Jump to content

EKen132

WFG Retired
  • Posts

    2.036
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by EKen132

  1. And yet, homosexuals are lynched in a surprisingly large scale in the South. There aren't quite so many examples of direct violence from fundamentalist Christians, because of one basic fact: they control pretty much the strongest military force on the planet.

    Are you joking?! Homosexuals being lynched in a surprisingly large scale in the south? I must be pretty out of it. And for you to attribute the reason there aren't more violent acts from fundamentalist Christians to the fact that a very large segment of the US armed forces is made of of them or the US president is Christian?

    On topic though, I've changed my mind about this whole issue. I do think it's a pretty low blow to attack someone like a religious leader, but something that's been bothering me for a while I did some research on, and now my mind is shifted around a bit.

    190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

    191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

    192 But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

    193 And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

    or

    Followers are told to "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them (9:5)," and to "Fight those who believe not in God, nor the Last Day." (9:29) Muhammad also promises paradise for those who die in battle for Allah, "Those who left their homes . . . or fought or been slain,--Verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath;--A reward from the Presence of God." (3:195; cf. 2:244; 4:95)

    I guess I used to think Islam was or could be a peaceful religion. One that a few extremists were just making a bad name for because of their actions. I guess I was wrong; a holy book that supports unbounded murder of all infidels till eternity. Wow...

    This gives me a new perspective at least. And although I don't think making fun of a religious leader is a respectful thing to do, they are making fun of him for the right reasons. And theres no justification for the attack on the mission either way. Always escalation... always always escalation. You know, the "turn the other cheek" thing would apply so well to society today.

  2. I hope you're joking Mythos, as trying to adjectate people simply for the sake of offending them is something I thought far below you.

    State of the Union tonight. Dunno if I really wanna watch though haha... in our Government class we can't stop talking about the movie "Good Burger" (yes Kenan and Kel). Our teacher says if somehow the words "good burger" are said consecutively in the program, he'll pay for a kid's AP test (which is a hefty 70 bucks).

  3. Well to sort of profane a symbol so respected as a founder of a major world religion, that is certainly not a respectful thing to do. But freedom of speech certainly can't take it way, and I would rather they be able to say that than not.

    Darn, I thought of something else to say, but I forgot it. Aww...

  4. Yeah, another good example. Well, we'll see how the election turns out, as I have little doubt she'll run. Personally, I think too many conservative talk radio host's hate her guts for her to pull in a majority. Then again, the Republican party isn't in the best situation either- they have a huge rift forming between the social conservatives and the economic conservatives. If John McCain run, who knows what'll happen.

  5. The military volunteer rate is declining though.

    Oh Mythos you idealist you. Didn't Rice just say a few days ago she wasn't running for president? History would tell us though that no matter how many times you deny a presidential run, it's a dirty lie though. Besides, what would your constituents think if you had plans to go to bigger and better things. Although "consituents" applies less to Condi than it does to Hillary. Who is also suspiciously positioning herself more moderately... and pissing her big-time followers off.

    Systematically denying a presidential run, and making more moderate speeches, could these things point to anything else?

    Anyhow, my US history teacher said last year (and I put a lot of faith in this, as well as many other things he's said), that our first woman president will be very conservative. Because we still have this idea, that, oh no, if a woman is president, what if she tries to pull some crazy stunt? It's like we can't be completely comfortable with it, because it's never happened before. But with a hardline conservative, you feel like "OK a woman, gee that's never happened before, but I have confidence in knowing exactly how she'll act". Kind of like Thatcher; just look at England.

  6. Wow, saw it last saturday... it was great. All I can say it my props to PJ for pulling this off so gracefully. If you like Indiana Jones and Lord of the Rings, chances are you'll enjoy this as well.

    Some complained it was long, but I really like long movies; they tend to feel more epic. And any attempt at a plot summary will automatically fail to do justice to the movie.

    "Yeah, uh, it's about this girl that falls in love with a giant monkey that destroys New York"

    I liked the ending too. Very Lord of the Flies-ish :D

  7. Just look at the Middle East. 60 years we were going at each others throats and now... crap, look somewhere else.

    BTW, although WW1 was entirely ridiculous, what was ridiculous about WW2?

    Remember that link I posted on some other thread; it is applicable here. It was a Sagan speech about a "pale blue dot".

  8. Although I haven't thought too much on the subject, I think banning both sexually active homo and heterosexuals is fine for the priesthood, if that's the rule they choose to uphold. But I think, conversely, they should allow non-sexually active homo and heterosexuals to join.

    Anyhow, anyone else have any general theology?

×
×
  • Create New...