Unfair muslim stereotype

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/Silom/muslim_stereotype.jpg

This thread is totally unnecessary and disrespectful to the millions of law abiding civic minded Muslims around the world

I call on other members of this forum to ignore it

I have PM'd Elephantspike and requested him to remove it

This thread is totally unnecessary and disrespectful to the millions of law abiding civic minded Muslims around the world

I call on other members of this forum to ignore it

I have PM'd Elephantspike and requested him to remove it

Oh com' un... have you no sense of humour? :clown:

[dab69]

wonder why muslims would deserve bad press???

Have you no sense of respect and integrity?

I have been discriminated enough by being Gay.

I dont expect the very community I live amongst to discriminate against me for my religeon

Your cartoon attacks the majority and incites hatred amongst the ignorant and ill-informed - of which you are certainly a member

Cartoons such as this breed contempt and only servers to further alienate opposing faiths and beliefs - surely something this world can do without

There is enough division in the world without you posting garbage like this and then snickering about it behind your keyboard

Your cartoon attacks the majority and incites hatred amongst the ignorant and ill-informed - of which you are certainly a member



Is it actually a cartoon? Much of it looks like an actual photograph

Check out these pictures from the BBC
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4686164.stm)

The speech bubble seems so very mild compared to the actual placards

I was seriously offended by Ang Lee's comment about British food at the BAFTA's last night and feel we should break off diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

Bloody cowboy!

[cottmann]

wonder why muslims would deserve bad press???

They get a bad press only in the West. In Muslim countries, of course, it is the Christians who illegally invaded Iraq, who engage/engaged in torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, etc, and who provocatively publish cartoons offensive to Muslims who get the bad press that they deserve.

Have you no sense of respect and integrity?

I have been discriminated enough by being Gay.

I dont expect the very community I live amongst to discriminate against me for my religeon
Regrettably for you, dear Uncle, I have every intention of continuing to discriminate agains followers of Islam, closely followed by adherents of Christianity and Judaism. You're not seriously going to tell us that there's a large, open and vibrant community of Islamic pooftahs, now are you?

... who get the bad press that they deserve.
Yes, if only those bloody faggots would just shut up. But they don't, and hence get the bad press that they deserve :geek:

Have you no sense of respect and integrity?

I have been discriminated enough by being Gay.

I dont expect the very community I live amongst to discriminate against me for my religeon
Regrettably for you, dear Uncle, I have every intention of continuing to discriminate agains followers of Islam, closely followed by adherents of Christianity and Judaism. You're not seriously going to tell us that there's a large, open and vibrant community of Islamic pooftahs, now are you?

If Uncle Fungus wants a religion that will not condemn him for homosexuality, maybe he should take a look at Buddhism. :cyclopsani:

I call for the punishment of Ang Lee for heinous stereotyping of our glorious British Cuisine and call for the cutting of his fingernails!!

:blackknight: :blackknight: :blackknight: :blackknight: :blackknight:

Have you no sense of respect and integrity?

I have been discriminated enough by being Gay.

I dont expect the very community I live amongst to discriminate against me for my religeon

Your cartoon attacks the majority and incites hatred amongst the ignorant and ill-informed - of which you are certainly a member

Cartoons such as this breed contempt and only servers to further alienate opposing faiths and beliefs - surely something this world can do without

There is enough division in the world without you posting garbage like this and then snickering about it behind your keyboard

You should be honoured that I take the trouble to post jokes about your religion. That means you are included in the society of people who can be made fun of, which happens to be everyone else.

This cartoon affair has been stressful, and some humour is needed to get relief. angry9:

If Uncle Fungus wants a religion that will not condemn him for homosexuality, maybe he should take a look at Buddhism. :cyclopsani:
Clearly you have not been following the comments of the Dalai Lama who has also condemned same-sex activities

[cottmann]

If Uncle Fungus wants a religion that will not condemn him for homosexuality, maybe he should take a look at Buddhism. :cyclopsani:
Clearly you have not been following the comments of the Dalai Lama who has also condemned same-sex activities

So try Daoism.

