Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's the evangelical born-agains that drive me crazy with their political activism trying to push their morality down the rest of our throats. Man that makes me see red.
I'm with you 1000% percent on that!
As a Mormon, I can kind of relate to the JWs when they come to my house. I have never had any issues with them. We generally chat for a couple of minutes and I take their literature. I like learning what other people believe, even if I don't share their beliefs. It would be really hard for me to slam the door on one of them since I would hope that people will be decent to the Mormon missionaries. Generally speaking, Mormon missionaries are reasonably laid back. They just want to share their perspective and aren't looking for a fight. "Thanks, but I'm not interested" generally should do the trick if you don't want to talk further.
LOL...yah. Islam is such a wonderful, peaceful religion that is sooo respectful of other faiths.
We are a bit of an individualistic bunch. But, I have found that the Muslims I personally know agree that our proseltyzing is limited to as I said. Not hiding we are Muslim and to answer all questions to the best of our ability.
Our basic instructions on giving Da'wah (Proselytizing) HERE
I told her I wished Christians were as bold as she was - being wiling to knock on doors as she did. Most Christians are unwilling to share their faith even to friends they know, much less strangers.
Perhaps what she displayed was impertinence and presumption rather than boldness, and perhaps most Christians have better manners than that.
But then I never liked door to door salespersons either. Just me I guess.
If it makes you feel any better, of the dozen or so churches I was involved in over the years, none of those pastors could get their people to annoy their neighbors with unwanted implied negative judgments of their character either.
As a Mormon, I can kind of relate to the JWs when they come to my house. I have never had any issues with them. We generally chat for a couple of minutes and I take their literature. I like learning what other people believe, even if I don't share their beliefs. It would be really hard for me to slam the door on one of them since I would hope that people will be decent to the Mormon missionaries. Generally speaking, Mormon missionaries are reasonably laid back. They just want to share their perspective and aren't looking for a fight. "Thanks, but I'm not interested" generally should do the trick if you don't want to talk further.
I used to have JW people coming to my home quite often, but haven't seen any in a long time. When they used to come I would just tell them no thank you and they left. They seemed nice, and I understand that going around preaching is what they believe they have to do so it never bothered me. If they were pushy or rude then of course I would not like that, but that was never the case.
Also a couple of weeks ago I was in the supermarket in my town and some woman handed me a religious pamphlet. This is the first time ever this has happened to me in this town. She seemed very nice and I took the little brochure from her and thanked her. What's funny is that I have seen her walking around town a few times, and from the way she was dressed I wondered if she was in some kind of religious group.
Oh I almost forgot about the Hare Krishnas. I used to travel a lot when I was younger and remember them hanging out at the airports.
That is so not true. the exact opposite is true. You attempt to turn yourself into clones of one man and one man only. To the point where you have even indicated in the past that doing things that man did not do is frowned upon solely because he did not do them.
I have commented on this repression of human individuality before and you dodged it. But "individualistic bunch" is about as far from the reality as it gets.
That is so not true. the exact opposite is true. You attempt to turn yourself into clones of one man and one man only. To the point where you have even indicated in the past that doing things that man did not do is frowned upon solely because he did not do them.
I have commented on this repression of human individuality before and you dodged it. But "individualistic bunch" is about as far from the reality as it gets.
While we are to follow Sunnah in regards to Religious matters. We do not need to do all things as Muhammad(saws) Did. The Sunnah regarding Religious Practice are Required those are the sunnah mu'akkada The things Muhammad(saws) did in his daily life are the mustahabba
Quote:
The ruling of each differs:
The sunnas of guidance are considered "confirmed sunnas" (sunnah mu'akkada), and take their ruling, which is:
One who leaves it without excuse deserves reproach, not punishment.
Leaving it habitually is sinful, though, because it entails turning away from the guidance of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه و سلم, whom we have been commanded to follow.
The sunnas of habit are considered "recommended actions" (mustahabba), and take their ruling, which is:
The one who performs it is rewarded.
