I saw this interesting tribal custom among the primitive peoples of the ME in celebration to "Ashura" - the tenth day

http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles/Image/ashura.jpg

This kind of reminded me of another blood-ritual practiced by people of another primitive monotheistic religion – in this one Pilipinas reenact the crucifixion of their Man-God by having nails driven through their hands and feet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/720000/images/_722051_philippines300.jpg http://www.freundfactory.com/1007445.jpg







In other “religious” news, scientists have discovered that the ancient Buddhist technique of empathetic mediation not only increases neuronalgenesis (more new neurons) but by using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) they were able to show that this meditative practice can cure obsessive-compulsive disorders (OCD) in the same manner as the drugs that are presently given. Further, this sort of meditation can elevate the natural state of “Happiness” - which has previously been thought of as permanent.

The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity
( http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0060988479/ref=s9_asin_title_1/103-8337360-7310202)



It’s kind of interesting the differences between the two types of beliefs and the types of mental states the two spawn…..


MII

PS:
*news flash: Christian solders in Iraq (doing the One Gods’ will) were either killing or being killed by Islamic solders in Iraq (doing the One Gods’ will) ….*

The war in Iraq is not primarily religious by American forces.

On the other hand, those rituals look fun as Hell. Cutting people up sounds remarkably enjoyable, as does spearing Jesii on crosses.

And I am not kidding, either. Those look tremendously fun.

That's not fun, it's barbaric!

And barbary is not fun?

Clearly, you've never appreciated a boxing match.

humans? Sure. I'd cut that shit like meat

but kids? no.

Yeah, well that’s their culture and we shouldn’t poo poo their primitive One God worship blood rituals.



I do find it interesting that of the many Buddhists I have talked with, because of the neural plastic remodeling which has occurred over years of empathetic meditation, many can not even stand to see an animal harmed and usually kindly refuse meat. What is interesting to me is that, while Xianity and Islam set about telling everyone they are the “true” belief (and then forcibly converting those that wouldn’t stand to this reason) the Buddhist simply went about developing their religion and philosophy to a point where it really works.

We can scientifically measure a change in the neural net of people with OCD and Clincal Depression after performing the Buddhist meditation. I mean – it works. People, regardless of faith, actually become mentally well.

Good on the Buddhists!

Then I take a look at the Historic rise of Xianity in Europe - smothering out the brilliance of the Greek and Roman Artisans, Playwrights, and Philosophers for 1000 years; until finally the Church had run Europe so far into the ground that getting rid of it was the only option. Wha-La Renaissance. One only need to look into the ME today and see what a mess taking this One God thing too seriously can lead to.


Anyway, my point was to compare the levels of enlightened philosophy the three major religions have reached.

On the one hand we see serious Buddhists become mentally well and on the other we see monotheists acting like turds.

TJIMHO,
Michael

In other “religious” news, scientists have discovered that the ancient Buddhist technique of empathetic mediation not only increases neuronalgenesis (more new neurons) but by using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) they were able to show that this meditative practice can cure obsessive-compulsive disorders (OCD) in the same manner as the drugs that are presently given. Further, this sort of meditation can elevate the natural state of “Happiness” - which has previously been thought of as permanent.

The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity
( http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0060988479/ref=s9_asin_title_1/103-8337360-7310202)



It’s kind of interesting the differences between the two types of beliefs and the types of mental states the two spawn…..


MII

PS:
*news flash: Christian solders in Iraq (doing the One Gods’ will) were either killing or being killed by Islamic solders in Iraq (doing the One Gods’ will) ….*

everything, even good things, have there proper and improper applications, and if you look carefully enough you can find examples of both in anything.

for instance obviously you haven't investigated how the way of the samurai influenced japanese buddhism to produce budho, which paved the way for the japanese to become famous for their war time atrocities in WW2 in imperialistic fervour

http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/photos/rape3-s.jpg



there are other images on http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/page2.html that are quite graphic and disturbing (and not recommended for the weak of heart to view as some are a bit sexually explicit) but nonetheless clearly illustrate how your approach to monotheism = violence is not valid (300 000 chinese killed, 20 000 women raped etc etc)

And its not an isolated incident

In 1614, when Tokugawa Ieyasu outlawed Christianity, or 1627-1638, when tens of thousands of Christians were killed or tortured by the primarily Buddhist Japanese.