If Uncle Fungus wants a religion that will not condemn him for homosexuality, maybe he should take a look at Buddhism. :cyclopsani:
Clearly you have not been following the comments of the Dalai Lama who has also condemned same-sex activities

I noticed and in my eyes the Dalai Lama fell far down the guru-ranking when he said that. But the Dailai Lama is no Pope and he only said it was "wrong", he didn't have any Buddha quote to support a ban. For laypeople Buddhism doesn't see sex as different from any other activity, the same principles should apply, i.e. don't hurt others, be nice, and everything with moderation.

I think this piece is reasonable:

http://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm

Uncle Fungus said:


I have been discriminated enough by being Gay.

I dont expect the very community I live amongst to discriminate against me for my religeon


Silom Said:


If Uncle Fungus wants a religion that will not condemn him for homosexuality, maybe he should take a look at Buddhism.

I think Uncle Fungus was referring to the Gay community he lived amongst - NOT the Islamic communuty

For it is the gay community here that is certainly discriminating and ridiculing him for his religeon

to tell you to take no notice of what he says.

Apart from the western media which now is totally in the gutter, the Muslim community do receive a very bad press considering there are about one billion on the planet and a tiny handful are deomonstrating in the streets..not that I'd condemn them either.

Lumping them all in togerther is about as apropriate as saying Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church is representatvie of the Christian ccmmunity.

[cottmann]

to tell you to take no notice of what he says.

Apart from the western media which now is totally in the gutter, the Muslim community do receive a very bad press considering there are about one billion on the planet and a tiny handful are deomonstrating in the streets..not that I'd condemn them either.

Lumping them all in togerther is about as apropriate as saying Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church is representatvie of the Christian ccmmunity.

But think how different the world might be if the Landover Baptist Church was representative of the Christian community - http://www.landoverbaptist.org/ The current website also contains a small nude photo similar to ones posted on this Board earlier of the heroes of Brokeback Mtn.

I've yet to find a religion that holds that traipsing around go-go bars every night and/or maintaining one or two kept boys in a poor and foreign country is in tune with its basic precepts. My impression is that most faggots who want to maintain the self-delusion that they can be sluts and saints at the same time get very annoyed (and basically are in denial) when popes, dalai lamas, imams, rabbis and assorted others suggest that you can be one or the other but not both

Ok, it's just a damn cartoon (or series of cartoons) much like the cartoons that have appeared in the muslim press over the last months 'poking fun' at the west, it's leaders, it's religions or suggesting even more openly that westerners should die (there was a very good piece on this on CNN the other week ... yes CNN!). The outrage expressed over the cartoons may well be heartfelt, I believe it is, but it also totally over the top. How many people have now died whilst making protest over the cartoons ... it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

Also, on a similar topic (not really but it is related to political correctnes) is the issue of the historian who denied the holocaust (saying Nazi's did not operate the gas chambers) in some book/writings 13 years or so ago. To be taken to court is one thing, perhaps the writings would be highlighted and the guy be shown as the complete idiot he is, but to have a three year sentence imposed for voicing an opinion is ridiculous (as far as I am aware he wasn't inciting hatred just denying/questioning the authenticity of given history). Since publication of his 'ideas', I also believe he has recanted and claimed he was misled or misunderstood. I understand many people who survived the holocaust or who had famly die, will have been extremely distressed by the guys thoughts and I feel sympathy for them, however, how on earth is one jailed in a free society for voicing an opinon on history.

... the issue of the historian who denied the holocaust
That comes down to the definition of "historian". Almost all historians would assert that Irving is a propagandist, not an historian - http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i09.html

[Aunty]

that under Sharia (Islamic) law homosexuals must be stoned to death?

I know the Taliban in Afghanistan (a former Islamic Republic) use to topple walls onto gay men, and if that didn't work they would then ride over them a couple of times in a tractor just to make sure they were dead. That doesn't sound much like a religion of love and forgiveness that celebrates life to me, but rather one that celebrates death. How could then any self-respecting gay man be a follower of Islam given that his religion wants to kill him?


