modern fakir
MPA (400+ posts)
You see jujuju ..you wanted LOGIC for why somethings are not allowed ..and I make a statement and its removed from the forum because SOCIETAL LAW doesnt find it appropriate. :D :d....But i guess this is not logic for you ..this is society ...sometimes i wonder..society is society..religion is religion and logic is logic ...if we follow your point of view then the mathematical act of multiplication will not occur where you can multiply 2 by 4 ..i guess in your world you can only multiply 2 by 2 ...lol
What a boring and retarded place that would be :D ...lol lol lol ...hahahahahaha
modern fakir
MPA (400+ posts)
You see jujuju ..you wanted LOGIC for why somethings are not allowed ..and I make a statement and its removed from the forum because SOCIETAL LAW doesnt find it appropriate. :D :d....But i guess this is not logic for you ..this is society ...sometimes i wonder..society is society..religion is religion and logic is logic ...if we follow your point of view then the mathematical act of multiplication will not occur where you can multiply 2 by 4 ..i guess in your world you can only multiply 2 by 2 ...lol
What a boring and retarded place that would be :D ...lol lol lol ...hahahahahaha
Bret Hawk
Senator (1k+ posts)
According to some verses of the last divine message of Almighty the biggest injustice and curse a Man can commit is by Associating other deities and individuals with Him, remember word association has been mentioned which implies at least the existence of that Supreme Being along with its supposed helpers, and therefore its an unpardonable offense until the aggravator retract from this gross deviance. The scant parallel can be drawn here in relation to an individuals oath of allegiance for the doctrines & principles of the founding fathers of a particular country along with a pledge to accept and safeguard the constitutional framework and to stay loyal with its causes and interests.
Now anyone can imagine the impending consequences and repercussions by even slightly deviating from his / her stated cause so how someone can imagine remaining scot-free whilst associating or clearly denying the existence of his greatest Benefactor and Sustainer. Therefore one has to be perfectly aware of his place of dwelling and accountability if he happens to remain in a state of obstinate ignorance and never allow his internal forces to interact with the external ones in order to probe in the realities of his existence and the benefits which he reaps during the course of his lifespan.
Now to that member who have questioned the rationale of vilifying the unnatural act of homosexuality. First and foremost point to remember in this regard is that Mankinds collective acts of obedience, piety or deviance from the right course could not even add or detach the element of exaltedness of That Supreme Being. Good and bad deeds of humans can only affect themselves and therefore are immune to cause any benefit or harm to the cause of Almighty.
Then whats the point of preaching the humanity about the acts of piety and wickedness? I think the gross misunderstanding takes place due to the misconception and intermingling of these terms such as ownership and trusteeship. According to the theological standpoint of Islam Mans own existence and physical body is a gift from Almighty and He only can claim the undisputed ownership of that physical structure along with its attributes.
Therefore one has to negate the effects of this fallacy that because hes the owner of his physique therefore he can utilise it according to his own needs in order to achieve his different objectives. The institution of marriage has its own justifications and objectives which cant be sidelined by the notions of consensual sexual pleasures. To bridle the sexual needs of an individual its strongly suggested for him to arrange for his heterosexual partner so that he might safeguard the wealth of faith and divinity of his soul through this arrangement.
So back to square one again, if the primary aim of a sexual act is to gain satisfaction and sensual bliss then why to criticise the acts of homosexuality and incest Then someone alluded to the phenomenon of homosexuality among some species of Animals Subhan Allah what a great way to compare one abnormal act of Humans with those creatures who dont even know the rationale of their many acts including the reproductive acts.
For instance we can also get this lesson from many species of Spiders, especially the Australian Redback spiders, that after a mating session normally the female spiders use to kill their male counterparts so by perfectly emulating the Nature of such genial specie of insect the human females should comply the act of murders of their male sexual partners isnt it? What a pathetic and subversive logic one can present in order to support the anomaly of homosexuality.
And lastly the acts of homosexuality especially the Rectum / Anal sex among males can produce such gifts for the consenting sexual partners;
A major cause of Prostate cancer in Males.
Many sexually transmitted diseases including Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Syphilis and ofcourse the most lethal HIV infection can also be caused.
Various psychological disorders inflict the homosexuals according to the extended studies of medicinal psychologists and psychiatrists.
An increase trend of suicide also seems to exists among the homosexuals and those individuals who are involve in incest, women in such cases are proved to be more vulnerable and prone to such tendency.
