Discussion:
Look it up & think about it.
(too old to reply)
NickyK
2011-02-28 13:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Islam is a cult not a religion!
GregoryD
2011-02-28 15:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by NickyK
Islam is a cult not a religion!
Hmmm... by that specious reasoning, Christianity and Judaism are both
cults, not religions.
--
GregoryD
NickyK
2011-02-28 21:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by GregoryD
Post by NickyK
Islam is a cult not a religion!
Hmmm... by that specious reasoning, Christianity and Judaism are both
cults, not religions.
--
GregoryD
You obviously didn't look up the definition of cult!
Tom S.
2011-03-01 07:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by NickyK
Islam is a cult not a religion!
Hmmm... by that specious reasoning, Christianity and Judaism are both cults, not
religions.
What is the proper, not PC, definition of "cult"?
Jim Beard
2011-03-01 13:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom S.
Post by NickyK
Islam is a cult not a religion!
Hmmm... by that specious reasoning, Christianity and Judaism are both cults, not
religions.
What is the proper, not PC, definition of "cult"?
The old definition is basically a synonym for religion.

As currently used in the U.S., it implies a minority
faction of suspect or extravagant characteristics within
a religion. By extension, any minority grouping that
is marked by suspect or extravagant fixation on some person
or system of belief.

Before belittling Islam as a "cult," one should consider
that between a fifth and a quarter of the world's population
adhers to the faith, and the standard for determining
adherence is pretty clear. (Has to be, as apostasy --
rejecting one's religion -- is punishable under Islamic law
by death. You don't want to make a mistake.)

The Christian population, in comparison, is perhaps a third
of the world population, but there are arguments that many
included in that figure properly do not qualify as adherents,
being "non-religious" or heretics. E.g. can one be a Christian
yet not believe that God was the physical father of Jesus (note
that the Hebrew word for "virgin" as in the "virgin Mary" in
those days was one synonym for "unmarried") or not believe that
Jesus performed miracles? Some accept Christian guidance on
morality and behavior, but consider "immaculate conception"
and "miracles" as either nonsense or errors derived from
misunderstanding of the old languages.

Cheers!

jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
NickyK
2011-03-01 13:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Beard
Post by Tom S.
Post by NickyK
Islam is a cult not a religion!
Hmmm... by that specious reasoning, Christianity and Judaism are both cults, not
religions.
What is the proper, not PC, definition of "cult"?
The old definition is basically a synonym for religion.
As currently used in the U.S., it implies a minority
faction of suspect or extravagant characteristics within
a religion.  By extension, any minority grouping that
is marked by suspect or extravagant fixation on some person
or system of belief.
Before belittling Islam as a "cult," one should consider
that between a fifth and a quarter of the world's population
adhers to the faith, and the standard for determining
adherence is pretty clear.  (Has to be, as apostasy --
rejecting one's religion -- is punishable under Islamic law
by death.  You don't want to make a mistake.)
The Christian population, in comparison, is perhaps a third
of the world population, but there are arguments that many
included in that figure properly do not qualify as adherents,
being "non-religious" or heretics.  E.g. can one be a Christian
yet not believe that God was the physical father of Jesus (note
that the Hebrew word for "virgin" as in the "virgin Mary" in
those days was one synonym for "unmarried") or not believe that
Jesus performed miracles?  Some accept Christian guidance on
morality and behavior, but consider "immaculate conception"
and "miracles" as either nonsense or errors derived from
misunderstanding of the old languages.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
      expects users to be computer-friendly.
Interesting that YOU added minority! Also, there is a huge difference
between Immaculate Conception & kill-all-the-infidels!
Jim Beard
2011-03-02 04:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by NickyK
Post by Jim Beard
Post by Tom S.
Post by NickyK
Islam is a cult not a religion!
Hmmm... by that specious reasoning, Christianity and Judaism are both cults, not
religions.
What is the proper, not PC, definition of "cult"?
The old definition is basically a synonym for religion.
As currently used in the U.S., it implies a minority
faction of suspect or extravagant characteristics within
a religion. By extension, any minority grouping that
is marked by suspect or extravagant fixation on some person
or system of belief.
Before belittling Islam as a "cult," one should consider
that between a fifth and a quarter of the world's population
adhers to the faith, and the standard for determining
adherence is pretty clear. (Has to be, as apostasy --
rejecting one's religion -- is punishable under Islamic law
by death. You don't want to make a mistake.)
The Christian population, in comparison, is perhaps a third
of the world population, but there are arguments that many
included in that figure properly do not qualify as adherents,
being "non-religious" or heretics. E.g. can one be a Christian
yet not believe that God was the physical father of Jesus (note
that the Hebrew word for "virgin" as in the "virgin Mary" in
those days was one synonym for "unmarried") or not believe that
Jesus performed miracles? Some accept Christian guidance on
morality and behavior, but consider "immaculate conception"
and "miracles" as either nonsense or errors derived from
misunderstanding of the old languages.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
Interesting that YOU added minority! Also, there is a huge difference
between Immaculate Conception& kill-all-the-infidels!
Please check Webster's Third International definition of cult,
4th definition, latter portion, starting off "also: a minority
religious group..." I did not originate the "minority" in this
context.