I do not believe that the Prophet Mohammed was a messenger from God; therefore I do not believe that Islam is a true religion however I do respect the right of others to think differently and follow Islam if that is their choice. But I too claim a right, the right to practice the culture, law and lores of my ancestors who shed blood for among other things, the freedom of speech without let or hindrance from religious NaziтАЩs. To do anything less would be to abandon those principles and the brave men and women who fought for them, and that is something I am not willing to do.

I do not believe that the Prophet Mohammed was a messenger from God
Follow your logic to its natural conclusion - God doesn't send messengers because God does not exist

If Uncle Fungus wants a religion that will not condemn him for homosexuality, maybe he should take a look at Buddhism. :cyclopsani:
Clearly you have not been following the comments of the Dalai Lama who has also condemned same-sex activities

Colonel, your statement that the DL comdemns homosexuality is way out of line, unreferenced, a gross misinterpration, and reflects nothing other than your own obsession with religious "authority". (It is also pointless to lump any Buddhist religious leader with popes, imans, and other caretakers of dogma based religions).

Do you have a reference for the condemnation or did you read that on a Christian Right or Al Queda website?

Yes, the DL has indicated that he considered using parts of the body for purposes other than which they were designed, specifically the mouth and anus for sex, as "inappropriate". But he made MANY other statements on the subject of gay and lesbian relations. It is far too complicated an issue to discuss briefly, but based on REFERENCE (Queer Dharma Vol.1 "The Dalai Lama and Gay Love" based on interviews/transcripts of various meetings with his Holiness), no one who read his statements would claim that his statements could be said to be "condemnation", and while not indicating acceptance or nonacceptance (of sexual practices outside the Sangha) he certainly indicated tolerance of loving relations among all human beings, and he supports human rights for all, including gays and lesbians.

I am almost beginning to agree with Uncle Fungus when he posts about "amongst the ignorant and ill-informed".

Silom, if you are going to suggest UF flee western religious intolerance to seek "acceptance" as the primary motivator for religious affiliation then you have missed the point of religion, or at least that of the Buddhist religion. Also, you look for gurus in Hindustan, not Buddha-land.

The Buddha himself said "be not led by the authority of religious texts". As we can see by the picture at the top of this post, I think we can all agree on that wisdom!

[Aunty]

I do not believe that the Prophet Mohammed was a messenger from God
Follow your logic to its natural conclusion - God doesn't send messengers because God does not exist

Well I don't go that far because I actually believe that God does exist and that he has in the past sent messengers. As a Christian I believe that Christ was the son of God sent to earth with a particular message and a particular mission. Given the content of Christ's message (love, forgiveness, repentance and the coming of the Kingdom of God) and the nature of his mission (to pay the wages of sin) Mohammed as the last and true prophet of God makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. That's why I don't believe Mohammed was a messenger from God because after Christ there is no need for a Mohammed. As far as IтАЩm concerned Mohammed is a false prophet and I have never seen any evidence from Islam that suggests otherwise. Consequently IтАЩm obliged (and willingly so) to invite Moslems to abandon Islam and turn to Christ if they are indeed true believers in God.

These are of course my personal beliefs. IтАЩm not out to force or coerce others into believing them. OtherтАЩs may and probably will disagree with them and thatтАЩs fine. To me itтАЩs not a pissing contest about whose тАШrightтАЩ and whoтАЩs тАШwrongтАЩ, rather religion on this aspect is about a matter of faith, what do you believe and why.

Yes IтАЩm gay. Yes I sin. Yes IтАЩm a hypocrite and a smartass. Yes IтАЩm too god-damned proud, sometimes rude and often lazy. I have atrocious taste in shoes and men, and sometimes I drink. I read the bible to look for loop-holes. But I believe in Christ, I didnтАЩt say I believe in perfection.
:flower:

Unlike most of your contributors, I have spent a large amount of time in recent years in two countries where the majority (though not all) of the citizens are Muslim- The Gambia and, more recently, Palestine. In both counties, I was fully accepted as someone from a Christian background and learned to accept and in some, though not all respects, to admire the faith of my hosts.
In Palestine, where Islam is of a liberal nature, at least in the Occupied West Bank where I stay, I am welcomed as a brother in the refugee camps where the inhabitants are hungry, poor and dispossessed, largely due to the indifference of Christian governments which lack the courage to resist Israeli racism and war-crimes. Never once have I been held responsible for these crimes- Jenin, Hebron, Rafah, Khan Younis and so on.
That is why I choose not to attack the beliefs of these long-suffering people and hold them all reponsible for the excesses of a few.