The above stated facts can easily be gleaned and cross checked by the supporters of such heinous acts and can easily have access to those research papers from credible scientific societies. So this notion of such individuals, who profess that moral values only exists in the faculty of mind and are nothing but the figment of Mans imagination who want to simply fortify his insecurities, has badly exposed by none other than their own demigods (Scientists) in recent years. Moral bankruptcy and deviant sexual behaviours do also affect the physical wellbeing of an individual along with his spiritual ailment and being the trustee of that physical structure he has no right simply to deform and cause inflictions on that precious gift and blessing of The Almighty.
Now anyone can imagine the impending consequences and repercussions by even slightly deviating from his / her stated cause so how someone can imagine remaining scot-free whilst associating or clearly denying the existence of his greatest Benefactor and Sustainer. Therefore one has to be perfectly aware of his place of dwelling and accountability if he happens to remain in a state of obstinate ignorance and never allow his internal forces to interact with the external ones in order to probe in the realities of his existence and the benefits which he reaps during the course of his lifespan.
Now to that member who have questioned the rationale of vilifying the unnatural act of homosexuality. First and foremost point to remember in this regard is that Mankinds collective acts of obedience, piety or deviance from the right course could not even add or detach the element of exaltedness of That Supreme Being. Good and bad deeds of humans can only affect themselves and therefore are immune to cause any benefit or harm to the cause of Almighty.
Then whats the point of preaching the humanity about the acts of piety and wickedness? I think the gross misunderstanding takes place due to the misconception and intermingling of these terms such as ownership and trusteeship. According to the theological standpoint of Islam Mans own existence and physical body is a gift from Almighty and He only can claim the undisputed ownership of that physical structure along with its attributes.
Therefore one has to negate the effects of this fallacy that because hes the owner of his physique therefore he can utilise it according to his own needs in order to achieve his different objectives. The institution of marriage has its own justifications and objectives which cant be sidelined by the notions of consensual sexual pleasures. To bridle the sexual needs of an individual its strongly suggested for him to arrange for his heterosexual partner so that he might safeguard the wealth of faith and divinity of his soul through this arrangement.
So back to square one again, if the primary aim of a sexual act is to gain satisfaction and sensual bliss then why to criticise the acts of homosexuality and incest Then someone alluded to the phenomenon of homosexuality among some species of Animals Subhan Allah what a great way to compare one abnormal act of Humans with those creatures who dont even know the rationale of their many acts including the reproductive acts.
For instance we can also get this lesson from many species of Spiders, especially the Australian Redback spiders, that after a mating session normally the female spiders use to kill their male counterparts so by perfectly emulating the Nature of such genial specie of insect the human females should comply the act of murders of their male sexual partners isnt it? What a pathetic and subversive logic one can present in order to support the anomaly of homosexuality.
And lastly the acts of homosexuality especially the Rectum / Anal sex among males can produce such gifts for the consenting sexual partners;
A major cause of Prostate cancer in Males.
Many sexually transmitted diseases including Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Syphilis and ofcourse the most lethal HIV infection can also be caused.
Various psychological disorders inflict the homosexuals according to the extended studies of medicinal psychologists and psychiatrists.
An increase trend of suicide also seems to exists among the homosexuals and those individuals who are involve in incest, women in such cases are proved to be more vulnerable and prone to such tendency.
The above stated facts can easily be gleaned and cross checked by the supporters of such heinous acts and can easily have access to those research papers from credible scientific societies. So this notion of such individuals, who profess that moral values only exists in the faculty of mind and are nothing but the figment of Mans imagination who want to simply fortify his insecurities, has badly exposed by none other than their own demigods (Scientists) in recent years. Moral bankruptcy and deviant sexual behaviours do also affect the physical wellbeing of an individual along with his spiritual ailment and being the trustee of that physical structure he has no right simply to deform and cause inflictions on that precious gift and blessing of The Almighty.
Last edited:
modern fakir
MPA (400+ posts)
The definition of Personal according to Dictionary.com is :
relating to, directed to, or intended for a particular person: a personal favor; one's personal life; a letter marked Personal.
I disagree with desicad ... Im using a hypothesis and 2 subjects based on the analogy presented ..where the subjects and the analogy were both ratified by the questioner ..How does this equate to personal ..Can you explain ??