And yes, there is a difference between "Immaculate Conception"
and "kill-all-the-infidels" -- one perhaps being a figment of
imagination -- but "Christianity" has had a sizable dose of both
in recorded history. The Islamics simply refuse to chop off on
the "immaculate" conception (though they consider Jesus a prophet
of God in his own right and on his own merit).

If you really want a problem with the Islamic faith, it is that
all and sundry adherents to the faith hold by fixed doctrine that
Mohammad was the final Messenger of God and there will never be
another, as Mohammad has told all everything that anyone needs to
know about matters religious. But they can't even agree among
themselves on what the meaning of the things he said was
(doctrinal differences between Sunni and Shia are non-trivial).

Add to that, despite all the commentary and research on what
Mohammed said, and what his disciples said, and the explanations
from those who lived in or shortly after Mohammed's era as to
what he meant and what the implications were, there is some
question whether anyone understands the old language well enough
to know precisely what it meant and what its implications were.
Every statement in every language has a context or environment
that affects its meaning and implications, and we simply do not
know with certainty all aspects of the context and environment of
Mohammed's pronouncements. (Need I add that this is true for the
Christian scriptures as well?)

Add to that, there is a need to extrapolate (or interpolate, in
some cases) from Mohammed's words to get what we need to know
about some things that exist today and did not exist in
Mohammed's day, and there is no agreement on who will do the
deed, or how it will be done, beyond a general statement that the
most respected religious authorities will do it and once done it
will be as unchanging as Mohammed's dicta were.

Cheers!

jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
NickyK
2011-03-02 13:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Beard
Post by NickyK
Post by Jim Beard
Post by Tom S.
Post by NickyK
Islam is a cult not a religion!
Hmmm... by that specious reasoning, Christianity and Judaism are both cults, not
religions.
What is the proper, not PC, definition of "cult"?
The old definition is basically a synonym for religion.
As currently used in the U.S., it implies a minority
faction of suspect or extravagant characteristics within
a religion.  By extension, any minority grouping that
is marked by suspect or extravagant fixation on some person
or system of belief.
Before belittling Islam as a "cult," one should consider
that between a fifth and a quarter of the world's population
adhers to the faith, and the standard for determining
adherence is pretty clear.  (Has to be, as apostasy --
rejecting one's religion -- is punishable under Islamic law
by death.  You don't want to make a mistake.)
The Christian population, in comparison, is perhaps a third
of the world population, but there are arguments that many
included in that figure properly do not qualify as adherents,
being "non-religious" or heretics.  E.g. can one be a Christian
yet not believe that God was the physical father of Jesus (note
that the Hebrew word for "virgin" as in the "virgin Mary" in
those days was one synonym for "unmarried") or not believe that
Jesus performed miracles?  Some accept Christian guidance on
morality and behavior, but consider "immaculate conception"
and "miracles" as either nonsense or errors derived from
misunderstanding of the old languages.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
       expects users to be computer-friendly.
Interesting that YOU added minority! Also, there is a huge difference
between Immaculate Conception&  kill-all-the-infidels!
Please check Webster's Third International definition of cult,
4th definition, latter portion, starting off "also: a minority
religious group..."  I did not originate the "minority" in this
context.
And yes, there is a difference between "Immaculate Conception"
and "kill-all-the-infidels" -- one perhaps being a figment of
imagination -- but "Christianity" has had a sizable dose of both
in recorded history.  The Islamics simply refuse to chop off on
the "immaculate" conception (though they consider Jesus a prophet
of God in his own right and on his own merit).
If you really want a problem with the Islamic faith, it is that
all and sundry adherents to the faith hold by fixed doctrine that
Mohammad was the final Messenger of God and there will never be
another, as Mohammad has told all everything that anyone needs to
know about matters religious.  But they can't even agree among
themselves on what the meaning of the things he said was
(doctrinal differences between Sunni and Shia are non-trivial).
Add to that, despite all the commentary and research on what
Mohammed said, and what his disciples said, and the explanations
from those who lived in or shortly after Mohammed's era as to
what he meant and what the implications were, there is some
question whether anyone understands the old language well enough
to know precisely what it meant and what its implications were.
Every statement in every language has a context or environment
that affects its meaning and implications, and we simply do not
know with certainty all aspects of the context and environment of
Mohammed's pronouncements.  (Need I add that this is true for the
Christian scriptures as well?)
Add to that, there is a need to extrapolate (or interpolate, in
some cases) from Mohammed's words to get what we need to know
about some things that exist today and did not exist in
Mohammed's day, and there is no agreement on who will do the
deed, or how it will be done, beyond a general statement that the
most respected religious authorities will do it and once done it
will be as unchanging as Mohammed's dicta were.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
      expects users to be computer-friendly.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nice try but even if you put a dress & lipstick on a pig it's still a
pig! A cult is a cult is a cult. If it is a cult & it is, it doesn't
get the same recognition or respect or rights as a non-cult! Any group
(no matter the number) that vows to kill all those (even the innocent)
that don't believe the same way is a cult!
Jim Beard
2011-03-03 00:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Beard
Post by NickyK
Post by Jim Beard
Post by Tom S.
Post by NickyK
Islam is a cult not a religion!
Hmmm... by that specious reasoning, Christianity and Judaism are both cults, not
religions.
What is the proper, not PC, definition of "cult"?
The old definition is basically a synonym for religion.
As currently used in the U.S., it implies a minority
faction of suspect or extravagant characteristics within
a religion. By extension, any minority grouping that
is marked by suspect or extravagant fixation on some person
or system of belief.
Before belittling Islam as a "cult," one should consider
that between a fifth and a quarter of the world's population
adhers to the faith, and the standard for determining
adherence is pretty clear. (Has to be, as apostasy --
rejecting one's religion -- is punishable under Islamic law
by death. You don't want to make a mistake.)
The Christian population, in comparison, is perhaps a third
of the world population, but there are arguments that many
included in that figure properly do not qualify as adherents,
being "non-religious" or heretics. E.g. can one be a Christian
yet not believe that God was the physical father of Jesus (note
that the Hebrew word for "virgin" as in the "virgin Mary" in
those days was one synonym for "unmarried") or not believe that
Jesus performed miracles? Some accept Christian guidance on
morality and behavior, but consider "immaculate conception"
and "miracles" as either nonsense or errors derived from
misunderstanding of the old languages.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
Interesting that YOU added minority! Also, there is a huge difference
between Immaculate Conception& kill-all-the-infidels!
Please check Webster's Third International definition of cult,
4th definition, latter portion, starting off "also: a minority
religious group..." I did not originate the "minority" in this
context.
And yes, there is a difference between "Immaculate Conception"
and "kill-all-the-infidels" -- one perhaps being a figment of
imagination -- but "Christianity" has had a sizable dose of both
in recorded history. The Islamics simply refuse to chop off on
the "immaculate" conception (though they consider Jesus a prophet
of God in his own right and on his own merit).
If you really want a problem with the Islamic faith, it is that
all and sundry adherents to the faith hold by fixed doctrine that
Mohammad was the final Messenger of God and there will never be
another, as Mohammad has told all everything that anyone needs to
know about matters religious. But they can't even agree among
themselves on what the meaning of the things he said was
(doctrinal differences between Sunni and Shia are non-trivial).
Add to that, despite all the commentary and research on what
Mohammed said, and what his disciples said, and the explanations
from those who lived in or shortly after Mohammed's era as to
what he meant and what the implications were, there is some
question whether anyone understands the old language well enough
to know precisely what it meant and what its implications were.
Every statement in every language has a context or environment
that affects its meaning and implications, and we simply do not
know with certainty all aspects of the context and environment of
Mohammed's pronouncements. (Need I add that this is true for the
Christian scriptures as well?)
Add to that, there is a need to extrapolate (or interpolate, in
some cases) from Mohammed's words to get what we need to know
about some things that exist today and did not exist in
Mohammed's day, and there is no agreement on who will do the
deed, or how it will be done, beyond a general statement that the
most respected religious authorities will do it and once done it
will be as unchanging as Mohammed's dicta were.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nice try but even if you put a dress& lipstick on a pig it's still a
pig! A cult is a cult is a cult. If it is a cult& it is, it doesn't
get the same recognition or respect or rights as a non-cult! Any group
(no matter the number) that vows to kill all those (even the innocent)
that don't believe the same way is a cult!
Your paragraph above says more about you than it says about any
cult, religion, or ideology.