[cottmann]

Well I don't go that far because I actually believe that God does exist and that he has in the past sent messengers. As a Christian I believe that Christ was the son of God sent to earth with a particular message and a particular mission. Given the content of Christ's message (love, forgiveness, repentance and the coming of the Kingdom of God) and the nature of his mission (to pay the wages of sin)

Message of love, foregiveness, etc? Try the following sayings of Jesus:

"Do you suppose I came here to keep peace on earth? I tell you not at all - but division! For from now on ....father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law and mother-in-law against daughter-in-law." (Luke 12: 51-53)

and

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also - he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14: 26-27)

and

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn `a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' (Matthew 10: 34-36).

and

His mission was to pay the wages of sin? There is not a single verse attributed to Jesus where one would find that he said his main purpose on Earth was solely to die and through this automatically carry the sins of the world on his shoulders. There is not a single statement to this effect, not even by the apostles. Though they made various references to the death of Christ and indeed to the saving grace afforded by his blood, nowhere will one find this as the main purpose of his sojourn on earth. Moreover, the term "wages of sin" appears only once - in Romans 6:23.

Aunty, believe what you like, but why cherry pick? If you believe in Jesus, believe in the whole man not just the nice bits.

Aunty, believe what you like, but why cherry pick? If you believe in Jesus, believe in the whole man not just the nice bits.
Tut tut cottman - what an uncomfortable thought

As for the Dalai Lama's pronouncements, his views are well known and are reported on many sites, not just those of religious loonies. His views (stated in 1977) are reported thus: ""In Beyond Dogma the Dalai Lama writes that 'homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact.'" This is from a Google search which turns up (horrors!) "Gay Today" - http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/ I think that means that mutual masturbation may be OK (??) but not oral or anal sex, whether a man does it to a woman or another man. The alternative to kow-towing to various religious authorities, of which Adenoid has a particular horror, is that you cherry-pick the bits that are most convenient to yourself, as cottman says, and miss the thrust of the argument. The thrust of mine was that there is NO mainstream religion that approves of sexual promiscuity, gay or straight. I'm perfectly happy to live with that fact and I believe that those who want to quote selectively from whatever religious authority - book or man - are in denial (something The Four Noble Truths say is a cause of suffering)

For those who are interested (a very few, I know), I have uploaded an essay entitled The Om of physics from the Dalai Lama's forthcoming book, The universe in a single atom to my Web site http://au.geocities.com/homintern/

His views (stated in 1977) are reported thus:

Well, good at that, and just as I said about his views expressed (as early as the 70's) that non-vaginal sex is 'improper' But I will reiterate that he had more to say about the matter in the late 1980's to mid 1990's as reported in the essay that I noted. And I hardly call his views CONDEMNATION, as is often mis-reported on those loony websites (but not here, pls).

I, myself, (I hope I am not Adrenaloid) am not cherry-picking for 'approvals' for engaging in mutually agreeable pleasure. If that's denial, then I would say "better denial than self denial", on this subject anyway.

I hope I am not [not cherry-picking for 'approvals' for engaging in mutually agreeable pleasure. If that's denial, then I would say "better denial than self denial", on this subject anyway.
Groping towards self-awareness, I guess, but describing it as "mutually agreeable pleasure" doesn't make it more acceptable to those who have a different priority for life

"God does not exist.."

but proove it !!! :bounce:

but describing it as "mutually agreeable pleasure" doesn't make it more acceptable to those who have a different priority for life

How about "Intimate relations between consenting adults". Will that win their hearts?

