This in no way is asking 'which religion is the best'.
Like I said, it may just be a semantic issue. You're choosing what you feel is the superior option among many choices.

Just sounds like picking the "best" to me, even if it is just for a specific situation. I agree that the "best" may be different for everyone though.

Shakyamunison
The best is an illusion that always changes.

StyleTime
It could very well be.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by StyleTime
Like I said, it may just be a semantic issue. You're choosing what you feel is the superior option among many choices.

Just sounds like picking the "best" to me, even if it is just for a specific situation. I agree that the "best" may be different for everyone though.

Again, no. Please read what I wrote.
There can not be 'the best religion' as religion is personal, so I'm not asking what religion is 'the best' as such thing does not exist.

It's like me asking people: 'if you could only have one type of drink, which one would you drink for the rest of your life' and then you claiming I'm asking 'what drink is the best'. No. I'm asking what is preferable for each person. This is very different to asking what is objectively 'the best'.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
On the issue of Satanism, there are so many flavors/sects with next to no relation to one another that I don't even recognize it most of the time.

On one hand you have the branch of Satanism that is really just Christianity with a skewed locus (indulgence rather than abstinence, Satan in place of God/Jesus) while on the other you have the insane branch of devil worshipers who sacrifice animals and possibly people. Then between them you have the Nordic Satanists who perversely worship Satan as a kind of gateway to getting rid of God and returning to the Old Norse Gods (no really, look it up, there are some Black Metal musicians who actually believe this).

To me, most Satanists are people who would be atheist or agnostic but crave some form of ritual/spirituality and think Satan is cooler than Buddha or the Dao.

I'd like to have a conversation with a real Satanist though to pick their brain and find out why they believe what they believe (not the Type 2 satanist though, I'll steer clear of them)

There's a "third kind" of Satanist that thinks God is actually Satan and the evil one is YHWH, not Lucifer. Meaning, it is the evilness of another god that is getting in the way of the true God and it was the evil and jealously of that God that forced the purges during the nascent Christian centuries.

Here is a nice description, by a secular humanist atheist, of why Satan is actually the good guy:

http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/religion/satan.shtml







And here is a very nice writeup about all sorts of types of Satanism:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=13730340



They conclude in their writing:

"The authors of this pamphlet are founding members of the Church of Azazel, which has a polytheistic theology. We believe that the Christian "God" is not the true cosmic God. To us, the workings of Nature do not suggest that the cosmic creator God desires a personal parental-like relationship with us humans. We believe that the true cosmic God is most likely impersonal, and, therefore, that any god who does relate to humans in a personal way is not the cosmic God. Thus we regard neither the Christian "God" nor Satan as the ultimate God of the universe. We regard Satan as a spirit who rules over the Earth and as a Muse of human innovation."

So they are Deists, Polytheists, and "positive" Satanists.

Even if one is a professed atheist, you can still be a polytheistic: you can believe that the infinite possibility of the universe/multiverse can give birth to many types of godlike beings making you a weak polytheist...just not the strong theistic type. I guess that's more agnostic atheism than true polytheism because it is just entertaining the possibility...not actively believing.



My personal take is that Satan is a righteous part of the overall "plan". I am not sure if he is a real entity or simply a symbol of an idea. Mormons think he is very real and operates on many many different "earths": not just this one. Maybe that's true...but believing that is not essential to my religion nor is it necessary for membership.

majid86
One Planet - Earth (or something simular)
One Religion - Islam (No Kaddis)
but with lots of different ethnicities except White People.

I mean they make up around 90% of my country and look at how many problems they cause, i mean they are so full of themselves it's unfvcking believable. And by not having any White people on this utopia there would be no racism at all because we all know racism begins and ends with White people.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by majid86
One Planet - Earth (or something simular)
One Religion - Islam (No Kaddis)
but with lots of different ethnicities except White People.

I mean they make up around 90% of my country and look at how many problems they cause, i mean they are so full of themselves it's unfvcking believable. And by not having any White people on this utopia there would be no racism at all because we all know racism begins and ends with White people.

Ether you are being facetious, or you are a racist.

majid86
How can i be racist towrds an evil ethnicity?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by majid86
How can i be racist towrds an evil ethnicity?

