|
Post by What Hat on Jan 2, 2014 17:36:27 GMT -5
On second thought -- what effect could the Quebec charter have on the rest of the 9 provinces. It only provides y'all a chance to shine more your welcoming attitudes more brightly -- show Quebec up for its foolishness. I remember distinctly nearly half a century ago that the rest of Canada recoiled in fear when Quebec passed its official language act. Are they still complaining about the decline in the rest of the country since THAT law was passed. I also remember the screaming that was directed at Quebec when they caused the big problem over the new constitution -- but I found it funny that Quebec signed onto the constitution and it was Manitoba and Newfoundland who didn't. Bad bad Quebec. I think you're thinking of the Meech Lake Accord. Somehow we wouldn't be able to go on without it if it didn't pass, and somehow we have. Quebec has never signed off on the Constitution of Canada, last time I checked.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 2, 2014 17:48:33 GMT -5
Which I knew, but why is that unfortunate? For them, you mean? Its unfortunate for any who're upholding it as representative of Islam, because its rejected by mainstream Islam. I'd be happy to have members of this group as neighbors though, and I'd be happy for their brand of Islam to have a moderating influence on the mainstream.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 2, 2014 18:31:23 GMT -5
I thought we were taking about the public school system; not any religious schools e.g. Catholic.
Of course parents have a right to what their children are taught in religious schools. That is why they pay to have their children attend a religious school.
How would you go about teaching in a public school & do so using the parents prerogative to have their children indoctrinated with the family religion while receiving their education?
Which religious "indoctrination" would you use? Which parents would be the ones to decide which religion is to be taught?
Sorry I confused your line of thinking. Keep talking about the public school system, and I'll shut up. ehum.. thought that the public school system was what we were talking about all along!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 2, 2014 18:36:01 GMT -5
On second thought -- what effect could the Quebec charter have on the rest of the 9 provinces. It only provides y'all a chance to shine more your welcoming attitudes more brightly -- show Quebec up for its foolishness. I remember distinctly nearly half a century ago that the rest of Canada recoiled in fear when Quebec passed its official language act. Are they still complaining about the decline in the rest of the country since THAT law was passed. I also remember the screaming that was directed at Quebec when they caused the big problem over the new constitution -- but I found it funny that Quebec signed onto the constitution and it was Manitoba and Newfoundland who didn't. Bad bad Quebec. I think you're thinking of the Meech Lake Accord. Somehow we wouldn't be able to go on without it if it didn't pass, and somehow we have. Quebec has never signed off on the Constitution of Canada, last time I checked. So why the panic? Who is suffering anything? I guess people have to practice panic in case some real crisis comes along and they won't know how to respond.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 2, 2014 18:41:34 GMT -5
But human suffering IS an evil. And yes, that is what atheist means. Personally, I have never thought of human suffering as an evil except in some non-traditional sense of the meaning of evil but not in the more traditional deployment of the word. No doubt many people would agree with you though. An atheist is someone who rejects the notion of God. A buddhist does not necessarily reject the notion of God. Buddhism simply doesn't address the notion of God which is why I term it as "non-theist". Practitioners of Buddhism will vary from deists to agnostics to atheists. Here is how one Buddhist teacher describes it: You are right, basic Buddhism does not involve or address the notion of any deity; that's not what the Buddha sought and it's not what he taught. He kept his beliefs about god separate from his teachings and his endeavors. He didn't intend to start a religion, he just wanted to know how to stop suffering.
Buddhists may or may not be atheist. Many Buddhists practice more than one religion. Some Christians practice Buddhism, some who practice Buddhism also practice Shinto, Taoism, Hinduism, etc.
Being Buddhist does not automatically make one an atheist. Some schools of Buddhism are theistic, such as Tibetan and Pure Land.
I am Theravada Buddhist/Taoist and perhaps a deistic agnostic.
EDIT: The Buddha wasn't agnostic, he was born Hindu, and continued some of the beliefs himself. He did teach, however, that whatever you are taught, examine it thoroughly, challenge it, question it, before you accept it or reject it, including his own teachings. He simply wanted people to think for themselves.