[Aunty]

Well I don't go that far because I actually believe that God does exist and that he has in the past sent messengers. As a Christian I believe that Christ was the son of God sent to earth with a particular message and a particular mission. Given the content of Christ's message (love, forgiveness, repentance and the coming of the Kingdom of God) and the nature of his mission (to pay the wages of sin)


Aunty, believe what you like, but why cherry pick? If you believe in Jesus, believe in the whole man not just the nice bits.

Well that's a presumptuous judgement if ever I saw one!

I think I've made my position quite clear in my post above if you care to read it. I don't have to justify, explain or account for my personal religious beliefs to you, that quite rightly is between me and God, not you.

Anyone can grab bits and pieces from the Bible out of context to advance whatever their religious argument might be and it achieves nothing. (This is really a lazy, anti-intellectual and emotive approach [American?] to biblical study) But quoted out of context, higher levels of meaning and the themes that chapters and books explore are lost. WhatтАЩs the value in a compromised understanding of anything? (Try doing it to your newspaper this morning and see how you get on. Doesn't mean shit quite frankly does it?

[thrillbill]

I have lived in Saudi Arabia twice, a total of 12 years, which enabled me to travel in the Middle East. First I want to say that the area has a rich culture and the average Abdul or Fatima on the street is kind, helpful, intelligent like any human being on earth. What we Westerners have to realize is that it is the crazy fanatics we see protesting in the street of the Islamic nations. BUT what scares me is that the "average" Abdul or Fatima who is busy with the everyday chores of raising a family, paying the bills, and going to work don't dare speak out... they will also be shunned, tormented by the radicals. So when I hear people say, "Why don't the Moslems that are rational and educated speak out?" I want to say..."As an American, do I dare speak out against President Bush?" (Before the US went into Iraq, I tried to inform my American friends how trying to introduce democracy into Iraq would be a failure... they said I was being unpatriotic ...that I didn't know anything -though I had lived in the Middle East for 12 years and had good friends from Iraq). DUH

In my opinion, I think it was wrong to publish the cartoons if you know it is against a religious belief...but people in the West would not be able to understand this since we are so tolerant with situations of such. I keep hearing on Fox News (sorry, it is the only USA channel I get on my cable) that democracies have a right to publish such cartoons; yet, would the US newspapers publish a cartoon of George Bush screwing his wife; or Donald Rumsfeld with a bomb in his hand saying , " Go youngsters, go and fight for democracy in the Middle East so they can vote for an Islamic radical." ? Why not, we're a democracy...would Fox new show such a cartoon of Presidenet Bush? (No, they would lose their sponsors)

I wonder if this vented hate that we Westerners see in these protests is really built up frustration of what the Moslems SEE on their news channels of what the war in Iraq is doing to innocent Moslems. Meanwhile, Americans can only see a glossy picture of how better the Iraqi people are.. which is bull shit.

All I can say knowing Arabs, is let them be...spend our energy on ourselves... the Western nations need to be united and work together , striving for preserving their own democratic values and customs. Europe, North America, and the democracies in Asia need to stand for what they believe in and focus on themselves and not worry about spreading democracy around the world.

[thrillbill]

I have lived in Saudi Arabia twice, a total of 12 years, which enabled me to travel in the Middle East. First I want to say that the area has a rich culture and the average Abdul or Fatima on the street is kind, helpful, intelligent like any human being on earth. What we Westerners have to realize is that it is the crazy fanatics we see protesting in the street of the Islamic nations. BUT what scares me is that the "average" Abdul or Fatima who is busy with the everyday chores of raising a family, paying the bills, and going to work don't dare speak out... they will also be shunned, tormented by the radicals. So when I hear people say, "Why don't the Moslems that are rational and educated speak out?" I want to say..."As an American, do I dare speak out against President Bush?" (Before the US went into Iraq, I tried to inform my American friends how trying to introduce democracy into Iraq would be a failure... they said I was being unpatriotic ...that I didn't know anything -though I had lived in the Middle East for 12 years and had good friends from Iraq). DUH