By believing there is an evil ethnicity.

majid86
That's total bullsh!t and i dont care how many of you goras get offended.
No white people = No racism

Im so glad that White people will become a minority within the UK and rest of Western Europe within 30 years time.
I guess all those years of screaming 'Pakis Out' didnt work for them.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by majid86
That's total bullsh!t and i dont care how many of you goras get offended.
No white people = No racism

So, you are white?

majid86
If i was i would kill myself by jumping off a cliff

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by majid86
If i was i would kill myself by jumping off a cliff

Or you could realize that racism is a form self destructing hate, and decide to change yourself.

inimalist
why is majid still allowed to post here?

I don't think I've ever seen a comment of his that isn't racist...

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
why is majid still allowed to post here?

I don't think I've ever seen a comment of his that isn't racist...

Apparently he was just joking. Or at least that is what he said after he was given a warning by Ushgarak. no expression

inimalist
he can keep character better than sacha baron cohen

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
he can keep character better than sacha baron cohen

But not as funny.

inimalist
idk, maybe we are just the drunken frat boys who don't realize we are the punch line... I mean, this could be like meta meta

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
idk, maybe we are just the drunken frat boys who don't realize we are the punch line... I mean, this could be like meta meta

Then I probably pissed him off for being nice to him (relatively speaking).

inimalist
we can only hope

Deja~vu
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Let's imagine that there are numerous planets within the same solar system capable of supporting life. People residing on these planets cannot meet each other.

On each planet there is only single religion that isn't challenged by anybody, so entire world is practising practising Jew or practising Hindu or whatever.

Which planet would you rather live on had you the opportunity to chose where you'd like to be born? Keeping the similarities between the religions (as we know that many influenced each other), but imagining that they do not know of the other religions and they'd probably never find out, which planet do you think would be best run? Why?

What would be your order of preference be, starting with the planet you'd most like to live on and finishing with the planet you'd least like to live on.

I didn't include the religion list, as you can add any religion you'd like, including ancient religions as well as new age. Confucianism, although a philosophy, can be counted as religion too.

Probably something more New Age, energy work. Something along those lines. cool

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Probably something more New Age, energy work. Something along those lines. cool

Everyone wearing robes and such? More like Jedi land?
That WOULD be cool, actually.

Deja~vu
LOL, Well the force is everywhere. reading

Rookwood
Hmm

tofayel
We should respect every religion.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by tofayel
We should respect every religion.

How do you do that? If you respect one religion, then you are disrespecting another. For example, in Saudi Arabia Christianity is outlawed. If they legalized Christianity, that would be a offense to Islam.

the ninjak
Originally posted by inimalist
why is majid still allowed to post here?

I don't think I've ever seen a comment of his that isn't racist...

I've PM'd Majid to have a man to man. And come to the conclusion that he is actually just plain dumb. There is no joke or game he is just looking for an easy way out to seek superiority over his fellow man in the form of extreme racism.

What better way to feel better than your better man than embracing destroying them. He can't fathom any other way.

He embraces hating a race of people by doing the exact same thing that caused him to hate them in the first place. He is a hypocrite of the highest caliber. And a hypocrite is the worst thing a person can be.

Planet Majid??? Couldn't exist, everyone would be dead.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by tofayel
We should respect every religion.

No we shouldn't.

Why should I respect a belief or ideology that is, for example, hateful? I don't and I never will and I'm not obliged to.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by the ninjak
I've PM'd Majid to have a man to man. And come to the conclusion that he is actually just plain dumb. There is no joke or game he is just looking for an easy way out to seek superiority over his fellow man in the form of extreme racism.

What better way to feel better than your better man than embracing destroying them. He can't fathom any other way.

He embraces hating a race of people by doing the exact same thing that caused him to hate them in the first place. He is a hypocrite of the highest caliber. And a hypocrite is the worst thing a person can be.

Planet Majid??? Couldn't exist, everyone would be dead.

Last sentence is hilarious. lol

majid86
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No we shouldn't.

Why should I respect a belief or ideology that is, for example, hateful? I don't and I never will and I'm not obliged to.

