Leaderboard

Dickens against abstinence

Jusatele said:
SL, I do not know if the statement about the founder of Islam is true or not.
So I cannot comment, If it is truth then it is wrong, If it is a fabrication or urban legend to slam the religion then it is wrong
I try to keep out of discussion based on or about religion because I find so little is truthful and most is lies.
Click to expand...

It's very much true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

===============================================================

I see this statement:

what a man does that does not affect others is his business
it is when it affects others that things need to be governed
Click to expand...

to be true; however there is quite a bit of granularity and especially, subjectivity
that goes with it.

Hence my pointing out the pedo. found in islam.  Yet some tolerate it because
it's a "religion".

Everybody has their own lines they do not cross; some have more lines than others.

So, what you might consider "okay", someone else may think is "evil".  And vice-versa.

The problem I find with a lot of people is they find something to be "wrong"; yet
they refuse to be consistent about calling it "wrong" in every area or aspect.

The other thing in all this is, what someone does to themselves and only to themselves
can affect others regardless.
 
Might I remind you that Bukhari lived 2 centuries after Mohamed died, so his writings are basically legends 8 generations old. and there are 6 hadiths about Mohamed's wife(s) and none of  the others mention such

once again, when it comes to religion so much is not true how can you believe anything


 
Jusatele said:
Might I remind you that Bukhari lived 2 centuries after Mohamed died, so his writings are basically legends 8 generations old. and there are 6 hadiths about Mohamed's wife(s) and none of  the others mention such

once again, when it comes to religion so much is not true how can you believe anything
Click to expand...

(The pedo. stuff is based in local tradition - not anything religious-related.

i.e.  in America, everybody loves vanilla ice cream and has for centuries. 

Joe Schmoe comes along and constructs new religion whereupon he is known to eat vanilla ice cream.

Still, this inspires all followers of Schmoe to eat vanilla ice cream)

Alcoholics can ravage their own body all they want and leave other people alone (say, family members).

Still, they are guaranteed to affect others.  Say they die prematurely.  No more father in the family, etc...

I say in all this that "your" every move, decision, action - affects yourself and others tremendously... some
with far-reaching effects.

Choose wisely. (as the old dude said in that Indiana Jones Last Crusade movie)
 
accepting as truth, something that arises 200 years past the death of someone, written down from sources that never before wrote anything down just repeated it verbally, is not history, it is mythology. If in 200 years a guy fixated on sex with German Shepards wrote that Superlizard had sex while sitting in chocolate baths with his German Shepard so seeing how Superlizard started the church of Izzydumplings it is alright ti sleep with German Shepards.
As valid as the story Bukhari wrote about Mohamed.

that has nothing to do with the actions of a drunk

the facts are just not their in the stories of Mohamed. Let me ask you this, if you dismiss the writings as false and not a true religion, then why do you chose to accept this one section as truth to discredit the religion?

if such is the case you need to review your thought process, I mean that is selective belief, choosing what to believe to prove yourself right.

that would be like taking the bill of rights and deciding to use only 3 of them because you only want them to be correct and the others false.

So, is everything written about Mohamed fact and therefore Islam is the true religion, or could Bukhari have been wrong when 200 years after Mohamed died he wrote down the stories he had been told?
 
according to your argument, if we allow people to choose to drive and someone gets killed because of a flat and the car swerves into lanes then we should not allow people to drive because the decision to drive affects others lives.
 
Jusatele said:
according to your argument, if we allow people to choose to drive and someone gets killed because of a flat and the car swerves into lanes then we should not allow people to drive because the decision to drive affects others lives.
Click to expand...

...but said person did not consciously cause said tire to go flat.

However, it does stand that one should do proper car maintenance, for their own safety and others.

A different scenario would be someone hops into their car to drive and they know the brakes are shot.

Again, it simply comes down to being responsible for your own actions.
 
Jusatele said:
the facts are just not their in the stories of Mohamed. Let me ask you this, if you dismiss the writings as false and not a true religion, then why do you chose to accept this one section as truth to discredit the religion?
Click to expand...

Briefly:

I accept as truth because said behavior is practiced today as well as throughout the centuries by moslems.  They are taught to revere Mo. and emulate him because he was deemed "perfect".

(There are other reasons why I use quotes with the term "religion" in this case, but I will refrain from going down that rabbit trail because it is not along the topic lines)
 
Jusatele said:
what about the owners who bought Fords a decade ago with Firestone tires?
Click to expand...

I remember that fiasco.

Simply, if they didn't know the Firestones were faulty, then they are not to blame.

If however some continued to buy Fords with Firestones after the news got out about the
faulty tires and (IIRC) recalls, then they are... dumbasses.  Dangerous dumbasses.
 