In my opinion, I think it was wrong to publish the cartoons if you know it is against a religious belief...but people in the West would not be able to understand this since we are so tolerant with situations of such. I keep hearing on Fox News (sorry, it is the only USA channel I get on my cable) that democracies have a right to publish such cartoons; yet, would the US newspapers publish a cartoon of George Bush screwing his wife; or Donald Rumsfeld with a bomb in his hand saying , " Go youngsters, go and fight for democracy in the Middle East so they can vote for an Islamic radical." ? Why not, we're a democracy...would Fox new show such a cartoon of Presidenet Bush? (No, they would lose their sponsors)

I wonder if this vented hate that we Westerners see in these protests is really built up frustration of what the Moslems SEE on their news channels of what the war in Iraq is doing to innocent Moslems. Meanwhile, Americans can only see a glossy picture of how better the Iraqi people are.. which is bull shit.

All I can say knowing Arabs, is let them be...spend our energy on ourselves... the Western nations need to be united and work together , striving for preserving their own democratic values and customs. Europe, North America, and the democracies in Asia need to stand for what they believe in and focus on themselves and not worry about spreading democracy around the world.

[thrillbill]

I have lived in Saudi Arabia twice, a total of 12 years, which enabled me to travel in the Middle East. First I want to say that the area has a rich culture and the average Abdul or Fatima on the street is kind, helpful, intelligent like any human being on earth. What we Westerners have to realize is that it is the crazy fanatics we see protesting in the street of the Islamic nations. BUT what scares me is that the "average" Abdul or Fatima who is busy with the everyday chores of raising a family, paying the bills, and going to work don't dare speak out... they will also be shunned, tormented by the radicals. So when I hear people say, "Why don't the Moslems that are rational and educated speak out?" I want to say..."As an American, do I dare speak out against President Bush?" (Before the US went into Iraq, I tried to inform my American friends how trying to introduce democracy into Iraq would be a failure... they said I was being unpatriotic ...that I didn't know anything -though I had lived in the Middle East for 12 years and had good friends from Iraq). DUH

In my opinion, I think it was wrong to publish the cartoons if you know it is against a religious belief...but people in the West would not be able to understand this since we are so tolerant with situations of such. I keep hearing on Fox News (sorry, it is the only USA channel I get on my cable) that democracies have a right to publish such cartoons; yet, would the US newspapers publish a cartoon of George Bush screwing his wife; or Donald Rumsfeld with a bomb in his hand saying , " Go youngsters, go and fight for democracy in the Middle East so they can vote for an Islamic radical." ? Why not, we're a democracy...would Fox new show such a cartoon of Presidenet Bush? (No, they would lose their sponsors)

I wonder if this vented hate that we Westerners see in these protests is really built up frustration of what the Moslems SEE on their news channels of what the war in Iraq is doing to innocent Moslems. Meanwhile, Americans can only see a glossy picture of how better the Iraqi people are.. which is bull shit.

All I can say knowing Arabs, is let them be...spend our energy on ourselves... the Western nations need to be united and work together , striving for preserving their own democratic values and customs. Europe, North America, and the democracies in Asia need to stand for what they believe in and focus on themselves and not worry about spreading democracy around the world.

quite rightly is between me and God, not you
The rich fantasy life continues

yet, would the US newspapers publish a cartoon of George Bush screwing his wife; or Donald Rumsfeld with a bomb in his hand saying , " Go youngsters, go and fight for democracy in the Middle East so they can vote for an Islamic radical." ? Why not, we're a democracy...would Fox new show such a cartoon of Presidenet Bush? (No, they would lose their sponsors)
I guess if a thing's worth saying, it's worth saying three times. However, on to the main point. The cartoons were not originally published in the US but in the European (specfically the Danish) press. Would the European press be brave enough to publish cartoons about contemporary political and religious leaders that may be deemed offensive? Yes. Would the US press? No

"God does not exist.." but prove it !!! :bounce:
I'll stick with The Buddha on this one. Belief about the existence of a God is pure speculation that can have no resolve. It is therefore a cause of suffering, and to be avoided. While I don't believe in God I'm certainly not going to waste time and energy debating the merits of the argument. When Laplace was asked by Napoleon why he did not believe in God replied "I have no need of that hypothesis". Neither do I. On the balance of probabilities (the basis of all good hypotheses), there is no God. Whether that makes me an agnostic or an atheist is of no significance to me