I shall not, however, attempt to enlighten you on manner of
discussion.

I would never try to teach a pig to sing. It accomplishes
nothing useful, and irritates the pig.

Cheers!

jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
NickyK
2011-03-03 00:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Beard
Post by Jim Beard
Post by NickyK
Post by Jim Beard
Post by Tom S.
Post by NickyK
Islam is a cult not a religion!
Hmmm... by that specious reasoning, Christianity and Judaism are both cults, not
religions.
What is the proper, not PC, definition of "cult"?
The old definition is basically a synonym for religion.
As currently used in the U.S., it implies a minority
faction of suspect or extravagant characteristics within
a religion.  By extension, any minority grouping that
is marked by suspect or extravagant fixation on some person
or system of belief.
Before belittling Islam as a "cult," one should consider
that between a fifth and a quarter of the world's population
adhers to the faith, and the standard for determining
adherence is pretty clear.  (Has to be, as apostasy --
rejecting one's religion -- is punishable under Islamic law
by death.  You don't want to make a mistake.)
The Christian population, in comparison, is perhaps a third
of the world population, but there are arguments that many
included in that figure properly do not qualify as adherents,
being "non-religious" or heretics.  E.g. can one be a Christian
yet not believe that God was the physical father of Jesus (note
that the Hebrew word for "virgin" as in the "virgin Mary" in
those days was one synonym for "unmarried") or not believe that
Jesus performed miracles?  Some accept Christian guidance on
morality and behavior, but consider "immaculate conception"
and "miracles" as either nonsense or errors derived from
misunderstanding of the old languages.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
        expects users to be computer-friendly.
Interesting that YOU added minority! Also, there is a huge difference
between Immaculate Conception&    kill-all-the-infidels!
Please check Webster's Third International definition of cult,
4th definition, latter portion, starting off "also: a minority
religious group..."  I did not originate the "minority" in this
context.
And yes, there is a difference between "Immaculate Conception"
and "kill-all-the-infidels" -- one perhaps being a figment of
imagination -- but "Christianity" has had a sizable dose of both
in recorded history.  The Islamics simply refuse to chop off on
the "immaculate" conception (though they consider Jesus a prophet
of God in his own right and on his own merit).
If you really want a problem with the Islamic faith, it is that
all and sundry adherents to the faith hold by fixed doctrine that
Mohammad was the final Messenger of God and there will never be
another, as Mohammad has told all everything that anyone needs to
know about matters religious.  But they can't even agree among
themselves on what the meaning of the things he said was
(doctrinal differences between Sunni and Shia are non-trivial).
Add to that, despite all the commentary and research on what
Mohammed said, and what his disciples said, and the explanations
from those who lived in or shortly after Mohammed's era as to
what he meant and what the implications were, there is some
question whether anyone understands the old language well enough
to know precisely what it meant and what its implications were.
Every statement in every language has a context or environment
that affects its meaning and implications, and we simply do not
know with certainty all aspects of the context and environment of
Mohammed's pronouncements.  (Need I add that this is true for the
Christian scriptures as well?)
Add to that, there is a need to extrapolate (or interpolate, in
some cases) from Mohammed's words to get what we need to know
about some things that exist today and did not exist in
Mohammed's day, and there is no agreement on who will do the
deed, or how it will be done, beyond a general statement that the
most respected religious authorities will do it and once done it
will be as unchanging as Mohammed's dicta were.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
       expects users to be computer-friendly.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nice try but even if you put a dress&  lipstick on a pig it's still a
pig! A cult is a cult is a cult. If it is a cult&  it is, it doesn't
get the same recognition or respect or rights as a non-cult! Any group
(no matter the number) that vows to kill all those (even the innocent)
that don't believe the same way is a cult!
Your paragraph above says more about you than it says about any
cult, religion, or ideology.
I shall not, however, attempt to enlighten you on manner of
discussion.
I would never try to teach a pig to sing.  It accomplishes
nothing useful, and irritates the pig.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
      expects users to be computer-friendly.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I agree & I'm so sorry you're irritated.
Bilbo
2011-03-04 01:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by NickyK
Post by Jim Beard
Post by Jim Beard
Post by NickyK
Post by Jim Beard
Post by Tom S.
Post by NickyK
Islam is a cult not a religion!
Hmmm... by that specious reasoning, Christianity and Judaism are both cults, not