Or even in more contemporary times, buddhists are involved in violence in Sri Lanka

http://www.buddhistethics.org/13/vroom-review.html
The relevance of the theme discussed in Tessa Bartholomeusz's book, In Defense of Dharma: Just-war Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka, hardly needs explanation. The author explores the religious dimension of the ethnic strife in Sri Lanka, where since the first (1983) bombing of the Kandy temple holding the Buddha's Tooth Relic, national symbol of 'Buddhist Sri Lanka', 60,000 people have lost their lives. (p. xxi) Bartholomeusz researches the Buddhist side of the conflict, and shows that many Sinhalese Buddhists active in the public domain have promoted a "Buddhist fundamentalism" (p. 34) that has contributed to the polarization of religious (and ethnic) groups in Sri Lanka. One wonders how Buddhists relate such an attitude to the supposedly fundamental Buddhist spirit of ahimsa or non-violence. Bartholomeusz's book provides an abundance of material on exactly this question: how have Sri Lankan Buddhists "justified their resort to violence and why?" (p. xxi)

Of course I don't for a moment think that such links are exemplary links to the essence of buddhism, just as I think your links are not exemplary for the essence of montheism, and instead illustrate your personal bias on the subject

I think gore is just a fascination amongst the religions. I think most religions accept the fact that blood and guts is just a normal byproduct of doing God's work. You know, God does it so why not please Him some more.

I see some irony in the fact that both victim and perp probably figure they were going to heaven before the slaughter commenced.

lightgigantic,

There is a striking difference - one is being done in the name of war not in the name of Buddhism and the other two were actual religious festivals.

Comparing a secular war with religious-festivals is like comparing an apple to an orange.


Michael




**
Christian missionaries went hand in hand with colonizing Europeans as they massacred and slaved their way across the globe. Both China and Japan closed themselves off because of it. The Japanese and Chinese had never been colonial nations. The Chinese had an emperor that was too peaceful, unrealistic and weak and they got bitch slapped. The Japanese thought they’d better emulate the English or esle find themselves in the shoes of the Cinese. There’s a little more to the story that led Japan to break with a 2000 year tradition of relative isolation. Which had nothing to do with Buddhism nor Shinto. Does it? I think it had to do with the world as it was then. Now as to the bloody One God rituals - they are just that – monotheistic Religious festivals celebrating the beloved One God.

Yeah, well that’s their culture and we shouldn’t poo poo their primitive One God worship blood rituals.



I do find it interesting that of the many Buddhists I have talked with, because of the neural plastic remodeling which has occurred over years of empathetic meditation, many can not even stand to see an animal harmed and usually kindly refuse meat. What is interesting to me is that, while Xianity and Islam set about telling everyone they are the “true” belief (and then forcibly converting those that wouldn’t stand to this reason) the Buddhist simply went about developing their religion and philosophy to a point where it really works.

We can scientifically measure a change in the neural net of people with OCD and Clincal Depression after performing the Buddhist meditation. I mean – it works. People, regardless of faith, actually become mentally well.

Good on the Buddhists!

Then I take a look at the Historic rise of Xianity in Europe - smothering out the brilliance of the Greek and Roman Artisans, Playwrights, and Philosophers for 1000 years; until finally the Church had run Europe so far into the ground that getting rid of it was the only option. Wha-La Renaissance. One only need to look into the ME today and see what a mess taking this One God thing too seriously can lead to.


Anyway, my point was to compare the levels of enlightened philosophy the three major religions have reached.

On the one hand we see serious Buddhists become mentally well and on the other we see monotheists acting like turds.

TJIMHO,
Michael

You really should not judge people by the extremist minority:

Buddhist extremists target Christian churches in Sri Lanka
Dec 30, 2003, 22:16 [TNS]


Sri Lankan churches came under attack again this Sunday by organized groups of Buddhist extremists led by influential monks, according to Police sources.

Two Christian churches were attacked amid mounting inter-religious tensions according to the police. This incident - which comes four days after unrest at a cremation of a controversial Buddhist monk who know for stirring Sinhala nationalist sentiments - is the latest in a pattern of violence against churches in Sri Lanka, police sources further told TNS.

But, I'll just ask. Is there something especially enlightening in the Christian faith that I missed? Perhaps something that wasn’t written down by the polytheistic Greek or Hindu or Chinese philosopher’s millennia before?