Whether or not I believe in a God also has nothing to do with pointing out the internal inconsistencies of those who clutch at theological snippets in the foolish hope that somehow they can reconcile a lifelong pursuit of screwing boys or girls with the spiritual life. St. Paul's "It is better to marry than to burn" and every religion's view that the spiritual life is best pursued by the celibate, suggest a balance of probabilities about the practice of the spiritual life - which is, after all, the pursuit of "wholeness" or holiness. Chasing the next cock or cunt is a distraction from that, and therefore to be condemned

Note my argument has nothing to do with those simple folk who believe that mosque on Friday, synagogue on Saturday or church on Sunday (plus holy days) constitutes the extent of the practice of religion. And I certainly have no time for a religious argument such as that put forward by the Dalai Lama, which comes down to a single-purpose test for each human orifice

I may well get to a point where the thrill of the chase no longer has its attractions and I move over to the Eightfold Path or its equivalent, but for the moment I'm still on Lesson #1 in the Buddhist (and every other religious) tradition - "know yourself, do away with self-delusion and self-serving"

[cottmann]

"God does not exist.."

but proove it !!! :bounce:

The claim that God exists is an extraordinary claim and, as David Hume wrote in his famous 1748 essay "Of Miracles," "A wise man...proportions his belief to the evidence,"and he said of testimony for extraordinary claims that "the evidence, resulting from the testimony, admits of a diminution, greater or less, in proportion as the fact is more unusual." Similar statements made by Laplace and many other later writers turned into the now popular phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" (which Carl Sagan popularized). This is essentially also a re-telling of Occam's Razor - a logical tool used to cut absurdities out of arguments and philosophical systems. According to Ockham, the simpler an explanation is, the more preferable it ultimately is.
For atheists or agnostics, the use of Occam's Razor provides two possible explanations for the universe around us:
* There is an incredibly intricate and complex universe out there, which came into being as a result of natural processes.
* There is an incredibly intricate and complex universe out there, and there is also a God who created the universe. Clearly this God must be of non-zero complexity.
Given that both explanations fit the facts, Occam's Razor suggests that we should take the first, simpler explanation of the two.
Those who claim that God exists are those who need to prove something - believe, faith and reference to the texts are insufficient.

It's posts like yours and mine, cottager, that encourages Hedda in the fantasy that you are I are the same person. As you will appreciate, Hedda is not one of life's sceptics (or, indeed rational thinkers)

[cottmann]

It's posts like yours and mine, cottager, that encourages Hedda in the fantasy that you are I are the same person. As you will appreciate, Hedda is not one of life's sceptics (or, indeed rational thinkers)

A veritable conundrum! How do I respond without further encouraging her misguided belief?

I've been giving some further thought to Aunty's comments about 'the wages of sin is death,' by the way, and I have come to the conclusion that this is not a religious concept but merely a statement of simple physiology. It is a caution to be aware of how you use your energy. When you focus on things that are inappropriate to your health, prosperity and wholeness you are living in 'sin.' Bring enough disintegrative energy into any system and it will fall apart and 'die.' The result of error is self-destruction. Too much indulgence in anything is bad for you, according to this viewpoint.

Oh dear, maybe I've just strayed into your Buddhist beliefs~!

And probably given Hedda more grist!

the wages of sin
But do I get double time on Sundays?

which is, after all, the pursuit of ... holiness.

Which by definition is "in association with God", which you profess not to believe in. To define spiritual pursuit as a lifelong exercise in restraint of intimacy is as sanctimonious as those congregators who think one day a week and alms will get them there, and hazardous to your good mental health, as well.

Monks, priests, ... have WORK to do and proscriptions against their involvements with their own or the opposite sex have as much to do with that than much else. The protestant minister in my neighborhood was married, Buddhist monks in Japan are allowed to get married, Gurus screw their students, so your conclusion that celibacy is universally hand in hand with "holiness" is full of holes as well.