religions.
What is the proper, not PC, definition of "cult"?
The old definition is basically a synonym for religion.
As currently used in the U.S., it implies a minority
faction of suspect or extravagant characteristics within
a religion.  By extension, any minority grouping that
is marked by suspect or extravagant fixation on some person
or system of belief.
Before belittling Islam as a "cult," one should consider
that between a fifth and a quarter of the world's population
adhers to the faith, and the standard for determining
adherence is pretty clear.  (Has to be, as apostasy --
rejecting one's religion -- is punishable under Islamic law
by death.  You don't want to make a mistake.)
The Christian population, in comparison, is perhaps a third
of the world population, but there are arguments that many
included in that figure properly do not qualify as adherents,
being "non-religious" or heretics.  E.g. can one be a Christian
yet not believe that God was the physical father of Jesus (note
that the Hebrew word for "virgin" as in the "virgin Mary" in
those days was one synonym for "unmarried") or not believe that
Jesus performed miracles?  Some accept Christian guidance on
morality and behavior, but consider "immaculate conception"
and "miracles" as either nonsense or errors derived from
misunderstanding of the old languages.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
        expects users to be computer-friendly.
Interesting that YOU added minority! Also, there is a huge difference
between Immaculate Conception&    kill-all-the-infidels!
Please check Webster's Third International definition of cult,
4th definition, latter portion, starting off "also: a minority
religious group..."  I did not originate the "minority" in this
context.
And yes, there is a difference between "Immaculate Conception"
and "kill-all-the-infidels" -- one perhaps being a figment of
imagination -- but "Christianity" has had a sizable dose of both
in recorded history.  The Islamics simply refuse to chop off on
the "immaculate" conception (though they consider Jesus a prophet
of God in his own right and on his own merit).
If you really want a problem with the Islamic faith, it is that
all and sundry adherents to the faith hold by fixed doctrine that
Mohammad was the final Messenger of God and there will never be
another, as Mohammad has told all everything that anyone needs to
know about matters religious.  But they can't even agree among
themselves on what the meaning of the things he said was
(doctrinal differences between Sunni and Shia are non-trivial).
Add to that, despite all the commentary and research on what
Mohammed said, and what his disciples said, and the explanations
from those who lived in or shortly after Mohammed's era as to
what he meant and what the implications were, there is some
question whether anyone understands the old language well enough
to know precisely what it meant and what its implications were.
Every statement in every language has a context or environment
that affects its meaning and implications, and we simply do not
know with certainty all aspects of the context and environment of
Mohammed's pronouncements.  (Need I add that this is true for the
Christian scriptures as well?)
Add to that, there is a need to extrapolate (or interpolate, in
some cases) from Mohammed's words to get what we need to know
about some things that exist today and did not exist in
Mohammed's day, and there is no agreement on who will do the
deed, or how it will be done, beyond a general statement that the
most respected religious authorities will do it and once done it
will be as unchanging as Mohammed's dicta were.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
       expects users to be computer-friendly.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nice try but even if you put a dress&  lipstick on a pig it's still a
pig! A cult is a cult is a cult. If it is a cult&  it is, it doesn't
get the same recognition or respect or rights as a non-cult! Any group
(no matter the number) that vows to kill all those (even the innocent)
that don't believe the same way is a cult!
Your paragraph above says more about you than it says about any
cult, religion, or ideology.
I shall not, however, attempt to enlighten you on manner of
discussion.
I would never try to teach a pig to sing.  It accomplishes
nothing useful, and irritates the pig.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
      expects users to be computer-friendly.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I agree & I'm so sorry you're irritated.
And yet, not a single thing about pipes in this whole thread, and it
isn't even marked OT.
NickyK
2011-03-04 14:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bilbo
Post by NickyK
Post by Jim Beard
Post by Jim Beard
Post by NickyK
Post by Jim Beard
Post by Tom S.
Post by NickyK
Islam is a cult not a religion!
Hmmm... by that specious reasoning, Christianity and Judaism are both cults, not
religions.
What is the proper, not PC, definition of "cult"?
The old definition is basically a synonym for religion.
As currently used in the U.S., it implies a minority
faction of suspect or extravagant characteristics within
a religion.  By extension, any minority grouping that
is marked by suspect or extravagant fixation on some person
or system of belief.