And the statements:
“Jesus is the savior and died for your sin” is, IMHO, not at all insightful.
Is it?
It seems to be a flat statement. No different than “There is One God and Mohammed is his Last Prophet”. See, a flat statement to be taken as fact.

I could do the same: "Purple spaghetti Gods float in the clouds and if you eat spaghetti they will let you into paradise after you are dead for 13days 13hours & 13second."

So with this in mind: Is there something particularly insightful and enlightening in Christianity?

Michael

Hi sam,

I didn’t post Irish Catholics kill Protestants,
I didn’t post Shia kill Sunni,

I didn’t post anything like that.
This isn’t one group even squinting meanly at another!

Your example is like comparing an apple with an orange.
This is their actual festal.
They are not killing anyone - they are celebrating the One God!
In dripping human flesh bone and blood….
It’s party time and the blood God is thirsty!

But I do concede your point that suggesting a minority fringe group’s practice is a general representation of the majority of people’s behavior is not valid.
Most Buddhists probably don't reach Zen either.
That wasn't my point.


Now, with this in mind, yes, perhaps considering their religious philosophical doctrines and due to their overwhelming history of hostility towards other peoples beliefs (especially polytheistic) maybe that is why many of the practitioners see love from the One God as they tear open their flesh and bleed for it?

Maybe? :confused:


Meanwhile over in Buddhist-town they advance Hindu meditation so that anyone (regardless of belief) can use it to achieve statistically measurable mental wellbeing.

That sort of says something doesn’t it?

Surely you can sort of see where I am coming from?
Surely so?
You don’t see any kind of connection?

Christians and Muslims are renown over the globe for their religious inspired violence. Whether that is a perversion or not, it is a fact.
Are Buddhists?
I think we can agree - - hardly so….. if not just the opposite

Michael

Christians and Muslims are renown over the globe for their religious inspired violence. Whether that is a perversion or not, it is a fact.
Are Buddhists?
I think we can agree - - hardly so….. if not just the opposite

Michael

I think its more people from certain places who are known for violence rather than certain religions. And there is almost always a political reason for it. But that does not mean that people from other places are not capable of the same violence. Who had heard of the Palestinians before the formation of Israel?

http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles/Image/ashura.jpg


What's that guy holding in the top right corner?

Wow, if that's a holiday, I'd hate to see a feud.

I've heard of the Shia practice of self-flagellation, its supposed to be pretty widespread in India and Paksitan too. But I've never seen it. (My landlord was Shia but he never did it, worse luck). Wonder how it originated though.


People have strange customs.

Anyone here heard of Thai Pusam? Its an Indian festival in Malaysia.

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/images/IMG_0054_new.JPG

the most popular form of mortification seemed to be this: A cluster of ropes is attached to the back using hooks, and another member of the family "rides" the person in front, yanking hard at the ropes.

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/images/IMG_0060_new.JPG

the most mortifying of them all - a group of guys pulling a heavy chariot using hooks pierced into their backs.

A picture of the chariot:

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/images/IMG_0059_new.jpg

I think its more people from certain places who are known for violence rather than certain religions. Definitely people were/are violent. The more backwards the more violent. The more civilized the less.
I’d say pretty much everywhere in the world that would have held true. Whether that be tribes killing one another in Africa or in New Zealand or in Europe, etc…

But, there are only two mainstream modern religions that I know of that are renown over the entire world by all people for their violent ferocious history of physically and mentally abusing and forcing their belief onto other people. Their rape and utter destruction of other peoples and cultures is unparallel by any other religion in the history of humankind.

I think we can agree which two those are.
And they share a common God - go figure.


Again, my point is that while the leaders of these two religions looked into their respective monotheistic books of lore and wisdom they then set about busily destroying everything and everyone around them. Whereas Buddhism on the other hand developed into the peaceful religion it is today and along the way made insights into the human mind that are now being confirmed and better understood using the most sophisticated medical equipment.

Well, that says something doesn’t it?


Does it surprise you to find people who follow Christianity and Islam are able to look into their religious books and find endeavors to celebrate with violence and blood. Big surprize that those two religious just happen to have a long history littered with violence and blood.

As they: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.


Don’t you agree?
Michael


PS: You yourself have told me you found nothing of the sort of novel and insightful enlightenment in your own studies, well you seem pretty peaceful. Maybe that's why. It seems many other people have been able to look into these monotheisms and find plenty of novel insight and use it to justify their rape and killing of about half the people on the planet.

