Jump to content
Islamic Forum

xocoti

Member
  • Content count

    343
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About xocoti

  • Rank
    Full Member

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
    Single
  • Religion
    Other religion
  1. Gay Rights

    My source for avocation of genocide, infantcide, and certain rape is the Bible. I am willing to say that the Bible is heresy if you are. Well I thought it was difficult for you to understand so I thought I would elucidate. Glad to see that you agree we can dispense with the 'natural' vs unnatural idea. Sure. I would like to know you're position on what is natural vs what is unnatural. Could you say any more babel is less amount of words? I imagine that you can think of a woman having a child out of wedlock. Would you say an unmarried woman cannot procreate? Then it seems imaginable that homosexuals may defy your limitations on their procreative ability to, you know, procreate. I'll leave it to you to think of how. Which of course as a doctrine has caused plenty of STDs and AIDS but oh well. We all know that wearing a condom is one of the most heinous crimes ever committed, not the Catholic priests assisting the Hutus killing the Tutis in Rwanda, or pedophiles violating the precious innocence of children. How twisted has secular morality become, right? No of course not, but "fallen" religion reeks of religious imperalism that assumes by fiat that other religions don't match up. I mean a dead zombie man rises from the dead after three days and the Native American religion is fallen? All I can do is laugh.
  2. Gay Rights

    Which is my point. STDs are irrelevant to the acceptance of homosexuality.
  3. Richard Dawkins An Agnostic?

    Agnostic is knowledge based. It's says that it is impossible to know for sure such a thing. One can be an agnostic Christian for instance. That would be that one cannot know God as he or she is but that the scriptures do hold moral principles sent from him. Likewise one can be an agnostic atheist in that one says that there is no good reason to believe in ( whatever) God. In that sense, it is always impossible to disprove the idea of God because God is an inherently amorphous idea. One has to define it first, but that doesn't mean one cannot be an atheist. One can say, because I see no good proofs for God I don;t believe that God exists until it can be shown to be true. That isn't the same as saying that no God exists anywhere, but one is still an atheist.
  4. Gay Rights

    Really? Divine law mandated the total annihilation of the every man, non virgin woman, and child of the Amalekites. Divine law mandated that the israelited keep the virgin women for purposes best left to the imagination than described. The RCC blamed the Jews as a people for the death of Jesus Christ until the last turn of this century, undoubtedly contributing to the doubt, suspicion, and polgrams in Europe by Christians against the Jews. Never mind the mandates of the RCC of hiding and transferring child molesters so that they can molest again so long as they don't become subject to secular authority. Divine Law indeed. Perhaps but then again we have no idea if this is 'natural' or not. Clergy are celebrate in the RCC which is obviously 'unnatural' but decreed by God, homosexuality has occurred though out history as well as charity, good will, love, kindness, hate, murder, and theft. You're going to have a hard time parsing out what exactly is 'natural' vs 'unnatural' but I suspect it will be 'whatever God says is natural is natural and whatever God says is unnatural is unnatural which really doesn't say anything at all, so we could dispense with the 'natural' vs 'unnatural' argument. Things can be 'natural' in the sense that they occur naturally but still can be morally prohibited because of it's results, but I won't expect such a fine tuned argument. So are shoes permitted by God? Does God allow unnatural things? does God allow 'natural' things? You can see where this is going.... Yea except this is plenty of evidence that homosexuality at least has a large part of it's contribution in genetics and/or hormones in the womb. So yea plenty of people are born homosexual. God allowed murder, genocide, rape, slavery, torture, etc. so I don't take God's word to mean anything really. He's going to have to back things up just like everyone else. Homosexuals surely can conceive naturally any more than a mother out of wedlock can conceive naturally, or they can even conceive * gasp* 'unnaturally' though IVF or other methods. Studies have shown that children raised by homosexuals don't have a higher rate of homosexuality or a higher rate of depression, suicide, etc. in other words reality doesn't hold up your claims. Homosexual parents if they so choose are perfectly capable of raising children, but this really doesn't apply to homosexuality itself, it just shows how wrong you are. As I posted earlier, lesbians have a lower rate of transmission than even heterosexual couples. Should we promote lesbianism? I doubt you would think so. Because you're idea isn't based on public health at all. Condoms lower the rates of sexual transmitted STDs but the RCC won't promote the use of condoms. lol. Yea whatever, you have the cool religion, everyone else got it wrong :cool: To put it best, chastity isn't heritable. I'll let you figure out what that means.
  5. Gay Rights

    homosexuality doesn't only encompass males. It also includes bisesexuality, and lesbianism. Now lesbians have a lower STD rate than even heterosexual people. So the question then becomes, if we accept the scale of rate of transmittion of STDs as a sign of being 'natural' or not, is lesbianism more natural than heterosexual relationships or otherwise put should be promote lesbianism more so than heterosexual relationships?
  6. WLC's Kalam arguement has been refuted several times. We don't really understand how cause and effect work. "Nothing" in the philosophical context has no known correlation with our reality. The idea of a disembodied mind is incoherent because even with Cartesian dualism the mind cannot exist without matter i.e. the brain so it makes no sense. A cause need not be personal to because an effect. "Fine tuning" depends on our knowledge of the "tuner" in order to judge if such an event is intelligent or just happenstance. on and on....
  7. Gay Rights