I just like i dont respect White British people, i will never will and not obliged to either.
Because they are full of hate and will never change being that, they make up 90% of my country and quite frankly im glad that they will become an ethnic minority in 30 years. I guess all those years of shouting 'Pakis Out' never did them any good.

No White British people in the UK = No Racism

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by majid86
I just like i dont respect White British people, i will never will and not obliged to either.
Because they are full of hate and will never change being that, they make up 90% of my country and quite frankly im glad that they will become an ethnic minority in 30 years.

No White British people in the UK = No Racism

No. There is a difference between a religion and a persons race.


We talked about this before. You told me you were just joking.


Did you lie to me?

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by majid86
I just like i dont respect White British people, i will never will and not obliged to either.
Because they are full of hate and will never change being that, they make up 90% of my country and quite frankly im glad that they will become an ethnic minority in 30 years. I guess all those years of shouting 'Pakis Out' never did them any good.

No White British people in the UK = No Racism

Being British isn't a belief system.

Islam is a belief system and I have zero respect for it. Soon, Iranians will wake up to this savage 7th century Arab Moon-God death cult and embrace their Zoroastrian roots.
(I mention Iranians because they'll be the first to get back to their former glory)

Iranians are Muslims. I respect Iranians immensly, but I don't respect Islam. Just like I don't respect Nazism.
I love and respect Egyptians and Lebanese, but not their majority religion.

There's the difference.

majid86
Say what you want but it wont do you any good, Muslims arent going anywhere, so you can hate on them as much as you want.
But then again you are a BNP/EDL supporter, so im not shocked at what you said.
You're a typical bigoted racist White British person and ive dealt with scum like you many times.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by majid86
Say what you want but it wont do you any good, Muslims arent going anywhere, so you can hate on them as much as you want.

But then again you are a BNP/EDL supporter, so im not shocked at what you said.

Islam will ether have a reformation, or be diminished. There will never be a world Caliphate.

majid86
I respect Christianity & Judaism the most out of all the world religions but i would put Hinduism the least because of the Hindu Caste System which is totally unfair to any lower caste.

Omega Vision
Majid really isn't worth anyone's time

Bat Dude
Originally posted by majid86
I respect Christianity & Judaism the most out of all the world religions but i would put Hinduism the least because of the Hindu Caste System which is totally unfair to any lower caste.

It's true. Go to India. They're really cruel to the poor, and EXTREMELY cruel to women.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Bat Dude
It's true. Go to India. They're really cruel to the poor, and EXTREMELY cruel to women.
Depends on which part of the country.

the ninjak
Originally posted by majid86
I respect Christianity & Judaism the most out of all the world religions but i would put Hinduism the least because of the Hindu Caste System which is totally unfair to any lower caste.

You respect Christianity and Judaism but you hate white people.
What about white Christians or Judaists?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by the ninjak
You respect Christianity and Judaism but you hate white people.
What about white Christians or Judaists?

How do you know he didn't mean black Christianity and Judaism only? wink

majid86
Originally posted by the ninjak
You respect Christianity and Judaism but you hate white people.
What about white Christians or Judaists?

Jewish and Christian beliefs are a core part of Islam.
Most of the prophets of Islam were Jewish:

Isaac/Ishaq
David/Dawud
Soloman/Sulliman
Jesus/Isa
Jacob/Yacub
Moses/Musa
Jonah/Yunis
Joseph/Yusuf
Lot/Lut
Job/Ayyub

Robtard
Originally posted by majid86
Jewish and Christian beliefs are a core part of Islam.



Not all of them, I don't think 54 year old men having sex with 9 year old little girls is a Christian belief/ideal. Maybe I'm wrong; probably not.

Omega Vision
Islam bastardizes a lot of Jewish/Christian teachings and retells many of the parables to suit an Arab audience.

That's my main problem with organized religion based on scripture: they're never meant to apply to everyone, just the culture of the time and place they were written in.

Robtard
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Islam bastardizes a lot of Jewish/Christian teachings and retells many of the parables to suit an Arab audience.


You can say that concerning Judaism/Christianity and the similarities of some stories with older "pagan" religions from ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Hindu etc. mythologies.