Personally i cant wait until theres a WORLD WAR again,which will happen in the next few years.Instead this govt is disarming its citizens.
We should be ready to fight INDONESIA who i believe will try to attack us.
We all must be ready. I personally have wrote to Prime Minister JOhnny Howard to let him know im pretty sure the INDONESIANS are up to something and we should get in first and take BALI.
I got a letter back thanking me for my observations and they will keep them on file so there ya go.

[cottmann]

which is, after all, the pursuit of ... holiness.

Which by definition is "in association with God",

Whose definition?

Etymologically, holiness comes from O.E. halig "holy," from P.Gmc. *khailagas (cf. O.N. heilagr, Ger. heilig, Goth. hailags "holy"), adopted at conversion for L. sanctus. Primary (pre-Christian) meaning is not impossible to determine, but it was probably "that must be preserved whole or intact, that cannot be transgressed or violated," and connected with O.E. hal (see health) and O.H.G. heil "health, happiness, good luck" (source of the Ger. salutation heil).

Whose definition?

My dictionary says ...


holy ho┬вli,
adjective perfect in a moral sense; pure in heart; religious; associated with God or gods; set apart for a sacred use; regarded with awe (often ironic); saintly; sanctimonious, simulating holiness.

noun a holy object, place or (obsolete) person.

ho'lily adverb.

ho'liness noun sanctity; (with capital Ho'liness) a title of the pope and of patriarchs in Eastern Churches.


Even if H*d*a (errrr.. the Colonel, errrr.. cottman, ... ) claims to have simply meant differently in his posting haste of all his little wars to join then I will hereby make my absolute LAST pronouncement on this subject ...

First a quote ...


The Dhammapada #209 trans. by EE
on Pleasure ...
Do not run after pleasure and neglect the practice of meditation <<spell checker mistake corrected>>. If you neglect the goal of life and get caught in the pleasures of the world, you will come to envy those who put practice first.

I have underlined some words for you 'all'. The Buddha is saying that, above all, do not put pleasure BEFORE the goal of life. He is not saying "deny pleasure".

But I do not cherry pick that to mean that the pursuit of any particular kind of pleasure is good, or 'ok', or anything else of the sort. Your actions determine your karma.

A goal of Buddhist practice is to REDUCE desire, including sexual desire. Being celibate can CERTAINLY help you to achieve the goal of life, but it is not absolutely necessary, and certainly is not in itself going to get you there.

which is, after all, the pursuit of ... holiness.Which by definition is "in association with God"
What are you telling us, adenoids? Buddhists (who don't believe in God) can't be holy? Ho, ho, ho - pull the other leg. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/bud ... hools1.htm (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/schools1.htm) and http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/God-idea.htm

First a quote ...
The Dammapada #209 trans. by EE
on Pleasure ...
Do not run after pleasure and neglect the practice of medication
The practice of medication. Indeed not. I will never neglect the practice of medication. Pop a pill a day has been my lifelong motto. You're sure you've got that quote absolutely right there, hemorrhoids old boy?

which is, after all, the pursuit of ... holiness.Which by definition is "in association with God"
What are you telling us, adenoids? Buddhists (who don't believe in God) can't be holy? Ho, ho, ho - pull the other leg. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/bud ... hools1.htm (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/schools1.htm) and http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/God-idea.htm

Why would we even want to be holy?

Too much to read! Please summarize in your own words.

Oh I'M adenoid? As the term refers to glands in the back of the nose I thought your attempt to insult may have been directed elsewhere.

I'd hate you to have any ambiguity about my opinion of you. I think you're a total prat, and I formed that opinion many posts ago and possibly on a different server when you started a completely untrue, totally misleading and incompetent post about the impact of US state taxes on ex-pats in Thailand. Doubtless there are others who are prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. Personally I doubt the benefit but then I've never been one to suffer fools gladly. Some tell me it's a shortcoming of mine. Personally I find it makes my life so much simpler. Oh, and by the way, you have just joined such illuminati as Mr Sydney on my Ignore list

started a completely untrue, totally misleading and incompetent post about the impact of US state taxes on ex-pats in Thailand

I don't remember starting a thread like that, but I do remember setting records straight on the subject. Again, if you could be a LITTLE more specific ...

April's coming.