EX:
Did you see the peace I posted about the nutty Taliban commander.
“"Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God's orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world. We will continue our struggle until foreign troops are thrown out. Then we will attack them in the US and Britain until they either accept Islam or agree to pay jazia (a tax in Islam for non-Muslims living in an Islamic state)."

Did he stop at defending his land? No. HE found something enlightening in that there good ole' book! The eventual attack and destruction of other people!

I personally think a “perfect” religious book would be impossible to interpret towards violence. You know: Simply state on page one. Never ever under any circumstance ever commit a violent act ever. If you should be attacked then you will see paradise a lot quicker – don’t do violence. Never ever ever kill or harm another human.

Gee ... in all of 1 minute and I could have prevented all the violence justfied in the name of God. :bugeye:

http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles/Image/ashura.jpg


For real, what's that thing called?

Anyone here heard of Thai Pusam? Its an Indian festival in Malaysia.Ouch!

A little too SM for me
;)
Michael

For real, what's that thing called?does it really matter?

Its a few swords

"The 6-year-old boy screamed and shook his head to avoid the razor blade. But his father held him firmly as Hajj Khodor parted the boy's black hair and sliced his forehead three times with the blade. Ali Madani's cries became more violent as blood gushed from the wound, covering his small, terrified face. His father and a few other men, waving daggers, broke into a religious chant, recalling how the 7th-century Shiite Muslim saint, Imam Hussein, was decapitated, his head placed on a lance."


As a Muslim, this must just be one in a long line of embarrassments.. .. .. .. cutting open your own kids scalp as a way to get blessing from this One God. … ????

Truly an embarrassment for the moderate believer?

People have strange customs.

Anyone here heard of Thai Pusam? Its an Indian festival in Malaysia.

i used to have a book called "secret museum of mankind" and in it described something similar.
it was a african custom where a person would be swung around by hooks embedded just above the shoulderblades.
another was a rite of passage into manhood where a boy was coated with glass and metallic shards and beaten untill he passed out. really grotesque stuff.

"The 6-year-old boy screamed and shook his head to avoid the razor blade. But his father held him firmly as Hajj Khodor parted the boy's black hair and sliced his forehead three times with the blade. Ali Madani's cries became more violent as blood gushed from the wound, covering his small, terrified face. His father and a few other men, waving daggers, broke into a religious chant, recalling how the 7th-century Shiite Muslim saint, Imam Hussein, was decapitated, his head placed on a lance."


As a Muslim, this must just be one in a long line of embarrassments.. .. .. .. cutting open your own kids scalp as a way to get blessing from this One God. … ????

Truly an embarrassment for the moderate believer?
what are your views on scarification and genital piercing?

http://modblog.bmezine.com/wp-content/uploads/200605312050-pix1.jpg

http://very.net/~nikolai/nasty/penis-1.gif

PS: You yourself have told me you found nothing of the sort of novel and insightful enlightenment in your own studies, well you seem pretty peaceful. Maybe that's why. It seems many other people have been able to look into these monotheisms and find plenty of novel insight and use it to justify their rape and killing of about half the people on the planet.

I think it was me who said no novel in the qur'an compared to other ol'books before. Basically, as a whole set, they send similar messages. Those who use it to justify rape and killing just need more educations.


EX:
Did you see the peace I posted about the nutty Taliban commander.
“"Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God's orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world. We will continue our struggle until foreign troops are thrown out. Then we will attack them in the US and Britain until they either accept Islam or agree to pay jazia (a tax in Islam for non-Muslims living in an Islamic state)."

Did he stop at defending his land? No. HE found something enlightening in that there good ole' book! The eventual attack and destruction of other people!

Then he exceeds limits.
There is no teaching to attack others for nothing to defend, and it is also forbidden to do destruction on the earth. He haven't finished reading (qur'an means 'readings').



I personally think a “perfect” religious book would be impossible to interpret towards violence. You know: Simply state on page one. Never ever under any circumstance ever commit a violent act ever. If you should be attacked then you will see paradise a lot quicker – don’t do violence. Never ever ever kill or harm another human.

Gee ... in all of 1 minute and I could have prevented all the violence justfied in the name of God. :bugeye:

Only Gandhi can do that with ahimsa. But under the greediness of energy hunger power holders, this is just a 'self destruction' teachings, a 'passive suicide'. No suicide is good.

