Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:20pm:


Gosh Brian, your apologism for Mohammad is going too far. He was a supposed prophet of God and he did this. Did Jesus do this, or Buddha?

Second, yes medieval kings didn’t marry what we would refer to now as underage but neither of them were 9 years old. On average they were 16 years old. There’s a huge difference between a 9 year old and 16 year old.

Third, the key point is that Muhammad is a the example of behaviour, so if he married a 9 year old then that is acceptable according to the Sunni tradition.

Gosh, Brian! I can’t believe some of the comments you’ve made!

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 4:49pm:


I could shoot myself in the head, by my own volition - does that make me 'spiritual'? I could even make some dubious claim about how it will save lives. Thats basically where you are at with your whole spiritual argument.

Obviously, spirituality, as it pertains to monotheistic religions, has to have some purpose vis bringing oneself closer to God. You can't just simply grow a beard, take your shoes off and remove yourself from all temporal aspects of life - and then allow yourself to be killed. Of course you may choose to exhibit some or all of those behaviours as part of your quest for spirituality - but those alone do not make you spiritual. And of course there are different paths you may take - some which may involve utilising aspects of the temporal world - not because you love the temporal world so much, but simply because its pretty hard to avoid, since we are actually living in the temporal world. In Muhammad's case, I don't think its fair to say all the earthly things he partook in - politics, marriage, warfare - were at the expense of his spiritual motivation and purpose, nor do I buy the absurd assumption (flaunted by both you and FD) that I must consider acts such as killing and warfare as "spiritual". They were a necessary part of the temporal burdens that he was saddled with.


Quote:


Thats a completely arbitrary and meaningless set of criteria. Spiritualism in the Islamic and Christian sense - is simply about reaching an inner peace with yourself to accept your uncompromising love and/or submission to God. Your efforts to dictate a set of hard and fast list of practical measures for how that must be achieved (no materialism, live in squalor etc) will always be doomed.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:14pm:


That's a very simplistic example of my claim. Let me explain in further detail. Discarding all the non-sense about the Cosmic Christ and the Holy Spirit, let's focus on his social teachings: "The first will be last; the last will be first", "blessed are those who are hungry.... woe to those who are full..." These teachings preached a radical social order, threatening the 'powers-at-be', which was why he was later executed. Jesus thus encouraged that the temporal be in accordance with nature of the Spirit.

The way Jesus behaved was also in accordance with his social teachings: he never married (according to the mainstream interpretation); he never had sexual relations; he didn't accumulate wealth; he didn't accumulate political power; he didn't raise an army; he didn't own property. NOTHING. The way he lived his life was against any human expectation or rational behaviour (in the sense that humans are concerned with person survival or welfare).

There is a scene in the NT in which Jesus enters Jerusalem on a donkey with some of his followers waving palm branches, saying: "Here comes the King of the Jews..." This act would've been considered sedition in Ancient Rome, and Jesus knew it. The decision to enter Jerusalem was the moment he signed his own death warrant: the ultimate act of rebellion against the Roman Empire.

The torture, humiliation and death following his teachings isn't the same as your simplistic 'shoot myself in the head' - it's the totality of his actions as well as the fact that he sacrificed himself that is the key point of his teachings.

By contrast, Muhammad did neither of these things: he owned property; married; had sexual relations with women; raised an army; governed a community; and order the deaths of people. Now, from a historical point of view, what Muhammad did was no different from what any conquerer did, like Julius Caesar or Napoleon. The point is that Muhammad is a Prophet and is professing a spiritual creed. There is nothing spiritual about politics. Sure, he couldn't avoid it, which is why there is a distinction between Islam - the religion or spiritual components and Islamism - political Islam. There are no Christian principals of governance practised BY JESUS; by the Catholic church, yes, but not by Jesus himself.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:14pm:


That's the point I was making beforehand: religion has to be 'easy' - the cost of discipleship must be cheap, otherwise you won't have followers. Asking people to give up their money and possessions is the best way to not have a large following.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:14pm:


Not according to the Indian religions. According to the monotheistic religions, yes, which makes them perfectly suitable for modern times and in a materialistic world.

attribute whatever motivation you like Augy - my only point was that FD lied about who attacked first.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:40pm:


So, they drove him and the followers out of Mecca, and one year later, after being the leader of community in Medina, he then decides to take revenge on those who deported him???

So much for 'turning the other cheek'.

Jesus forgave his torturers and executioners as he was hanging from the cross. "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do." That there, my friend, is spirituality.

Not some petty revenge over being deported.

Secret Wars wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:00pm:



Secret Wars,

ISLAM may 'win', or overcome, people like yourself.

ISLAM will not overcome me, nor people like me.


Dictionary;
overcome = = succeed in dealing with (a problem).    defeat.

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 12:11pm:


Where is one word of "support" for that, FD?   As usual, you tell porkie-pies to suit your attacks on Muslims.  Tsk, tsk.   What is the point, hey?  You just hate Muslims.  You're an Islamophobe.