Leaving it is neither sinful nor worthy of reproach.
To do things Muhammad(saws) did not do are not forbidden, as long as they are not sins. We are not clones of Muhammad(saws) and are very diverse. There is plenty of room for individuality and we are very individualistic.
Thanks for your comments. Would you mind if I comment on some of your statements from your post reproduced at the end?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Hence why many atheists are against religion.
"The idea that it would be wrong to obey Man instead of God is essentially saying your religion trumps any law made by Man - including such documents as the U.S. Constitution.
Although your statement is correct according to the atheistic worldview, are you sure it's correct according to knowledge? Is the law of the land supreme above God of the Bible as you imply and that this same God is an erroneous figment of man's imagination? Evidence on the contrary is like a huge forest unseen because of the presence of all of those trees. But if true that the law of the land is supreme over God, how then do we know what legislated laws are good and bad? World history gives us a very sorry view of life based on laws made by man without God. Why did Dr. King that I mentioned in my last post find it necessary to break segregation laws prevalent in the South during his day? Didn't he inform us that any law that's not based on God's law is no law at all?
Why is the US Constitution that's the baseline of US law such a well respected document? By what standard was this Constitution based on? May I say that the system of US law was originally intended to protect man's right to live by conscience that's based on the laws of God written on the heart? It would take pages for me to fully explain this. Although true that our nation foolishly made bad history for itself by violating many Biblical precepts, should that necessitate forgetting the good history?
When you speak of "my religion," what religion or form or religion did you intend to speak of? The word, "religion" is very, very broad! Is there not good and bad religion? I must daily forsake my personal religion of self in order to keep myself a servant of God of the Bible as I carry out my daily deeds. Every one of us whether atheist or not is influenced by some form of religion. Please narrow the subject.
May I also express that the U. S. Constitution and the US law are so well respected because they were meant to guarantee freedom to abide by conscience based on the laws of the Bible (Psalms 33:12; Psalms 111:10)
As for your statement,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
But placing God's laws above human laws is only asking for conflict
It is written that the world hates God. So when there's an effort to rescue people from the influence of the world by a believer in God, conflict will result (See John 15:8-9). Doesn't the same also take place when attempts are made to reject Biblical precepts? Isn't there always conflict between warring parties?
As for preaching, Scripture commands the preacher to preach to all of the world. The hearer is given the choice whether to hear or reject. No, it is not the job of the preacher to force it on him that rejects.
Take care,
Earl
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Original Post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Hence why many atheists are against religion.
The idea that it would be wrong to obey Man instead of God is essentially saying your religion trumps any law made by Man - including such documents as the U.S. Constitution.
It means that many Christians even today seethe in anger over the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that teachers cannot lead the class in a prayer to a deity - not even a non-specific deity - because it would represent an entanglement of government with religion.
Even so, for over 200 years American public schools freely and knowingly violated the Constitution by turning those schools into Christian indoctrination centers. Not only were prayers to God recited before the beginning of the school day, Bibles were used to teach children how to read. Neither the kids or the parents had any means of recourse should they happen to be atheists or members of a different religion.
In this case, the rights of others mattered little when religious absolutism took hold. A screwball belief in eternal punishment for not joining the right cult or worshiping the right god took precedent over the rights of the individual to decide for him/herself what to believe.
Whenever religious law conflicted with Man's law, we were all expected to choose religious law - or more accurately Biblical law - regardless of our individual beliefs. Thus for over two centuries our public schools were de facto churches for young people.
During the same time, government-run poorhouses were operated based on ugly Puritanical rules and assumptions. Anyone living in a poorhouse was obviously being punished by God. Therefore, these facilities were designed to make people as miserable as possible since it wasn't up to Man to interfere with God's verdict. In this case, interfering meant making God's punishment less severe by allowing poorhouse inmates (yes, they were actually called inmates) to have any comforts or luxuries. It didn't matter if you were disabled or elderly and destitute. If you were in a poorhouse, you were being punished.