I can deal with that
I just do not deal the 6 year old bride story being true
I think that religions evolve to fit the needs of those in charge at the time.
Such as politics do, and both have no basis in fact,
And having no basis is why so many arguments happen over them, those that argue truly believe, but without any proof behind them they are forced to draw lines. and everyones line is in a different place.
 
Jusatele said:
but without any proof behind them they are forced to draw lines.
Click to expand...

People are forced to draw lines with proof as well.  One could say especially so in that case.

Jusatele said:
and everyones line is in a different place.
Click to expand...

This is the source of much contention in the world.

In some cases, one can actually prove a given "line" is necessary and should be followed - there will still
be others who simply don't care (for whatever reason) and refuse to recognize said "line".

This is also the source of much contention.
 
here is a quandry
the Jewish religion fractured twice, now we have Jewish, Chirstians, and Muslims all worshiping the same God. Yet there is war between them because of it.
Make sense?
Why are we killing each other ?
 
Hey, Let's get back to getting drunk.
All this poli-religious stuff should be fought out in another forum.
I DON'T BELIEVE IN I-CHING
I DON'T BELIEVE IN BIBLE
IDON'T BELIEVE IN JESUS
I DON'T BELIEVE IN KENNEDY
I DON'T BELIEVE IN  BUDDA

I just believe in beer.
 
nice discussion, I do believe either of us could have taken either side however
rather allegorical
 
Jusatele said:
Because, with a child you are affecting someone else, the child. so there is a reason to govern, again the premise is that it has no effect on anyone else. So drawing a line between sex it adults and sex with kids is valid as the adult is mature enough to choose. Being gay should not be a crime but we treat it as such, having sex with kids is a crime and I do not think anyone here would argue for the right to sleep with kids.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope I'm affecting someone else when I have sex, but I know what you mean. The power balance between adult and child is not equal and peadophilia is taking advantage of that, with grave and life long damage to the child. So obviously it needs to be prohibited.

Who are the "we" who treat homosexuality as a crime? Do you live in Uganda? :)

[quote author=Jusatele]
So what they are saying is that just because I drink, I will drive drunk, and that without prior history of driving while drunk I should be treated as if I am guilty?
That is like saying everyone who owns a gun will murder someone just because a gun owner did. [/quote]

I believe it's partly a question of potential. Someone who has had a drink is much more likely to go drunk driving than someone who hasn't; a gun owner is more likely to shoot someone than I am, simply because of availiabilty. Then there are issues of cultural attitudes.

Edit:
[quote author=Superlizard]I say in all this that "your" every move, decision, action - affects yourself and others tremendously... some
with far-reaching effects.[/quote]

Quoted for truth and appended to what I just said above.

--

Warning - while you were typing 13 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post - boy, you guys really went at it :tard:
 
as a reply, we do not allow gay marriage as it "will destroy the sanctity of marriage", we have people preaching homosexuals are going to hell, yes we treat it as a crime here in America,
so you are saying we are guilty because of potential? then you are a child molester, you have all the right parts to be one.
and if everything we do affects someone, then we should all be put to death as nothing we can do does not affect anyone so we are guilty by being alive.
 
Jusatele said:
as a reply, we do not allow gay marriage as it "will destroy the sanctity of marriage", we have people preaching homosexuals are going to hell, yes we treat it as a crime here in America,
so you are saying we are guilty because of potential? then you are a child molester, you have all the right parts to be one.
and if everything we do affects someone, then we should all be put to death as nothing we can do does not affect anyone so we are guilty by being alive.
Click to expand...

I am sad for your country if what you write is true. Anyway -

No, I am not saying we are guilty because of potential, if I had meant that that's what I would have written. You are dealing in absolutes when there is no need to do so: potential is not actuality. We were talking about whether or not government/legislation was needed for various things (originally drinking I believe) and I'm saying that since there is a potential of causing harm to someone else through for example drinking and driving, it's not entirely your business whether you drink or not. Ultimately and ideally it is the full responsibility of the individual not to drive while under the influence of alcohol, but in practice society has to regulate certain things surrounding alcohol because far too many ignore this responsobility. At the cost of human lives.

Everything everywhere affects everything else, this is simply a fact of life and guilt has nothing to do with it. But it does so to various degrees. A drinking father (say) can cause immense damage to his family members, and he does so completely irregardless of the fact that he may feel it's nobody else's business whether he drinks or not.
A cow breaking wind in New Zeeland has very little effect on me, but it still has an effect.

The above very briefly and under the influence of a severe need of lunch.
 
so now we regulate drinking because a father has an effect on his child by drinking? what effect is that?
 
Once again I am reminded that the internet is not the place for discussions of quality and meaning.

I see no point in continuing this when you apparently wilfully misinterpret everything I write. Good evening to you sir, I hereby leave this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top