Yeah, but it's not to be taken at face value, old boy. All that virgins in paradise stuff is myth. The truth lies under the surface as metaphor.

Of course, there's medicine for the weak, and there's medicine for the strong. When you're ready for strong medicine, you'll get it.

The gods in Tibetan Buddhism are deities - supposedly a form of strong medicine, but I've never tried it. Gabriel, who spoke to Mohammed, was probably one of these higher forms/beings.

Islam, even its outward version, is all about erradicating desire. They just call it sin.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 2:49pm:


Maybe not - it's just the terminology they use.

What you do tend to find, however, is that very similar "deities" seem to pop up in different cultures and histories.

Now I'm not trying to convert you or anything, but there does seem to be something there that unites us rather than divides us. Call me a Jungian, call me religious, call me old fashioned, call me anything you want.

It all depends on your focus, of course. If you look for the gaps, that's all you'll find. But if all you see is conflict - if all you seek is conflict - then I'd say the conflict lies within. Seek and ye shall find.

We're in a very privalleged situation in this country. We don't live in Israel, for example, where there's a hightened state of alert, where your religion brands you, and where military service is compulsory.

We live mainly in multicultural cities where, on the whole, things are very laid back and where we pretty-much get on. Most people arguing in this forum have had no experience of the evil forces of which they speak. In Australia, we mainly see these things on TV.

Ah, the omniscient gaze from the antipodes...

It's a very human trait to see the speck in someone else's eye without seeking to remove the cataracht in your own. The faultlines in the so-called clash of civilizations lie within.

I might be wrong, but along with philosophers like Habbermas, I see the purpose of dialogue to come to a united - not divided - point of view.

Karnal wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 4:01pm:



Genious.

The 'communicative action' of blowing up bars in Bali, trains in London, Madrid, India, flying planes into New York buildings is actualy communicating to me that these fvckers are past dialogue. Are you interpreting it differently? Like they are friends at heart whose grievances we haven't accommodated yet?

Quote:


Come on helian, they believe in a trinity and a man-god. They have ministers.... yet they put the word Islam in their name, so they gotta be Muslims... right???

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 9:44pm:


Right. Same as any other religion I can think of. If anyone banned sex, we'd be in a bit of a dither, wouldn't we?

But I understand your point. We know, however, that there are other sects of Islam that seek a direct experience of God, rather than concentrating solely on the rules of family/social life.

I'd say any practice that sought to repress desires - rather than channel them - would be quite unhealthy, anyway.

This is not to say that many in the name of various religions haven't tried.

Soren wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 5:47pm:


The only reason for dialogue would be to stop them from blowing up more innocent people.

I noticed that some think that this reason is enough.

Some people just don't care who is wrong and who is right, they just want to live in relative safety and this is a worry to me.

Quote:


You and your line are destined for dhimmitude soren, just submit to this fact. The inescapable fate that you know awaits

Hence your resistance, since you find yourself slipping closer and closer to that which you know you've always been destined for.

Better for you to spend your time accumulating wealth, so they'll inherit plenty of funds to make their jizyah payments.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 26^th, 2010 at 9:56pm:





You are a funny bugger - and I use the word advisedly. (Cf afghan boy love thread.)