Regarding the OP:
It is a culture, not religious practice. In different places, they do ceremony different way. It just happened to be those people practising that culture were muslims. No teaching about that kind of practice was taught in Islam.

i used to have a book called "secret museum of mankind" and in it described something similar.
it was a african custom where a person would be swung around by hooks embedded just above the shoulderblades.
another was a rite of passage into manhood where a boy was coated with glass and metallic shards and beaten untill he passed out. really grotesque stuff.

It was a rite of passage in an African tribe. I remember doing a paper on it in my psychology class. Young men who reached maturity had spikes inserted through their muscles and were strung up for long periods of time. They had to go through the process to be considered grown ups.

"The 6-year-old boy screamed and shook his head to avoid the razor blade. But his father held him firmly as Hajj Khodor parted the boy's black hair and sliced his forehead three times with the blade. Ali Madani's cries became more violent as blood gushed from the wound, covering his small, terrified face. His father and a few other men, waving daggers, broke into a religious chant, recalling how the 7th-century Shiite Muslim saint, Imam Hussein, was decapitated, his head placed on a lance."


As a Muslim, this must just be one in a long line of embarrassments.. .. .. .. cutting open your own kids scalp as a way to get blessing from this One God. … ????

Truly an embarrassment for the moderate believer?

Like the hijab, its a cultural practice and has no basis in the religion.

Shiite Muslims do it as a way of commemorating the death of Hussein:

This day is well-known because of mourning for the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali, the grandson of Prophet Muhammad at the Battle of Karbala in the year 61 AH (AD 680).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Ashura

I saw this interesting tribal custom among the primitive peoples of the ME in celebration to "Ashura" - the tenth day

This kind of reminded me of another blood-ritual practiced by people of another primitive monotheistic religion – in this one Pilipinas reenact the crucifixion of their Man-God by having nails driven through their hands and feet

This stuff is sick!

what are your views on scarification and genital piercing?
What? A Prince Albert?!?!

An adult can do as they wish. Why would I care? I don't even care that adults in Lebanon were slicing their flesh and given their blood to their God.

I do think it is a relfection of some sort on their religion.

A Prince Albert as part of a religious festival is as bad as circumcision. It kind of says something about a religion that feels it’s God needs a peace of flesh cut off the end of a penis to make it happy.

Yeah, oh so enlightened people….:bugeye:

MII

I do think it is a relfection of some sort on their religion.



MII

Do you have a habit of judging a genre by its worst stereotype?

It was a rite of passage in an African tribe. I remember doing a paper on it in my psychology class. Young men who reached maturity had spikes inserted through their muscles and were strung up for long periods of time. They had to go through the process to be considered grown ups.

That's the Sioux sun ceremony. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Dance)

I think it was me who said no novel in the qur'an compared to other ol'books before. Basically, as a whole set, they send similar messages. Then why yet another Prophet and yet another book if neither offer something new? It just simply doesn’t make sense to me.

There is one God – OK yeah knew that.
Mohammed is his last Prophet – OK so what?

Oh, wait – you mean because you’re the last Prophet you get extra women and get to become the military leader .. now it’s becoming clear. Most military leaders in the ancient ME claimed to have divine guidance. Alexander was worshipped and revered for over a millennia there.

Then he exceeds limits.
There is no teaching to attack others for nothing to defend, and it is also forbidden to do destruction on the earth. He haven't finished reading (qur'an means 'readings'). Maybe he’s pulling a Bush and going for pre-emption? That’s a “defence” in a manner. It all depends how one looks at it. So he’d probably say it is you who don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t know true Islam. I don’t know. But certainly he read the Qur’an and he found in it inspiration for war. There’s no denying that. He even quotes the number of passages that inspired him to kill people.

This is what happens when you “give an inch” as they say -they take a mile.

Lets look at it this way. The country of Iran was conquered (or as my Persian buddy puts it – culturally raped). Why did Muslims have a mandate to conquer the whole of the country? Persians may have had agreements with Arabs and may have received tribute – but in 5000 years they had never conquered the whole of the Arabian peninsula. Why the sudden mandate just post-Islam to conquer Iran? It was justified in the name of Islam and it obviously did happen.

So a good question is: Where in the Quran is a mandate to conquer and kill Persians?