Once again we have religion leading government around by the nose - one reason I have always been dead-set against abolishing government-run welfare and handing over all "charity" to the churches. Religion can be downright mean and nasty when it wants to be, and there is always plenty of Biblical verses to justify it.
And so again, today, we have states trying desperately to ban gay marriage - mainly because homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. For those of us who are atheists, non-Christian, or Christian but liberal, we say: "Who the hell cares?" Yet those of a fascistic bent - those who feel they have to obey God and not Man - didn't care about the rights of others. All that concerned them was to make their God's rules superior to all others in the nation; your individual beliefs do not count.
Thus anyone who says they must obey God rather than Man is a danger to freedom, democracy, and liberty. I've said a thousand times that religion is inherently fascistic, authoritarian, totalitarian, and quite often cruel. Thus we have so many stories such as the recent one about a church refusing to bury a woman who fell behind on her tithes. Or an older story involving a mother and daughter who were excommunicated from the Catholic church for aborting a pregnancy caused by being raped by her stepfather (and she was only 8 years-old; the pregnancy put her life in extreme danger). Perhaps the worst one was when Saudi morality police stood guard over a burning school refusing to allow rescue workers to save a dozen girls who were not wearing the proper religious head gear.
All too often we have had to look beyond the Bible to find our morality. We've had to ignore egregious commands like murdering gays, witches, rebellious kids, and anyone disrespecting a priest. Plus, we've had to add our own morality such as abolishing slavery and making sex with children a crime (neither of which is in the Bible).
Your religion may command you to share your religion with others - and in this country you are free to do so. However, such preaching becomes immoral when there is a captive audience. Badgering motorists waiting at traffic lights, for instance, or forcing children to recite prayers at school when attending school is compulsory.
Unfortunately, some Christians feel so strongly about superstitions that others find utterly ridiculous (eternal punishment in Hell, for instance) that these Christians feel justified in using any tactic, trick, and method available to them in order to spread their "good news." They forget that their beliefs are just that - beliefs - and are not proven in any way whatsoever. Calling their beliefs "truth" is disingenuous at best, outright lies at worst.
It is wrong to preach to people who have no desire to listen. While yes, free speech still exists, religion falls into a different category of free speech - namely because of the high emotions and intense friction that can result if a Christian starts spouting off to a Muslim, for example, saying the Muslim is worshiping a false god and believing in a false religion. Atheists, on the other hand, simply don't want to hear it.
But placing God's laws above human laws is only asking for conflict.
Last edited by allosaur_E; 12-04-2014 at 08:57 AM..
To do things Muhammad(saws) did not do are not forbidden, as long as they are not sins. We are not clones of Muhammad(saws) and are very diverse.
Not what you said to me on other forums. You strongly suggested that many things are discouraged simply because he did not do them. Yet you call yourself diverse. I believe one of the examples at the time was use of musical instruments for example.
We are a bit of an individualistic bunch. But, I have found that the Muslims I personally know agree that our proseltyzing is limited to as I said. Not hiding we are Muslim and to answer all questions to the best of our ability.
Our basic instructions on giving Da'wah (Proselytizing) HERE
Of course, we know that Islam is not exactly a monolith. There are many sects of islam, and while many (including yourself) are quite peaceful and very nice, there are many that are extremely violent. To MOST people, though, we hardly look to islam as an example of tolerance. Maybe it's the 10% that just overshadow the 90%. Again---I know that not all muslims are violent extremists. I don't intend to suggest they are.
yet...your judgement is worthless in regards to actually being something anybody but you would view as "correct" or "right". Who defines those goals and parameters you speak of? What happens when someone disagrees regarding them?
Your judgment is just as worthless.
Until you can prove that the Bible has any authority whatsoever - and that won't happen until you prove that YHWH/Jehovah actually exists.
Until then, your opinion on morality and where it comes from is just another opinion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