If Jujuju and unicorn can use the TERM GOD and say that they "Scratched God's back" as a hypothesis, then what is the flaw in me using a hypothetical name "jujuju" and his relative as a means of relaying a meaning !
if using jujuju and his relatives name in an act he defines as "Private" is construed as "Personal" simply because a mother is a source of evolution in modern society then why was his post about Rubbing GOD's back not removed ?
Whereas GOD in my opinion is the reason for the evolution of a mother and everything else in it ?
Why do we have such double standards ..Can someone please explain ?
:):):):):):)
So we will not tolerate the insult of a mother but do whatever you want to GOD :D :D
Don't understand how sodomy (homosexuality) and murder are analogous. Everybody agrees that murder is form of human destruction, but how homosexuality between two consenting adults can lead to that. Not that I like it, but one's disliking of such relations does not mean one can make absurd statements.
Again incest is relative, eg. marriage between first cousins in pakistan and some communities in India is very common, but in most parts of the world that is actually considered as incest.
You have written a small paragraph about a dozen lines which frankly speaking didn't make any sense to me....thanks anyway for trying at least.
modern fakir
MPA (400+ posts)
In other words you can't analyse logic so you shudnt be judging others ..:) ...and Im not being personal ..You urself accepted this analogy ~
Thank You !
modern fakir
MPA (400+ posts)
lol lol ...First you have to prove your assertion ..How is Murder and Homosexuality not analogous. if murder is destruction of humanity because if it is applied to all of humanity then no one will be left alive in this world, then why cant homosexuality which leads to no evolution of society not be termed as Destruction of a society.
Logic says : The End Determines the Mean :D ...So in both cases the end is NO HUMANITY !..hence it is analogous
lol lol ..Can you prove to me how is marriage to a first cousin incest ??..What logic are u referring to ??
According to the western definition : the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden
Since in Islam marriage with Cousin is not Legally Forbidden ..and does LEAD to propogation of society and is within the norms of societal acknowledgement hence your argument is baseless. You cant use western religious thought as a basis to justify your logic you have to use natural law!
Unicorn
Banned
Stealing in any case is not OK this is my own personal rule and I shall follow it no matter what. If some one steals from me because he is hungry I am OK with that.
Murder is not OK. Fighting in self defense is fine if the outcome results in death of either party its unfortunate.
Last edited:
Unicorn
Banned
Tell me when I supported theft. I mentioned that if someone steals from me if they are hungry that would be fine with me. Theft is never OK I will never steal no matter what the circumstance is.
Last edited:
again the same old ad hominems. can you explain how sodomy and murder are analogous? can u tell me why you think incest destroys society? especially i am surprised about this comment coming from pakistan, where it seems to be terribly common of first cousins getting married. look dont waste your and my time if you cant respond with answers which explain something from some theory.
anyways fakir you are using juvenile logic like "end justifies means" etc. so if US is ****** iraq up and looting their oil it is fine? also please stay away from quoting mathematics at me. you evidently know nothing about math and know even less about my ability on that subject.
also stop lolling in every post of yours. only mad people lol so much for no reason. if society an religion cannot and should not be analyzed by logic, why do muslims like you claim that islam is the best religion. is it not then just an article of your faith since according to you logic cannot and should not be used to analyse religion.
anyways fakir you are using juvenile logic like "end justifies means" etc. so if US is ****** iraq up and looting their oil it is fine? also please stay away from quoting mathematics at me. you evidently know nothing about math and know even less about my ability on that subject.
also stop lolling in every post of yours. only mad people lol so much for no reason. if society an religion cannot and should not be analyzed by logic, why do muslims like you claim that islam is the best religion. is it not then just an article of your faith since according to you logic cannot and should not be used to analyse religion.
Last edited by a moderator:
modern fakir
MPA (400+ posts)
lol lol lol ...hhahahahaha...Oh getting pissed are we jujuju ??? ..why is it that so called logical and sane people like you when confronted with reality come back with uselss drivel ??