What of Greece? Sicily? Egypt? North Africa? Spain? India?


What about Constantinople? Was that justified?

Is it that all these people for all these centuries who read the Qur’an and conquered other people – that ALL got it wrong?

Well, what does THAT say?

Only Gandhi can do that with ahimsa. But under the greediness of energy hunger power holders, this is just a 'self destruction' teachings, a 'passive suicide'. No suicide is good. That’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is as a means to end violence and ones own actions will not perpetuate violence in the future.

Let us compare: Bush is in line with the notion that greedy hungry powers need to be crushed and killed like vermin while Gandhi thought peaceful passive resistance was the way – don’t even harm animals.

Now, with this in mind: Who do you think is the complete dimwitted imbecile and who the well thought-out philosopher!?!?

;)

Like the hijab, its a cultural practice and has no basis in the religion.I agree.

Much like the Jesus Archetype, the Hijab, classical Mosque architecture, etc… - I'm sure self-flagellation is a direct consequence of modeling much of Islam on the Greco-Roman national cult Christianity.


Like I said, it was an interesting observation.

Lets sum it up like this: The apple doesn’t fall far from the monotheistic-tree.

:)
Michael

As seen in 'A Man Called Horse'.

Do you have a habit of judging a genre by its worst stereotype?Actually I said reflection

I hate it when people post intervening messages without warning. It's a bit rude.

Especially when they then do it again.

Such ceremonies are not limited to monotheism. South American tribes have various tests of pain tolerance. Practices of ecstatic rituals are almost universal, and it is well known that pain increases specific memories.

Then why yet another Prophet and yet another book if neither offer something new? It just simply doesn’t make sense to me.

There is one God – OK yeah knew that.
Mohammed is his last Prophet – OK so what?

Oh, wait – you mean because you’re the last Prophet you get extra women and get to become the military leader .. now it’s becoming clear. Most military leaders in the ancient ME claimed to have divine guidance. Alexander was worshipped and revered for over a millennia there.

Maybe he’s pulling a Bush and going for pre-emption? That’s a “defence” in a manner. It all depends how one looks at it. So he’d probably say it is you who don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t know true Islam. I don’t know. But certainly he read the Qur’an and he found in it inspiration for war. There’s no denying that. He even quotes the number of passages that inspired him to kill people.

This is what happens when you “give an inch” as they say -they take a mile.

Lets look at it this way. The country of Iran was conquered (or as my Persian buddy puts it – culturally raped). Why did Muslims have a mandate to conquer the whole of the country? Persians may have had agreements with Arabs and may have received tribute – but in 5000 years they had never conquered the whole of the Arabian peninsula. Why the sudden mandate just post-Islam to conquer Iran? It was justified in the name of Islam and it obviously did happen.

So a good question is: Where in the Quran is a mandate to conquer and kill Persians?

What of Greece? Sicily? Egypt? North Africa? Spain? India?


What about Constantinople? Was that justified?

Is it that all these people for all these centuries who read the Qur’an and conquered other people – that ALL got it wrong?

Well, what does THAT say?

That’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is as a means to end violence and ones own actions will not perpetuate violence in the future.

Let us compare: Bush is in line with the notion that greedy hungry powers need to be crushed and killed like vermin while Gandhi thought peaceful passive resistance was the way – don’t even harm animals.

Now, with this in mind: Who do you think is the complete dimwitted imbecile and who the well thought-out philosopher!?!?

;)

I agree.

Much like the Jesus Archetype, the Hijab, classical Mosque architecture, etc… - I'm sure self-flagellation is a direct consequence of modeling much of Islam on the Greco-Roman national cult Christianity.


Like I said, it was an interesting observation.

Lets sum it up like this: The apple doesn’t fall far from the monotheistic-tree.

:)
Michael

Self flagellation is not a monotheistic ritual. It has been practised by ascetics in India for hundreds of years. There was even a particular tribe or group in which a man would wear bells on his feet and perform a sort of dance with accompanying music while flagellating himself.

Mourning ceremonies are also not a new invention. For all you know, it may be a leftover from some custom that was already prevalent in the people of the region (sorta like biting off frogs heads)

As for why the Arabs took over Persia? Why, because they became more civilised! a prominent sign of civilisation is dominating (or attempting to) other cultures, a la colonialism. :D

Actually I said reflection

does that mean it is okay to pass judgment on the reflection?

