RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird

RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Shawn1066 -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/17/2008 2:58:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sophia37 Whats interesting is that when I was growing up in the 60's/70's, I very clearly remember my mother being against the Catholic church because the statues of saints were Idol worship. It was the exact same argument. Strange. As I recall, that's why the Eastern Orthodox Church in Byzantium split from the Roman Catholic Church way back when... Yup, Militant Religious Zealots are on the same page as Militant Nutjob Atheists and Crazy Political Zealots. DV's Fox

Aneirin -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/17/2008 5:18:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sophia37 Whats interesting is that when I was growing up in the 60's/70's, I very clearly remember my mother being against the Catholic church because the statues of saints were Idol worship. It was the exact same argument. Strange. Yeah, I grew up as one of them and thought the same, even the cross or crucifix to me was an idol.When I was able, I chose my own spirituality. Now, I have a rock that belongs to my spirituality, a common grubby rock and what's more, I did not buy it, I found it on my local beach. I don't worship it, but it is nice to have around.

Sinergy -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/17/2008 6:23:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Aww. Wikipedia's not bowing to religious censorship? How horrible. I read that the Church of Scientology has actually commissioned the writing of software to cull Wikipedia and any time their religion is mentioned, the software inserts their canned information. Somebody should bring the followers of Islam into the 21st Century. Sinergy p.s. On a related note, I am reading a book called The Shia Revival which is fascinating.

EvilGenie -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/17/2008 8:21:16 PM)
I happen to be in the 21st century as are all whom I know but thank you for the thought anyway. Aneirin, could you please pray to your rock for me? I could use all the help that I can get. [;)]

Sinergy -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/17/2008 8:33:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EvilGenie I happen to be in the 21st century as are all whom I know but thank you for the thought anyway. Hello EvilGenie, It was intended as a joke, but in retrospect it was a crass and intolerant comment. For that I apologize. Peace, Sinergy

Gwynvyd -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/17/2008 11:30:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 No Anerin, you have that pretty much backwards. Islam is very clear that it is not Worship of Muhamed. It is worship of The God, which in Arabic is Al lah. He is very revered and given respect as a prohpet. Some modern extreme Muslims take the "Thou Shalt not make Graven Images" commandment very seriuosly. And pictures of Mohamed, are offensive because it is a direct sin (ten comandments), and it can blur the faith allowing people to think they do worship Mohamed (sort of as you said), which is heresy, disrespect for the Phrophet, and a violation of several comandments. Which angers a lot of people. Bingo this is why one of the big chants is "There is No God, But the One God ( Allah ) and his Prophet is Muhammad." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sahadah-Topkapi-Palace.JPG At the time that the Qur'an was written.. and Muhammad lived~ worship of graven images, and idols was rampant. They wanted to keep the focus on Allah, Of course they take it a bit far with the protests and all and going BFS over a cartoon me thinks.. but... at least they take thier religion seriously. The Christians became a Jesus and Mary cult thanks to the Catholic church. Who prays to the Big guy any more? Ok.. other then me. I think it is awesome that Wiki is holding fast to keeping the artwork there. I copied it for safe keeping. I might toss it up under my spirituality picts on my site.. who knows? Gwyn

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/18/2008 4:18:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 No Anerin, you have that pretty much backwards. Islam is very clear that it is not Worship of Muhamed. It is worship of The God, which in Arabic is Al lah. He is very revered and given respect as a prohpet. Some modern extreme Muslims take the "Thou Shalt not make Graven Images" commandment very seriuosly. And pictures of Mohamed, are offensive because it is a direct sin (ten comandments), and it can blur the faith allowing people to think they do worship Mohamed (sort of as you said), which is heresy, disrespect for the Phrophet, and a violation of several comandments. Which angers a lot of people. Mohamed married a 12 year old when he was in his 40's, so I guess I can see why his image might be offensive. Sick bastard.

EvilGenie -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/18/2008 5:32:37 AM)
''There is only one God and Mohamed is his messenger.'' Paraphrased a bit is called the shahada and is said in order to become part of the faith of Islam, just as Catholics and many other Christian sects have a declaration of faith. It is not something said daily, for clarification. When I was Christian I prayed to God and Muslim I pray to God. I can't remember even as a child, praying to a Prophet eventhough my Sunday school teacher taught us to, sort of, or at least Jesus was to be called our Lord and Saviour. I always thought of God as my Lord and Saviour and my mother got many a phone call from a sunday school teacher. A side note is that Jesus (Isa) is in the qur'an almost as often as Muhammad. According to qur'anic tradition, each is seated to either side of God.

EvilGenie -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/18/2008 5:39:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 No Anerin, you have that pretty much backwards. Islam is very clear that it is not Worship of Muhamed. It is worship of The God, which in Arabic is Al lah. He is very revered and given respect as a prohpet. Some modern extreme Muslims take the "Thou Shalt not make Graven Images" commandment very seriuosly. And pictures of Mohamed, are offensive because it is a direct sin (ten comandments), and it can blur the faith allowing people to think they do worship Mohamed (sort of as you said), which is heresy, disrespect for the Phrophet, and a violation of several comandments. Which angers a lot of people. Mohamed married a 12 year old when he was in his 40's, so I guess I can see why his image might be offensive. Sick bastard. We are talking circa 500AD here and the onset of puberty was the normal marrying age for any girl of any faith or no faith. We weren't exactly an overpopulated planet. Puberty onset marriage allowed for more children to be born. This is also about norms at the time which change over time. Hell the Romans had no concept of pedophelia and sex especially with boy children was the norm then. Times change.