Before belittling Islam as a "cult," one should consider
that between a fifth and a quarter of the world's population
adhers to the faith, and the standard for determining
adherence is pretty clear.  (Has to be, as apostasy --
rejecting one's religion -- is punishable under Islamic law
by death.  You don't want to make a mistake.)
The Christian population, in comparison, is perhaps a third
of the world population, but there are arguments that many
included in that figure properly do not qualify as adherents,
being "non-religious" or heretics.  E.g. can one be a Christian
yet not believe that God was the physical father of Jesus (note
that the Hebrew word for "virgin" as in the "virgin Mary" in
those days was one synonym for "unmarried") or not believe that
Jesus performed miracles?  Some accept Christian guidance on
morality and behavior, but consider "immaculate conception"
and "miracles" as either nonsense or errors derived from
misunderstanding of the old languages.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
        expects users to be computer-friendly.
Interesting that YOU added minority! Also, there is a huge difference
between Immaculate Conception&    kill-all-the-infidels!
Please check Webster's Third International definition of cult,
4th definition, latter portion, starting off "also: a minority
religious group..."  I did not originate the "minority" in this
context.
And yes, there is a difference between "Immaculate Conception"
and "kill-all-the-infidels" -- one perhaps being a figment of
imagination -- but "Christianity" has had a sizable dose of both
in recorded history.  The Islamics simply refuse to chop off on
the "immaculate" conception (though they consider Jesus a prophet
of God in his own right and on his own merit).
If you really want a problem with the Islamic faith, it is that
all and sundry adherents to the faith hold by fixed doctrine that
Mohammad was the final Messenger of God and there will never be
another, as Mohammad has told all everything that anyone needs to
know about matters religious.  But they can't even agree among
themselves on what the meaning of the things he said was
(doctrinal differences between Sunni and Shia are non-trivial).
Add to that, despite all the commentary and research on what
Mohammed said, and what his disciples said, and the explanations
from those who lived in or shortly after Mohammed's era as to
what he meant and what the implications were, there is some
question whether anyone understands the old language well enough
to know precisely what it meant and what its implications were.
Every statement in every language has a context or environment
that affects its meaning and implications, and we simply do not
know with certainty all aspects of the context and environment of
Mohammed's pronouncements.  (Need I add that this is true for the
Christian scriptures as well?)
Add to that, there is a need to extrapolate (or interpolate, in
some cases) from Mohammed's words to get what we need to know
about some things that exist today and did not exist in
Mohammed's day, and there is no agreement on who will do the
deed, or how it will be done, beyond a general statement that the
most respected religious authorities will do it and once done it
will be as unchanging as Mohammed's dicta were.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
       expects users to be computer-friendly.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nice try but even if you put a dress&  lipstick on a pig it's still a
pig! A cult is a cult is a cult. If it is a cult&  it is, it doesn't
get the same recognition or respect or rights as a non-cult! Any group
(no matter the number) that vows to kill all those (even the innocent)
that don't believe the same way is a cult!
Your paragraph above says more about you than it says about any
cult, religion, or ideology.
I shall not, however, attempt to enlighten you on manner of
discussion.
I would never try to teach a pig to sing.  It accomplishes
nothing useful, and irritates the pig.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
      expects users to be computer-friendly.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I agree & I'm so sorry you're irritated.
And yet, not a single thing about pipes in this whole thread, and it
isn't even marked OT.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
WRONG......I was smoking a pipe when I posted & everyone knows I'm a
pipe smoker so no need to say so!
Sandy
2011-03-04 18:31:27 UTC
Permalink
everyone knows I'm a pole smoker so no need to say so!
Shut up, troll.
NickyK
2011-03-05 00:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sandy
everyone knows I'm a pole smoker so no need to say so!
Shut up, troll.
You tell'em Sandman......
Sandy
2011-03-05 18:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by NickyK
Post by Sandy
everyone knows I'm a pole smoker so no need to say so!
Shut up, troll.
You tell'em Sandman......
i'm not sandman. that was one of your sockpuppets, Wade. Im Sandblaster.
NickyK
2011-03-05 22:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sandy
Post by NickyK
Post by Sandy
everyone knows I'm a pole smoker so no need to say so!
Shut up, troll.
You tell'em Sandman......
i'm not sandman. that was one of your sockpuppets, Wade. Im Sandblaster.
LOL.....Sandman the real Sandblaster........ROTFLMFAO