And no Buddhist worships the Buddha or sees him as a god. Source:www.thebigview.com/buddhismMy point really was that human suffering (which is indeed considered an evil) is uniquely incompatible with monotheism -- but no other belief system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 18:46:37 GMT -5
Its unfortunate for any who're upholding it as representative of Islam, because its rejected by mainstream Islam. I'd be happy to have members of this group as neighbors though, and I'd be happy for their brand of Islam to have a moderating influence on the mainstream. I think if the west ever quits making Saudi Arabia very rich, we might see some hope for the moderate Muslims to make some headway. They are there. They just don't get heard about as much as the ones with the extremist ideas and the money to fund their activities. There is an energy revolution going on right now and Saudi Arabia is going to be negatively impacted by it as they will have to scale back their production to keep world prices up. This will probably become quite evident when the next world recession starts in a few years. It will definitely be an interesting geopolitical time. I think it actually raises the risks of the Wahhabis overthrowing the sheiks and making it a more dangerous place.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 2, 2014 18:59:49 GMT -5
Its unfortunate for any who're upholding it as representative of Islam, because its rejected by mainstream Islam. I'd be happy to have members of this group as neighbors though, and I'd be happy for their brand of Islam to have a moderating influence on the mainstream. I think if the west ever quits making Saudi Arabia very rich, we might see some hope for the moderate Muslims to make some headway. They are there. They just don't get heard about as much as the ones with the extremist ideas and the money to fund their activities. You folks who follow Fisk seem to overlook the reality that the West is between a rock and a hard place when dealing with the Middle East. Take Egypt as an example: 1. Mubarak was not democratically elected, but he was the defacto leader. The West chose to work with him as best we could. 2. A popular uprising wanted to depose him. We chose to not oppose the popular uprising, which meant abandoning Mubarak. 3. An election followed, and the people of Egypt chose a Muslim Brotherhood government. We chose to work with this freely elected government as best we could. 4. The Muslim brotherhood proved to be a bad choice, and a popular uprising wanted to remove them. We had to choose whether to accept the will of the people to remove the Brotherhood, or the will of the people when they elected the Brotherhood. 5. The West is now condemned for chastising the military that removed a democratically elected government. Turkey condemns us for not supporting the Brotherhood, and the Saudis condemn us for not giving the current military government enough support. Here's what Egypt's Christians think of the West:
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 2, 2014 19:08:30 GMT -5
My newsletter came to day from FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation), an atheist organization. There was a list of some of the "crank letters" that they got.
One said;
"GOD BLESS YOU FOOLS, the only lower form of life are Muslims!!"
It was touching! To see just how much that "GOD BLESSING" believer really was all "heart," -compassion & loving kindness!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 2, 2014 20:28:55 GMT -5
Which I knew, but why is that unfortunate? For them, you mean? Its unfortunate for any who're upholding it as representative of Islam, because its rejected by mainstream Islam. I'd be happy to have members of this group as neighbors though, and I'd be happy for their brand of Islam to have a moderating influence on the mainstream. The only one who is concerned about finding something "representative of Islam" is you; it's certainly no concern of mine. How can anything be representative of 1.5 billion of the world's population spread across 50 populous nations in every continent? For example, as an exercise could you come up with one thing that would be "representative of Christianity" today? Show me a stereotype and I'll show you someone's agenda behind it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 21:53:54 GMT -5
There is an energy revolution going on right now and Saudi Arabia is going to be negatively impacted by it as they will have to scale back their production to keep world prices up. This will probably become quite evident when the next world recession starts in a few years. It will definitely be an interesting geopolitical time. I think it actually raises the risks of the Wahhabis overthrowing the sheiks and making it a more dangerous place. Not sure what you mean about the Wahhabis overthrowing the sheiks. The Royal family is Wahhabi from what I've read. I am meaning the overthrow of the royalty and installing a theocracy.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 2, 2014 22:35:18 GMT -5
Buddhists aren't all the same and they aren't exactly atheists. Non-theist might be a better word. They don't believe in a creator God and there is certainly no supreme anthropomorphic God floating around out there so they are "atheist" in that respect. The forum didn't equate human suffering with evil. Most speakers were viewing suffering more as a condition of humanity rather than the consequence of an evil force. But human suffering IS an evil. And yes, that is what atheist means. So God subjected the local world to evil, it doesn't mean God doesn't exist. With 100 billion billion plus galaxies out there, what don't you get about the story Job?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 2, 2014 22:36:40 GMT -5
It seems like the Middle East has to sort its own problems out, even if it destroys itself.