But yeah, Islam's plagiarism is readily evident, since it came the last of the three.

the ninjak
Originally posted by majid86
Jewish and Christian beliefs are a core part of Islam.
Most of the prophets of Islam were Jewish:

Isaac/Ishaq
David/Dawud
Soloman/Sulliman
Jesus/Isa
Jacob/Yacub
Moses/Musa
Jonah/Yunis
Joseph/Yusuf
Lot/Lut
Job/Ayyub

You didn't answer my question. But from your answer I guess I already know it.

inimalist
Originally posted by Robtard
Not all of them, I don't think 54 year old men having sex with 9 year old little girls is a Christian belief/ideal. Maybe I'm wrong; probably not.

technically, it is also not a belief/ideal in Islam

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by inimalist
technically, it is also not a belief/ideal in Islam

It is. Anything Muhammad did falls under Sunnah and is to be emulated. He is an ideal, as Muhammad is considered al insan al Kamil...ie, perfect human being.

Qur'an even gives instructions of what the waiting period for pre-menstruating girl from engagement to marriage is. It's 3 months.

Symmetric Chaos
This ends in a No True Scotsman fallacy, I'm sure.

lil bitchiness
One more thing -

I find it so interesting that people try hard to make Islam compatible with democracy and western standards. Why? Why do people do this?
It clearly isn't. While I disagree with Islam, I also don't appreciate non-Muslims moulding it into whatever they want it to be. When non-Muslims do it, it's called ignorance, when Muslims do it, it's called taqiyya.

There is no 'fundamental Islam' and 'moderate Islam'. There's only one Islam. Muhammad's Islam.
There are moderate and fundamental Muslims, but Islam is only one.

inimalist
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is. Anything Muhammad did falls under Sunnah and is to be emulated. He is an ideal, as Muhammad is considered al insan al Kamil...ie, perfect human being.

in the most absolutist interpretations of the religion, maybe (and from the little I could find, really more of a Shia thing than anything else)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Islamic_views_of_Muhammad#Different_views_of_Madha
hib_.28Schools_of_Thought_in_Islam.29

More modern interpretations suggest that either:

a) Muhammad was a man, not a divine being in any sense, and was therefore flawed like all other men and like all other men was a part of his own culture in ways we now know to be morally reprehensible.

b) Even though Muhammad might be perfect, man is not, therefore actions taken by the prophet might not be appropriate for sinful humans.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Qur'an even gives instructions of what the waiting period for pre-menstruating girl from engagement to marriage is. It's 3 months.

it is not surprising that a book of rules would dictate rules for common cultural practices of the time it was written. Even without falling back onto the two interpretations above, simply regulating something is not an endorsement of it. You might know better than me, but I wasn't aware the Qu'ran explicitly endorsed young marriage as a doctrine of faith, the same way the Bible can have rules about how slaves are to be treated without explicitly being seen to endorse slavery as the Christian way. This seems especially likely given the role of Aisha in the Qu'ran, ie, as a person of intense purity. idk, you might know some passages I don't.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
One more thing -

I find it so interesting that people try hard to make Islam compatible with democracy and western standards. Why? Why do people do this?
It clearly isn't. While I disagree with Islam, I also don't appreciate non-Muslims moulding it into whatever they want it to be. When non-Muslims do it, it's called ignorance, when Muslims do it, it's called taqiyya.

There is no 'fundamental Islam' and 'moderate Islam'. There's only one Islam. Muhammad's Islam.
There are moderate and fundamental Muslims, but Islam is only one.

I don't understand why you would let the religio-nationalist propaganda of a nation like Saudi Arabia or Iran define what Islam is?

Why not feminists or more progressive Clerical associations from around the Muslim world... like, your ideological allies here are OBL, the Saudi royal family and the grand Ayatollah.