J Burns
2011-03-01 23:54:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Beard
The Christian population, in comparison, is perhaps a third
of the world population, but there are arguments that many
included in that figure properly do not qualify as adherents,
being "non-religious" or heretics. E.g. can one be a Christian
yet not believe that God was the physical father of Jesus (note that the
Hebrew word for "virgin" as in the "virgin Mary" in
those days was one synonym for "unmarried") or not believe that Jesus
performed miracles? Some accept Christian guidance on
morality and behavior, but consider "immaculate conception"
and "miracles" as either nonsense or errors derived from
misunderstanding of the old languages.
It seems to me that the writer of the Fourth Gospel was a wonderful
heretic. The authorship of the first three is unknown, but he'd been a
boy at the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. He wrote because he found
lies in the first three. The Church had already destroyed most of the
first known gospel, in Aramaic, thought to be Matthew's, called the
Gospel of the Nazoreans. As the town did not exist until 300 AD,
Matthew had to be talking about the Samaritan sect called the Nazoreans.

John had to be subtle to get past Church censors. He says nobody has
ever seen God. So much for Abraham, Moses, and the Trinity. He says
nothing of any virgin birth. He writes a lot about the Last Supper but
says nothing of a ceremony with bread and wine, which was later supposed
to give priests magical powers.