Or is it the nature of reflections that they can bear no inherent significance in the body they appear in?

(like for instance if a parent is found accused of gross violence on their children is it okay to rule that the connections between parenthood and violence is inextricable?)

There are easier ways to get endorphin highs...

Lightgigantic,

One may reflect upon a reflection.

(that is where the word derives it's second meaning? No?)


Michael

Sam,

Yes self-flagellation is not only relegated to those who are monotheists – it is even practiced during sex. I suppose one would need to consider why the self-flagellation is being done. Certainly Native Americans as well as Indians and many others have used the practice to force the mind into disassociating with the self. Thereby achieving a trance like state without the use of drugs.

What I was referring to was the use of self-flagellation, the act of ripping flesh from bone, to either emulate the death of a Man-God or to celebrate a religious festival. I think it is a fair call to suggest that the religion has some bearing on the act of mutilating one’s body? Especially if it is done in celebration of a blood thirsty God - whom itself has killed or demanded blood sacrifice! There is a connection - no?
[It should also be noted there were children having their own flesh torn. Sadly.]

Wouldn’t you agree?
Michael

Sam,

Yes self-flagellation is not only relegated to those who are monotheists – it is even practiced during sex. I suppose one would need to consider why the self-flagellation is being done. Certainly Native Americans as well as Indians and many others have used the practice to force the mind into disassociating with the self. Thereby achieving a trance like state without the use of drugs.

What I was referring to was the use of self-flagellation, the act of ripping flesh from bone, to either emulate the death of a Man-God or to celebrate a religious festival. I think it is a fair call to suggest that the religion has some bearing on the act of mutilating one’s body? Especially if it is done in celebration of a blood thirsty God - whom itself has killed or demanded blood sacrifice! There is a connection - no?
[It should also be noted there were children having their own flesh torn. Sadly.]

Wouldn’t you agree?
Michael

Now you're in fantasyland.

Whats the religious connotation to Shiite self flagellation?

They do it to commemorate a martyr who died in a battle. It is a historical event, not a religious one.

So your position is it is a purly secular tradition and has no religious connotation or significance at all.

None?

If so why?

So your position is it is a purly secular tradition and has no religious connotation or significance at all.

None?

If so why?

Nope. It originated in Karbala and is an important event in Shiite history.

Karbala's prominence in Shīˤī is the result of the Battle of Karbala, fought on the site of the modern city on the Tenth of Muħarram in 61 A.H. (October 10, 680). Both Hussayn and his half-brother ˤAbbās ibn ˤAlī were buried by the local Banī Asad tribe at what later became known as the Mashadu l-Hussayn. The city grew up around the tombs, though the date of construction of the first sanctuary is not known.

The Battle of Karbala took place on Muharram 10, 61 AH (October 9 or 10, 680 CE) [1] [2] in Karbala, in present day Iraq. On one side were supporters & relatives of the Prophet MuhammadSallallaahu Alaihi Wa Sallam grandson Husayn ibn Ali and on the other side were a military detachment from the forces of Yazid I, the Umayyad caliph.

On 7th Muharram, 61 AH (October 6th, 680 CE), Yazid's forces followed and surrounded the traveling group of Husayn ibn Ali and cut-off their access to food and water. For three days in the heat of Iraqi desert, these men, women & children were made to suffer the thirst and hunger before they were brutally slaughtered on the deserts of Karbala.

They see themselves as martyrs for the cause, of course, and being descendants of the Prophets makes them on the side of the righteous, esp since Yazid was corrupt , brutal and power hungry.

Or so they say:

Although presented in many sources as a dissolute ruler, Yazid energetically tried to continue his father's policies and retained many of the men who served him. He strengthened the administrative structure of the empire and improved the military defenses of Syria, the Umayyad power base. The financial system was reformed. He lightened the taxation of some Christian groups and abolished the tax concessions granted to the Samaritans as a reward for aid they had rendered in the days of the early Arab conquests. He also paid significant attention to agriculture and improved the irrigation system of the Damascus oasis.

So it isn't a religious festival?
Is that correct?

What exactly is a religious festival?

So it isn't a religious festival?
Is that correct?

What exactly is a religious festival?

Ramadan (Eid ul Fitr) is a religious festival. It is the culmination of 30 days of fasting as prescribed in the Quran.