The idea that Islam is this monolithic, unchanging thing that applies to all people irrespective of culture is nonsense

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by inimalist
in the most absolutist interpretations of the religion, maybe (and from the little I could find, really more of a Shia thing than anything else)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Islamic_views_of_Muhammad#Different_views_of_Madha
hib_.28Schools_of_Thought_in_Islam.29

More modern interpretations suggest that either:

a) Muhammad was a man, not a divine being in any sense, and was therefore flawed like all other men and like all other men was a part of his own culture in ways we now know to be morally reprehensible.

b) Even though Muhammad might be perfect, man is not, therefore actions taken by the prophet might not be appropriate for sinful humans.



it is not surprising that a book of rules would dictate rules for common cultural practices of the time it was written. Even without falling back onto the two interpretations above, simply regulating something is not an endorsement of it. You might know better than me, but I wasn't aware the Qu'ran explicitly endorsed young marriage as a doctrine of faith, the same way the Bible can have rules about how slaves are to be treated without explicitly being seen to endorse slavery as the Christian way. This seems especially likely given the role of Aisha in the Qu'ran, ie, as a person of intense purity. idk, you might know some passages I don't.



I don't understand why you would let the religio-nationalist propaganda of a nation like Saudi Arabia or Iran define what Islam is?

Why not feminists or more progressive Clerical associations from around the Muslim world... like, your ideological allies here are OBL, the Saudi royal family and the grand Ayatollah.

The idea that Islam is this monolithic, unchanging thing that applies to all people irrespective of culture is nonsense

I didn't leave up to ANYONE to define Islam for me. I defined it by myself by using my reading skills and my limited Arabic.
This is actually a lot more than majority of people who babble on about Islam did, and much much more than many Muslims did.

You should do yourself a favour, and instead of searching on Wikipedia about Muhammad, you actually read what Muslims wrote about him, way before the Saudis and way before Iran or anyone else had anything to say about it.

Read Sirat Rasul Allah, then we can have a really great discussion.

I also find it very offensive that you'd take upon yourself, without having read the Hadiths or the Sirat Rasul Allah (and I'd be bold to say, the Qur'an) to dictate to me which version of Islam is correct.

These materials were not written by Saudis, or Iranians or Taliban - they were written (supposedly) by the earlier followers of Muhammad, by those who spent time with him, fought with him and lived with him, by those who he (supposedly) called friends and companions and this is what is accepted as the truth. Sahih al Bukhari is called sahih for a reason.


Also, until you understand where Muhammad stands in Islam, this whole ''he might be perfect man but no human is'' is utter nonsense.

Have you ever been in a mosque? If yes, tell me what struck you as odd in regards to the arrangement (if anything)?

inimalist
so, your point is that you do share the same doctrinal beliefs as the most fundamentalist sects of Islam?

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by inimalist
so, your point is that you do share the same doctrinal beliefs as the most fundamentalist sects of Islam?

I share no belief in Islam at all, but I fail to find anything within the doctrine of the Salafis, Taliban or Saudis that is contrary to what Muhammad said or did, or what Qur'an commands be done.

Please, do tell me, which part of Saudi (Sunni) doctrine or Iranian (Shi'a) doctrine goes contrary to Muhammad's teachings?

inimalist
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I share no belief in Islam at all, but I fail to find anything within the doctrine of the Salafis, Taliban or Saudis that is contrary to what Muhammad said or did, or what Qur'an commands be done.

Please, do tell me, which part of Saudi (Sunni) doctrine or Iranian (Shi'a) doctrine goes contrary to Muhammad's teachings?

I guess I just don't see religions in the same way you do...

surely you wouldn't argue that all forms of Orthodox and Protestant beliefs aren't Christianity because they reinterpreted or disagreed with various doctrinal issues.

There was hardly anything that could have been called a single Islam at the time of Muhammad's death.

0mega Spawn
pastafarian obviously.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by inimalist
I guess I just don't see religions in the same way you do...

surely you wouldn't argue that all forms of Orthodox and Protestant beliefs aren't Christianity because they reinterpreted or disagreed with various doctrinal issues.

There was hardly anything that could have been called a single Islam at the time of Muhammad's death.

I can't and I don't argue that Orthodoxy, Catholicism or Protestanism aren't Christianity?

As I understood, you're suggesting that Saudi way is not true Islam, or that Iranian way is not true Islam, but westernised version is the real Islam.

Shi'a, Sunni, Ahmadis, Sufis...etc... They're different sects (although Sunnis are overwhelmingly higher in number) but fundamentals of all those are the same - there are two things that are not questioned or disputed within Islam: Muhammad and the Qur'an.