    As long as there is doubt about the veracity of the Catholic's claim to the truth and to the Catholic's claim to act morally one can doubt the Church's claim to arbitrate in God's ( if such a being exists) behalf. Divine law also mandated genocide, infanticide, wholesale slaughter of livestock and wanton destruction of children for merely making fun of a prophet's hair. Divine law seems to be lacking in the moral weight necessary to judge. human nature seems to be a rich ideal for homosexuality as you'll see. There are plenty of things that aren't "natural" shoes, airplanes, and iphones. We shouldn't remove these things if they are deemed "unnatural". Secondly intuition can be deceptive. Our sight can deceive us, our hearing can lie, we understand cognitive deceptions such as group think, in and out groups, propensity to defer to authority, and to family and relatives at the expense of strangers. This makes our moral intuitions suspect in that we may need more explanations than simply "gut instinct" shouldn't be the moral arbitrator. Before race and tribe were instinctual lines to draw the moral landscape, and not any longer. In some sense this is right and wrong. It is wrong in that homosexuality is natural because it has continuously been a part of the human experience throughout known history and yes there is at least a hormonal link to homosexuality and a weaker genetic one as well. And it's right because just because just because something is natural doesn't mean it should be accepted. The question is why is alcoholism not accepted. One should say that alcoholism is self debilitating as well as placing one's self and others in danger. No such danger exists in homosexuality. No one is hurt by two consenting adults engaging in a loving relationship or a sexual one if they so choose. This is right, but there are zero secular reasons for discriminating against homosexuality so one is merely left with an appeal to authority, which isn't that appealing of a position. T[using large font size is not allowed] A question is why do the Judeo Christian heritage get president over say Native American religions that claim that homosexuality is a mix and the male and female 'spirits' and should be exaulted. There isn't a reason at all to presume that one is superior to the other except for cultural imperialism. It is quite rich to claim that homosexuality is against the "natural order" but to command people to be chaste until marriage which is explicitly described as resisting the "natural order" in order to follow God. I guess we just can't make up our minds. NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004 IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
  8. Gay Rights

    Lucky to live? Sounds like someone whose wishes go against what Allah has decreed.
  9. Americans Shoplift $1.8 Billion Worth Of Goods

    Seems about right, shoplifting would increase during a recession/depression as well.
  10. A Dialogue With Rahimi

    The phrase is taken from the fourth Eclogue of Virgil, which contains a passage (lines 5-8) that reads: Latin English Ultima Cumaei venit iam carminis ætas; Now comes the final era of the Sibyl's song; Magnus ab integro sæclorum nascitur ordo. The great order of the ages is born afresh. iam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna, And now justice returns, honored rules return; iam nova progenies cælo demittitur alto. now a new lineage is sent down from high heaven. The word seclorum does not mean "secular", as one might assume, but is the genitive (possessive) plural form of the word saeculum, meaning (in this context) generation, century, or age. Saeculum did come to mean "age, world" in late, Christian Latin, and "secular" is derived from it, through secularis. However, the adjective "secularis," meaning "worldly," is not equivalent to the genitive plural "seclorum," meaning "of the ages."[3] Thus the motto Novus ordo seclorum can be translated as "A new order of the ages." It was proposed by Charles Thomson, the Latin expert who was involved in the design of the Great Seal of the United States, to signify "the beginning of the new American Era" as of the date of the Declaration of Independence.
  11. A Dialogue With Rahimi

    The topic does show an certain anthropocentrism. If you were to take all the biomass in the world and weigh it, humans or whales wouldn't be the most proficient , it would be bacteria by a long shot. In the bible and the Quran it claims that man should have dominion over the world, but we obviously don't when cancer, typhoid, malaria, and the flu have had and continue to have dominion over us. It does remind me,though, of this poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley Ozymandias I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desart. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed: And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away. That isn't to diminish man and womankind's hard earned and often arduous achievements, but to think that we are the pinnacle of everything in the universe or even the earth of which we haven't even explored a thousandth of it to wear the pants a bit big around the waist.
  12. The God Death

    I've read Hamza's site and I think the challenge of the Quran is fundamentaly flawed. There are no such things as aesthetic universals. That means there is no objective measure of eloquence, brevity, beauty etc in any work of the humanitarian arts. Thus the idea that the quran is supremely eloquent is merely a subjective opinion. One may think that the quran is supremely eloquent and another not based on their arbitrary criteria. So to produce something like the quran in eloquence is merely to subject it to the opinions of arbitrary biased judges. Hardly a "challenge" in the provable sense.
  13. I disagree. It isn't a symbol of oppression in and of itself, but rather the individual circumstances around it. If a person wears something without coersion then it isn't oppressive. If forced to then yes. That is the framework that libertarian freedoms work under.
  14. Nobel Prize For "killing Allah"

    (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetarabist(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/blog/2011/12/13/naguib-mahfouz-an-appreciation.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetarabist(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/blog/2011/12/13/nag...preciation.html[/url] They don't hand out Nobel Prizes for just one work of literature.
  15. You are being dumb. Who cares? Do you really think a minister in Canada was chilling out one day, read the news about some deaths in Afghanistan and said, "Well time to go oppress some Muslims today?" Get real. It's a complete knee jerk reaction by SauranSoldier, and it doesn't really need a response except to roll your eyes.
×