I have explained and you have understood the meaning of incest and as far as juvenile logic goes then im not the one with the name "jujuju" which sounds like a rhythimic cry of a 2 year old...hahahahahahahahahahahahah
see it is a VERY OLD TRAIT of ILLOGICAL PEOPLE to confuse others when confronted with true logic ...Only an idiot will relate "end justifies means" to US and Iraq and quite honestly ..You very well fit that description...:D :D :D
Ok i understand so you flunked high school and maths was the subject ur elders used to haunt u about and hence ur sensitive to the subject ...very understandable ..but math is one of the most logical subjects ..so by saying this you are actually testifying that your sense of logic is INCOMPLETE in other words when u dont have complete logic part of ur brain is filled with NON SENSE ...lol lol
If I am mad then a person responding to a mad person makes you A MEGA MORON ...LOL LOL LOL ....BOY "jujuju" you truly are a clownn!!!...and certainly u are doing the right thing by passing comments here to make people laugh ...which is what im doing !..isnt it logical??? ...lol lol lol
And lastly Im not going to waste time discussing Islam with people who like to worship the male's reproductive organ, cow urinal discard and every kind of filth their is on earth.. quiet honestly u need a CLEAN mind for that :D :D...because logic only flows in a claer cut fashion and as for you "jujuju" ...i think a circus circuit show is waiting for you some where ...lol lol lol
chao!
Last edited by a moderator:
Unicorn
Banned
An act of incest is not the same as the act between two males in comparison with two heterosexual couple for Apples to Apples comparison.
Relationship between a father and a daughter, mother and a son or brother and sister is a totaly different. Any one who violates this relationship would be either a sick or immoral person.
In the Bible when Adam and Eve were sent down it is stated that the couple had two sons Able and Kane. Kane slew Able. Bible is silent as to how earth was populated with a single surviving male I am unable to get an answer from people of god but they expect me to believe the story.
After the everyone died in the flood except for Noah's children. How did earth got repopulated some may justify incest based on this as a divine sanction. These type of questions make Christians very uncomfortable yet these are valid questions.
Last edited:
modern fakir
MPA (400+ posts)
The analogy of incest to homosexuality was to highlight the destruction caused in "private between two individuals" and that no one should have a problem to that. This is bullshit because both the acts of homosexuality and incest are utterly disgusting and disapproved by logical men and divine nature !
As far as christian doctrine goes with respect to able and kain then in the islamic point of view we do have legends that tell us that the wife of able was a heavenly women and the wife of kain was of the Jinns which was one of the primary reasons of the dispute. Hence no incest took place, although neither I or you can testify to this because neither of us were present back then and are not aware of the full circumstances.
look if this is your level of discussion, i have no interest in it. i am not at all irritated, however much u may want that. in any case i am a phd in applied math so the lesser said the better about my abilities. anyways thank u and have a nice day. i will make an exit. you won the argument, i lost. homosexuality is criminal.
If you have not known it on your own, how can you believe in God? But your father has told you, your mother has told you, you have been taught by the priest, by the state. They go on giving you beliefs. If you are born in a Catholic country, the Catholic belief will be given to you. If you are born in a communist country, the communist belief will be given to you. Before the child becomes aware, he is already conditioned, already poisoned. And then his whole life he will repeat the belief that has been put into him, and because of this belief he will remain a hypocrite.
Same way the man who says, There is no God has he known? Has he inquired? Has he explored the whole existence and found that there is no God? No, he has not explored it. This again is out of hypocrisy. So remember, belief and unbelief, howsoever contradictory they look the theist and the atheist, howsoever antagonistic they look, are the same. They come from the same source. Without knowing anything, without experiencing anything on their own, they go on believing, they go on declaring.
Thats what hypocrisy is all about, to say something that you dont know, to utter something that is not your own authentic experience. To live in borrowed knowledge is hypocrisy. Deep down you are something, on the surface you pretend something else. This is hypocrisy. And Sanais statement is tremendously revolutionary because he puts the believer and the unbeliever in the same category.
The religious person is neither a believer nor an unbeliever, because he is not a hypocrite. He will say only that which he knows, he will not utter a single word that he does not know. He will say if he does not know, that he does not know. Socrates is a religious man because he says, I know only one thing, that I dont know anything. This is religiousness. This is sincerity of the heart, this is simplicity, this is humbleness. Believing is not knowing regardless of its affiliations.
- Osho -
Same way the man who says, There is no God has he known? Has he inquired? Has he explored the whole existence and found that there is no God? No, he has not explored it. This again is out of hypocrisy. So remember, belief and unbelief, howsoever contradictory they look the theist and the atheist, howsoever antagonistic they look, are the same. They come from the same source. Without knowing anything, without experiencing anything on their own, they go on believing, they go on declaring.
Thats what hypocrisy is all about, to say something that you dont know, to utter something that is not your own authentic experience. To live in borrowed knowledge is hypocrisy. Deep down you are something, on the surface you pretend something else. This is hypocrisy. And Sanais statement is tremendously revolutionary because he puts the believer and the unbeliever in the same category.