RCdc -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/18/2008 6:14:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EvilGenie This is also about norms at the time which change over time. Hell the Romans had no concept of pedophelia and sex especially with boy children was the norm then. Times change. This is Darcy I beg to differ, given the depressingly large number of child-sex cases currently pending against Catholic priests. It is estimated that some 2,500 Catholic priests have been proven to be abusers (0.2% of the estimated total number of 500,000 Catholic priests worldwide), and God only knows how many who are still getting away with it.

LadyEllen -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/18/2008 6:40:11 AM)
Iconoclasts have never really understood the need for or the use of icons - they see, quite mistakenly, the worship of objects and brand it as simple minded idolatry. Whereas it is their lack of understanding which betrays simple mindedness and their actions in inconoclastic rampages which betray the God they serve. E

VelvetMaam -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/18/2008 6:44:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I read that the Church of Scientology has actually commissioned the writing of software to cull Wikipedia and any time their religion is mentioned, the software inserts their canned information. That crafty Tom Cruise....as if Scientology didn't have enough issues with legitimacy. I always think that Scientology is to Chritianity like Gor is to BDSM....both a bunch of nonsense written by a science fiction writer. (putting on my flameproof suit)

mnottertail -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/18/2008 6:46:27 AM)
All 4 are nonsense in that light. Ron

Alumbrado -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/18/2008 9:42:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Iconoclasts have never really understood the need for or the use of icons - they see, quite mistakenly, the worship of objects and brand it as simple minded idolatry. Whereas it is their lack of understanding which betrays simple mindedness and their actions in inconoclastic rampages which betray the God they serve. E That would be the iconoclasts pre-19th century. Current usage of the word describes those who see through such religious dogma. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/iconoclast

EvilGenie -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/18/2008 11:28:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: EvilGenie This is also about norms at the time which change over time. Hell the Romans had no concept of pedophelia and sex especially with boy children was the norm then. Times change. This is Darcy I beg to differ, given the depressingly large number of child-sex cases currently pending against Catholic priests. It is estimated that some 2,500 Catholic priests have been proven to be abusers (0.2% of the estimated total number of 500,000 Catholic priests worldwide), and God only knows how many who are still getting away with it. I was speaking of ancient Rome where nearly every household that could afford it had young prepubescent male sexual slaves. They had girls as well. Have you never heard of the ''minnows'' of that time? They were the boy children owned to a household for sexual gratification. Ancient Rome had no concept that there was anything wrong with having sex with children. Other ages and times did not employ the same moral codes as we do in 2008. Some were better and some were worse was my point. Nor did I mention a religion and/or sect of a religion.

DomKen -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/18/2008 11:49:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I read that the Church of Scientology has actually commissioned the writing of software to cull Wikipedia and any time their religion is mentioned, the software inserts their canned information. Don't know where you read that but it doesn't appear to be the case. While wiki tries pretty hard for a neutral pov it has numerous articles on the shady and silly aspects of scientology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishman_Affidavit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_%28Scientology%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_Internet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera_in_Scientology_scripture

AquaticSub -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/18/2008 11:54:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 No Anerin, you have that pretty much backwards. Islam is very clear that it is not Worship of Muhamed. It is worship of The God, which in Arabic is Al lah. He is very revered and given respect as a prohpet. Some modern extreme Muslims take the "Thou Shalt not make Graven Images" commandment very seriuosly. And pictures of Mohamed, are offensive because it is a direct sin (ten comandments), and it can blur the faith allowing people to think they do worship Mohamed (sort of as you said), which is heresy, disrespect for the Phrophet, and a violation of several comandments. Which angers a lot of people. Mohamed married a 12 year old when he was in his 40's, so I guess I can see why his image might be offensive. Sick bastard. Ok... that's just out of line. That was a very different time period where such marriages were not only acceptable but common. This is hardly an isolated case, happened over much of the world and continued to happen for quite some time. What we find acceptable and even arousing is set by the cultures we live in. Considering that Mohamed was actually very pro-women (his followers screwed things up after his death), I'm not about to judge him for following the cultural norms of his day.

RCdc -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/18/2008 2:21:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EvilGenie quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: EvilGenie This is also about norms at the time which change over time. Hell the Romans had no concept of pedophelia and sex especially with boy children was the norm then. Times change. This is Darcy I beg to differ, given the depressingly large number of child-sex cases currently pending against Catholic priests. It is estimated that some 2,500 Catholic priests have been proven to be abusers (0.2% of the estimated total number of 500,000 Catholic priests worldwide), and God only knows how many who are still getting away with it. I was speaking of ancient Rome where nearly every household that could afford it had young prepubescent male sexual slaves. They had girls as well. Have you never heard of the ''minnows'' of that time? They were the boy children owned to a household for sexual gratification. Ancient Rome had no concept that there was anything wrong with having sex with children. Other ages and times did not employ the same moral codes as we do in 2008. Some were better and some were worse was my point. Nor did I mention a religion and/or sect of a religion. This is Darcy I do know of the ancient Roman practices, I was just being facetious. [;)] I also have a particular loathing of the Roman Catholic organised religion system, hence my tenuous link via your Rome reference. But, on that subject, the fact that we do know better these days only makes the current Catholic problem worse in my eyes.

Termyn8or -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/18/2008 3:19:07 PM)
Did anyone ever get around to killing Salmon Rushdie ? T

LadyEllen -> RE: Wikipedia flips Muslims the bird (2/18/2008 3:22:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Did anyone ever get around to killing Salmon Rushdie ? T ....... look, its on my list of things to do alright? dont you think I'm busy enough already? E

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875