This guy said a lot in two sentences:
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 2, 2014 22:42:53 GMT -5
Not sure what you mean about the Wahhabis overthrowing the sheiks. The Royal family is Wahhabi from what I've read. I am meaning the overthrow of the royalty and installing a theocracy. Saudi Arabia is a theocratic although, according to the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia adopted by royal decree in 1992, the king must comply with Sharia and the Qur’an.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 2, 2014 22:49:12 GMT -5
I am the wrong one to ask about whether the Islamic faith is fundamentally a problem. I find the Judeo/Christian faith to be quite violent too. The difference I see is that the Muslims follow their book to the letter still, which Christianity has done away with following the Bible to the letter. Judaism went through a positive revision, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 2, 2014 23:04:50 GMT -5
The question is whether or not Christianity offers something vital and fundamental to humanity's existence. If it does it should be given special protection, avocation, and promotion. That is just it!
Christianity does NOT offer anything more vital and fundamental to humanity's existence than any other religion!
No religion in a secularist, democratic government should be given more protection than any other religion.
You don't have a democratic, secularist government if you give any one religion "special" protection!!
If you do so, than you have a theocracy, not democracy!
That's just horrible. Imagine for once if God revealed something about himself or about how we might find salvation. Truly awful. Fundamentalists should be burned at the stake. ... the problem of man is he keeps on hurting himself. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 2, 2014 23:09:35 GMT -5
Just telling me what salvation isn't won't do it. Tell me what it is. What is it that you are looking to be saved from? Eternal death.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 2, 2014 23:49:56 GMT -5
That is just it!
Christianity does NOT offer anything more vital and fundamental to humanity's existence than any other religion!
No religion in a secularist, democratic government should be given more protection than any other religion.
You don't have a democratic, secularist government if you give any one religion "special" protection!!
If you do so, than you have a theocracy, not democracy!
That's just horrible. Imagine for once if God revealed something about himself or about how we might find salvation. Truly awful. Fundamentalists should be burned at the stake. ... the problem of man is he keeps on hurting himself. Why? I thought it was Satan's fault.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 2, 2014 23:51:07 GMT -5
That's just horrible. Imagine for once if God revealed something about himself or about how we might find salvation. Truly awful. Fundamentalists should be burned at the stake. ... the problem of man is he keeps on hurting himself. Why? I thought it was Satan's fault. Do you tell yourself that because you don't want to believe in God?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 2, 2014 23:59:06 GMT -5
I thought it was Satan's fault. Do you tell yourself that because you don't want to believe in God? No
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 3, 2014 0:41:17 GMT -5
What is it that you are looking to be saved from? Eternal death. So, what is it that you think you will get if you are "saved?"
What will this "place" be like if you are "saved?"
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 3, 2014 0:45:35 GMT -5
Continued journey, continued significance.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 3, 2014 0:48:14 GMT -5
But human suffering IS an evil. And yes, that is what atheist means. So God subjected the local world to evil, it doesn't mean God doesn't exist. With 100 billion billion plus galaxies out there, what don't you get about the story Job? What does 100 billion billion plus galaxies out there have to do with the story Job?
Are you just blindly throwing stuff out there again?
Just throwing stuff at the wall with the hope some of it sticks?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 3, 2014 0:52:28 GMT -5
Continued journey, continued significance. That is no answer, just making it up as you go along again?
If you hope to be "saved," what will that "place" be like after you die?
Or do you think that you will never die?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 3, 2014 0:53:27 GMT -5
So God subjected the local world to evil, it doesn't mean God doesn't exist. With 100 billion billion plus galaxies out there, what don't you get about the story Job? What does 100 billion billion plus galaxies out there have to do with the story Job?
Are you just blindly throwing stuff out there again?
Just throwing stuff at the wall with the hope some of it sticks?
I like looking at the stars because it tells of a hope exceeding the best politics, pundits and philosophers have offered together. Literally! Our ignorance and futility may well be a relatively isolated occasion.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 3, 2014 0:54:14 GMT -5
Continued journey, continued significance. That is no answer, just making it up as you go along again?
If you hope to be "saved," what will that "place" be like after you die?
Or do you think that you will never die?
I don't think I will ever die. Do you?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 3, 2014 0:55:32 GMT -5
Do you tell yourself that because you don't want to believe in God? No Do you privately entertain a cosmically, satisfactory explanation of suffering? Do share!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 3, 2014 1:05:49 GMT -5
What is it that you are looking to be saved from? Eternal death. ehumm.. Well, of course that is the reason that people have constructed a belief system for themselves to deny that when they will die that it will be the end. Period. Eternal death.
Still wonder what you think that "saved" place you want to be will actually be like. Flowers?, angels?, harps?, clouds? Elysian Fields? Nirvana?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 3, 2014 1:06:05 GMT -5
Do you privately entertain a cosmically, satisfactory explanation of suffering? Do share! No, I don't entertain that.
|
|