Everything else are nuances, like who was rightful Caliphate, did Abu Bakr instigate his daughter Aisha to poison Muhammad so he could assume power or did the Jewish woman do it, should we celebrate Muhammad's birthday or is it haram, is it ever permissible to listen to music or play an instrument or not...etc, etc.

Islam is unique, as it is the only major religion that has explicit instructions on how to deal with the unbelievers. It is also the only religion that has a full political system set up and full social system, from how you wash yourself, to how you wipe your ass (I'm not making this up, there's a right way to wipe your ass after number two that will please Allah), to how you eat and have sex and such.
Allah hates when you yawn but it's ok when you sneeze and laughing at those who fart is forbidden.
(Don't believe me, you can check all this out - quranexplorer.com)

Don't take Jews or Christians for friends, apostasy is punishable by death, Jews and Christians are pigs and monkeys, they should be made to pay tax, lives of Jews and Christians are worth nothing...bla bla bla..etc etc etc.

Now, many many Muslims (thank goodness) do not follow this ridiculousness, especially in the west or more liberal Islamic countries, but not following certain parts of religion that is considered ''most perfect'' can't be considered the 'real Islam'.
We only consider it like that in the West, because it fits with our moral values and we like that.

inimalist
actually, my argument is, if you want to break it down to a single sentence: There is no true Islam

Digi
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
There's a right way to wipe your ass after number two that will please Allah

Rule 34

Omega Vision
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I can't and I don't argue that Orthodoxy, Catholicism or Protestanism aren't Christianity?

As I understood, you're suggesting that Saudi way is not true Islam, or that Iranian way is not true Islam, but westernised version is the real Islam.

You have a funny way of reading things.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Digi
Rule 34

I just had a visual. Noooooooooooooooooooooo!

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You have a funny way of reading things.

Either support the claim you're making, or refrain from commenting. Otherwise, it looks like genuine trolling.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by lil bitchiness



Either support the claim you're making, or refrain from commenting. Otherwise, it looks like genuine trolling.
That wasn't a claim, that was an opinion. Opinions don't need to be supported. No need to be so testy.

But on the real, nowhere did ini imply what you accuse him of implying. His whole comparison with the Christian sects was to illustrate that divergences in doctrine and interpretation don't mean that there are right or wrong ways of embracing/following a faith.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Omega Vision
That wasn't a claim, that was an opinion. Opinions don't need to be supported. No need to be so testy.

But on the real, nowhere did ini imply what you accuse him of implying. His whole comparison with the Christian sects was to illustrate that divergences in doctrine and interpretation don't mean that there are right or wrong ways of embracing/following a faith.

Opinion on what? If I read it wrong, tell me where I got it wrong. If I did, then I made a a long rant at inimalist...

It's not my intention to be testy. Sorry if it came across like that.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Opinion on what? If I read it wrong, tell me where I got it wrong. If I did, then I made a a long rant at inimalist...

It's not my intention to be testy. Sorry if it came across like that.
It's alright. Debates can get heated.

Though ini has been pretty even keeled about this...there are a few points where I would have certainly snapped at you in his position.

...Also it's hard to take him seriously when he doesn't have an Avy uhuh

Edit: "Senior Member" pfft...yeah right. Without an avatar?

lil bitchiness
EDIT: I worked so hard on my rant, and now i've deleted it.

So...I will go eat something now. Cos...I deserve it.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That is the general view of Westerners towards Islam, due to Christianity and Judaism not having any particular 'culture' attached to it.

This is kind of my point all along - people keep thinking that Islam is of the same calibre as the Judeo-Christian tradition, when in fact, it really isn't.
Islam isn't just a religion, it is also a political and social system. Political and social systems are part of the religion and those are not questioned as those are considered to be from God.

I'm not about to get into a long debate with you over this, but I will say that you sound like you've never been to the American Bible Belt. stick out tongue

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not about to get into a long debate with you over this, but I will say that you sound like you've never been to the American Bible Belt. stick out tongue

Nope, I haven't. To be honest, not sure I wanna go. ermm

Omega Vision
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Nope, I haven't. To be honest, not sure I wanna go. ermm
The worst part about the south is how subtle a lot of people are when they hate you/get pissed off.