The religious person is neither a believer nor an unbeliever, because he is not a hypocrite. He will say only that which he knows, he will not utter a single word that he does not know. He will say if he does not know, that he does not know. Socrates is a religious man because he says, I know only one thing, that I dont know anything. This is religiousness. This is sincerity of the heart, this is simplicity, this is humbleness. Believing is not knowing regardless of its affiliations.
- Osho -
Last edited:
thedude
Councller (250+ posts)
[MENTION=14539]-CSIS-[/MENTION]
The person who says 'I don't know' still does or does not believe in god by virtue of faith or lack of knowledge respectively ...
if you ask him "Is there a God?" he would say "I don't know"
if you ask him "Do you believe in God?" he should say "Yes" or "No"
the "Yes" people are the people of faith (who believe without knowing)
the "No" people sometimes like to call themselves 'agnostic' and sometimes 'atheist' ... (the difference between these two terms has a certain point of contention to it)
now some people if asked "Do you believe in God?" they would still say "I don't know" ... the person is either confused, hasn't thought it through or afraid to take a stand ... because even though you can claim lack of information on fact-based questions (e.g., Is there a God?), you cannot claim lack of information about your own belief system ... you yourself are the most knowledgeable person about your own belief system and that doesn't require external knowledge ...
"Do you believe in God?" is the question that makes you take a stand and be honest about yourself
Another interesting question is "Do you know there is a God?" so an agnostic/atheist would have the following answers:
Is there a God? I don't know
Do you know there is a God? No
Do you know there is no God? No
Do you believe in God? No
When Richard Dawkins says "There is probably no God" his answers would be like this:
Is there a God? probably No
Do you know there is a God? (not sure what his answer would be)
Do you know there is no God? (not sure what his answer would be)
Do you believe in God? No
Now if we include probability (varying from 0% to 100%) then it becomes even more complicated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
The person who says 'I don't know' still does or does not believe in god by virtue of faith or lack of knowledge respectively ...
if you ask him "Is there a God?" he would say "I don't know"
if you ask him "Do you believe in God?" he should say "Yes" or "No"
the "Yes" people are the people of faith (who believe without knowing)
the "No" people sometimes like to call themselves 'agnostic' and sometimes 'atheist' ... (the difference between these two terms has a certain point of contention to it)
now some people if asked "Do you believe in God?" they would still say "I don't know" ... the person is either confused, hasn't thought it through or afraid to take a stand ... because even though you can claim lack of information on fact-based questions (e.g., Is there a God?), you cannot claim lack of information about your own belief system ... you yourself are the most knowledgeable person about your own belief system and that doesn't require external knowledge ...
"Do you believe in God?" is the question that makes you take a stand and be honest about yourself
Another interesting question is "Do you know there is a God?" so an agnostic/atheist would have the following answers:
Is there a God? I don't know
Do you know there is a God? No
Do you know there is no God? No
Do you believe in God? No
When Richard Dawkins says "There is probably no God" his answers would be like this:
Is there a God? probably No
Do you know there is a God? (not sure what his answer would be)
Do you know there is no God? (not sure what his answer would be)
Do you believe in God? No
Now if we include probability (varying from 0% to 100%) then it becomes even more complicated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
Last edited:
Unicorn
Banned
When I am asked if I believe in god my answer is NO: my reasoning for this is weather I believe or not has no effect on my daily life. This is based on my personal experience as a one time believer.
When I am asked " Is there is a god" my answer is I don't know.
When I am asked " Is there no god" my answer is probably not. This is based on balance of probabilities when arguments for it are placed on one side of the scale and against it on the other side to me second side weighs more.
Every decision I make is based on balance of probabilities which yields more correct decisions and less incorrect nevertheless there are incorrect decision. With more experience and knowledge both from correct and incorrect decisions over time I have improved.
I consider my self agnostic this is my personal perspective.
Raaz
(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم
Hazrat Ali said , I realized Allah ( God ) by failures of my projects.
Means a person wants to do something and tried his best, but could not get that.
Every one wants to live for ever and donot want to die or get sick.
But he could not do that.
Even a believer has to die , but he understand it is from my God.
Atheist have nothing to say.
Means a person wants to do something and tried his best, but could not get that.
Every one wants to live for ever and donot want to die or get sick.
But he could not do that.
Even a believer has to die , but he understand it is from my God.
Atheist have nothing to say.