Three times he sneaks in allusions that Jesus was a descendant of
Joseph, not David. That was a bombshell. Centuries earlier, the
descendants of Joseph, called Samaritans, had accused the mainstream
Israelites of altering the Bible. The mainstream retaliated by saying
the Tribe of Joseph had disappeared and the Samaritans were gentiles.
"Samaritan" was like the N word.

As a boy, John had probably been told Jesus had once made wine. John's
account suggests that he had come to realize it was a myth. Mary had
paid the caterer for a lot of expensive wine for a big wedding. The
wine she tasted was cheaper. Rather than accuse him, she said the good
stuff was missing. Jesus didn't want to get involved, but he found the
wine in vases that the caterer had claimed contained water. Solving the
mystery gave Jesus credibility.

John's account debunks the "feeding of the 5,000." Plenty of food was
for sale in the area. When the crowd provided more food than they took,
it meant they had already purchased food from vendors who had seen the
crowd on the hill, like the boy who had just sold a basket of food to
the disciples. When disciples (probably Peter) proclaimed it a miracle,
Jesus was so appalled that he walked away and never came back.

He walked all the way back to Bethsaida in the dark. As soon as he got
into the boat, they realized they'd reached the shore. In other words,
he'd waded out so they would see him and take him to one of their homes
to sleep. They had thought they were in deep water because they hadn't
seen the beach.

Peter spread stories that Jesus was like David Copperfield, having made
food for 5,000 and walked across the lake. Peter didn't care about
Jesus' preaching; he just wanted to be the powerful manager of a
big-time magician. Peter's lies wrecked Jesus' ministry; the disciples
didn't get together until the Crucifixion, a year later and in another
province.
NickyK
2011-03-01 14:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom S.
Post by NickyK
Islam is a cult not a religion!
Hmmm... by that specious reasoning, Christianity and Judaism are both cults, not
religions.
What is the proper, not PC, definition of "cult"?
World English Dictionary
cult — n
1. a specific system of worship, esp with reference to its rites and
deity
2. a sect devoted to such a system
3. a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological
techniques to gain and control adherents
4. sociol a group having an exclusive ideology and ritual practices
centred on sacred symbols, esp one characterized by lack of
organizational structure
5. intense interest in and devotion to a person, idea, or activity:
the cult of yoga
6. the person, idea, etc, arousing such devotion
7. a. something regarded as fashionable or significant by a
particular group
b. ( as modifier ): a cult show
8. ( modifier ) of, relating to, or characteristic of a cult or
cults: a cult figure

[C17: from Latin cultus cultivation, refinement, from colere to
till]

'cultism — n

'cultist — n

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

cult

1617, "worship," also "a particular form of worship," from Fr. culte,
from L. cultus "care, cultivation, worship," originally "tended,
cultivated," pp. of colere "to till" (see colony). Rare after 17c.;
revived mid-19c. with reference to ancient or primitive rituals.
Meaning "devotion to a person or thing" is from 1829.
NICHE541
2011-02-28 23:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by NickyK
Islam is a cult not a religion!
How about just plain bullshit.

Ye Olde Redneck Sonofabitch
Loading...