They'll be polite and proper and smile but you'll know from what they don't say and how they avoid you whenever they can that you're an enemy.

It's...creepy.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, my argument is, if you want to break it down to a single sentence: There is no true Islam

Unfortunately people will fight like hell to avoid believing that there is not a "one true" such and such (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Buddhism) mainly because most sects style themselves as such.

inimalist
Originally posted by Digi
Rule 34

the rule is actually somewhat interesting.

essentially, you are supposed to clean yourself (wipe ass) with one hand, and eat/greet people with the other.

Given these were a nomadic and desert people, this makes a lot of sense. If there is no water to clean one's hands, this would do a lot to prevent the spread of disease.

I actually think it shows a great deal of insight that during a time when Europeans still thought there was no need to wash one's hands these cultures had developed social customs aimed at disease control.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
...Also it's hard to take him seriously when he doesn't have an Avy uhuh

Edit: "Senior Member" pfft...yeah right. Without an avatar?

actually waiting on a name change to set up a new style

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unfortunately people will fight like hell to avoid believing that there is not a "one true" such and such (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Buddhism) mainly because most sects style themselves as such.

ya, I hear that, I guess all I'm trying to say is that has never been the case with any faith (afaik at least), especially not Islam. I guess, outside of what people believe and the way religion and culture interact, I don't think there really is such thing as religion. Like, what would be a "pure" faith in the first place?

Islam changed as quickly as it spread, with major theological questions still not settled even at the time of Muhammad's death. Saying one has the "true" faith is a way for leaders to justify their actions and policies, imho at least.

Digi
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I just had a visual. Noooooooooooooooooooooo!

You're welcome.

happy

Originally posted by inimalist
the rule is actually somewhat interesting.

essentially, you are supposed to clean yourself (wipe ass) with one hand, and eat/greet people with the other.

Given these were a nomadic and desert people, this makes a lot of sense. If there is no water to clean one's hands, this would do a lot to prevent the spread of disease.

I actually think it shows a great deal of insight that during a time when Europeans still thought there was no need to wash one's hands these cultures had developed social customs aimed at disease control.

How in Christ did you turn a porn joke into a learning moment?

Thanks. I guess.

no expression

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by inimalist
the rule is actually somewhat interesting.

essentially, you are supposed to clean yourself (wipe ass) with one hand, and eat/greet people with the other.

Given these were a nomadic and desert people, this makes a lot of sense. If there is no water to clean one's hands, this would do a lot to prevent the spread of disease.

I actually think it shows a great deal of insight that during a time when Europeans still thought there was no need to wash one's hands these cultures had developed social customs aimed at disease control.



actually waiting on a name change to set up a new style



ya, I hear that, I guess all I'm trying to say is that has never been the case with any faith (afaik at least), especially not Islam. I guess, outside of what people believe and the way religion and culture interact, I don't think there really is such thing as religion. Like, what would be a "pure" faith in the first place?

Islam changed as quickly as it spread, with major theological questions still not settled even at the time of Muhammad's death. Saying one has the "true" faith is a way for leaders to justify their actions and policies, imho at least.

There's the hand rule, as in, with your left hand, but the actual butt wiping is to be done with stones.
Here's the weird thing, there's actually a proper number of stones you need to use - I think it has to be an odd number...7 or 9. I'll have to check that, cos I forgot.


Originally posted by Digi
You're welcome.

happy



How in Christ did you turn a porn joke into a learning moment?

Thanks. I guess.

no expression

lollollol Porn joke into argument. I lol'd.

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
the rule is actually somewhat interesting.

essentially, you are supposed to clean yourself (wipe ass) with one hand, and eat/greet people with the other.

Given these were a nomadic and desert people, this makes a lot of sense. If there is no water to clean one's hands, this would do a lot to prevent the spread of disease.

I actually think it shows a great deal of insight that during a time when Europeans still thought there was no need to wash one's hands these cultures had developed social customs aimed at disease control.

Do you think the earliest terrorist used this rule to their advantage by secretly switching the use of hands and then going on a greeting jihad?

lil bitchiness
Hahahahahaha! Greeting jihad.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.