Jump to content
Islamic Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About dancing

  • Rank
    Jr. Member

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
  • Religion
  1. Options For Palestine

    How do you come to that conclusion?
  2. Got a source for this? Other than a neo-Nazi site, I mean.
  3. Odobknarf, your text assumes that each of the major monotheist prophets was 'working for' the same god. That simply isn't the case. Each of the prophets claimed to be working for the same god as his predecessors, but its significant that each was rejected by the followers of his predecessors - the Jews don't regard Jesus as genuine, Christians don't regard Mohammed as genuine and (to be strict about this) Muslims don't regard wossiname the Mormon prophet as genuine. There's no reason at all to think it stange that people pop up claiming to speak for the currently ruling god, and claiming that the god has instructed them to make some changes. BTW, I think your a wee bit hasty in saying that there's no doubt that Jesus existed. There isn't any real evidence except hearsay, and a surprising LACK of evidence that you might expect to find (eg, Roman records). If he DID exist, it's almost certain that he was nothing like he is portrayed in the New Testament. And you seem to think that the Old Testament was written by one person, and at one time. It wasn't it's the stories, legends and political and ethical jottings of a very old civilisation, gathered over a very long time. I think the dietary prohibitions are a huge clue that the book is just tribal wisdom attributed to a god to give it more weight. Mohammed? Curious case. AFAIK, Islam and Mormonism are the only religions which didn't slowly grow out as the civilisation they were part of developed. Assuming that his statements about taking dictation from an angel are not correct (and I do), how did the Koran come about? Of course, we only have people who gained immense political power from the new religion to tell us what Mohammed actually said, and it seems highly unlikely that, even with the best will, it was remembered and transcribed exactly. Was he insane? Possibly. He was obviously a genius, and insanity is often associated with genius. Was he lying? Possibly. He may well have wanted to help his people by instituting a new system, and seeing that it would have to be cloaked in religion to have a chance of being adopted. Was he mistaken? Possibly, in the sense that he may have convinced himself that his thoughts came from god. A lot of believers have the same delusion. I don't know if the Koran has been subjected to the same critical study that the Bible has (beginning with the 'new criticism' in the 19th century). If it has I'd love to read about it - if not it really needs to be done.
  4. No, if 'god guides who he wants', that means that he doesn't guide some people. He doesn't give the answers to them - he doesn't even let them enroll. (I also have pretty grave doubts about the goodness of a god who would create humans merely to test them - and to KNOW that some would end up being tortured for eternity. but that belongs in the Torture in Hell thread.)
  5. Lebanon War A 'serious' Failure

    This is pretty much a definition of insanity. Lebanon's infrastructure was severely damaged, Hizbollah gained exactly nothing, except odium for hiding among civilians. This doesn't show that 'defeating israel is possible', it shows that continuing to fight israel results in terrible damage. And BTW, this report and the response is another small example of why the Evul West thinks of israel as a basically sane nation fighting barbarians. The israeli government has published a report criticising an arm of the israeli government. What Arab nations have done that? And the response from Hizbollah is just a crazy rant.
  6. Options For Palestine

    I don't believe this - NO-ONE has any ideas at all? Does all your energy go into complaining?
  7. Or tell us about Chairman Mao's Zionism.
  8. Umm, what quote are you talking about? The one published in the eugenics mag in the 1920s? I didn't say it wasn't by a woman - I suggested that she was perhaps a Nazi (Hitler and the lads were keen on eugenics, and especially eugenics which involved killing inferior people and races) and that she wasn't a "modern feminist" as you claimed. I'm suggesting that you wrote the post in the All-in-One forum titled 'Beware of A*N*J*U*M Syndrome'.
  9. No, that would be just as sexist as hating women. I think women are people. What? You are saying that the post in the All in One forum (or whatever it's called) about the something*or*other syndrome was written by a woman? I think it was written by you, actually. Many men would disagree, but if that's the way you feel, don't get married. Simple. So why are you creating headaches and dramas with your obsessing over women? Get out and enjoy your life and quit complaining!
  10. Erm, hardly 'modern' and perhps a Nazi. No-one is buying your "I think it's great that women rule the world so I can have fun" line, so why don't you come clean about what your problem actually is. Are you the guy who wrote the bitter post about his ex-wife?
  11. Umm, but that's pretty much the OPPOSITE of what the article is saying. It's complaining that men don't want to grow up and refuse to commit to "normal" family life. The article depicts women as COMPLAINING about this. I seriously doubt that you are correct as regards the US and Canada, and you're defnitely incorrect as regards Australia. And how DARE you complain that men have to pay support for their children? ... and men cheat on women and dicorce them. Why are you so anti-women? Some wpomen are, some aren't. Some men are, some aren't. You're confused. The ARTICLE (which you seem to be disageeing with because it was written by a woman, but are also agreeing with ...) sees women as wanting to marry and settle down but being frustrated by men who don't want to. It doesn't say that a woman living independently because she wants to is a victim. What? What on earth are you complaining about? that women can have babies? Sorry, but this just seems to be a misogynist rant. It seems that you care more about "wealth" than relationships. Also, despite the screams from misogynist men, divorce settlements are usually perfectly fair. You're actually a little boy crying for attention, really. Grow up and stop obsessing about your divorce. Frankly, with your attitude I can see why she divorced you.
  12. Terrorist Syria Kills In Lebanon Again !

    Umm, not many that I can think of. Allende, perhaps, a few attempts on Castro - who else? (I'm not denying that there are any others, I just can't think of any.)
  13. Still don't know what you're talking about. The article doesn't claim that feminism is responsible. In fact it presents an anti-feminist view of women as victims of this "childishness". My take on the article? Possibly the phenomea exists (although it isn't unique to the early 21st century) but no, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Not having a mortgage and 2.3 children doesn't automatically equate to not being adult. Freedom of choice is always a good thing.