So is Eid ul Zuha, when an animal is sacrificed to commemorate Abraham's willingness to give up what he held most dear for God (his son).

So is Muharram, the first day of the Islamic calendar.

(it coincides with the Shiite mourning of Karbala which they celebrate simultaneously but is a separate festival)

The Muslim New Year is a cultural event which some Muslims partake on the first day of Muharram, the first month in the Islamic Calendar. Many Muslims use the day to remember the signifance of this month, and the Hijra, or emigration, Muhammad made to the city now known as Medina. Recently, in many areas of Muslim population, people have begun exchanging cards and gifts on this day.

However, not all Muslims partake of this event. Shia Muslims do not partake in such activities since the month is observed as a month of mourning in honor of Imam Hussain, who was martyred in the Battle of Karbala on Muharram 10th.

Laylat ul Qadr is another one. It is the anniversary of the revelation of the first Quranic verse. It is also the anniversary of the night of the first time the Quran was revealed in its entirety.

The 15th day of Shaban is another. It is a day when sweets are prepared and fireworks are lit to remember the dead and commemorate Gods creations.

I don't understand why; Ramadan (Eid ul Fitr), Eid ul Zuha, Muharram, Laylat ul Qadr, and the 15th day of Shaban are "religous" holidays while the celebration of Ashura by the Shia is not considered religous?
What are the criterion for "religous holidays" - that all holidays must meet to be considered "religous".

If the celebration of Ashura by the Shia is not considered religous would you say mainstream Shia was agree it is a secular Holiday?

:confused:
Michael

I don't understand why; Ramadan (Eid ul Fitr), Eid ul Zuha, Muharram, Laylat ul Qadr, and the 15th day of Shaban are "religous" holidays while the celebration of Ashura by the Shia is not considered religous?
What are the criterion for "religous holidays" - that all holidays must meet to be considered "religous".

If the celebration of Ashura by the Shia is not considered religous would you say mainstream Shia was agree it is a secular Holiday?

:confused:
Michael

Ashura literally means the tenth, they are commemorating the tenth day of Mohurrum when the war was fought. It was fought against other Muslims.

How can it be a religious holiday? They celebrate it as a martyrs day which is why they flagellate themselves (they are martyrs). The only possible religious connection is that Hussein was a son of Ali the Prophets nephew, but that's hardly religious. (My neighbor was Shia but he did not celebrate it as a religious holiday, but as a day of mourning, there may be Shias who consider it religious, there are as many types of Shias as Sunnis)

Ashura literally means the tenth, they are commemorating the tenth day of Mohurrum when the war was fought. It was fought against other Muslims.

How can it be a religious holiday? They celebrate it as a martyrs day which is why they flagellate themselves (they are martyrs). The only possible religious connection is that Hussein was a son of Ali the Prophets nephew, but that's hardly religious. (My neighbor was Shia but he did not celebrate it as a religious holiday, but as a day of mourning, there may be Shias who consider it religious, there are as many types of Shias as Sunnis)


I don't understand that explanation. A martyr is someone who dies for their belief's.

Ashura literally means the tenth, they are commemorating the tenth day of Mohurrum when the war was fought. It was fought against other Muslims.

How can it be a religious holiday? They celebrate it as a martyrs day which is why they flagellate themselves (they are martyrs). The only possible religious connection is that Hussein was a son of Ali the Prophets nephew, but that's hardly religious. (My neighbor was Shia but he did not celebrate it as a religious holiday, but as a day of mourning, there may be Shias who consider it religious, there are as many types of Shias as Sunnis)
That's why I then asked: What exactly is a religous holiday?

Would you say mainstream Shia would agree with you in saying it is a purly secular Holiday?

Lightgigantic,

One may reflect upon a reflection.

(that is where the word derives it's second meaning? No?)


Michael
true, but I am just trying to determine whether the meaning you are drawing (ie - montheism is inherently violent) has any basis

For instance, is the argument "some people are doing it wrong therefore everyone is doing it wrong" valid?

I don't understand that explanation. A martyr is someone who dies for their belief's.


Not in Asia. A martyr is someone who dies for a cause. Could be nationalism, human rights, belief etc.

Hussein was martyred fighting Yazid, a tyrant.

That's why I then asked: What exactly is a religous holiday?

Would you say mainstream Shia would agree with you in saying it is a purly secular Holiday?

Well I would say God has to be in the equation somewhere.

No idea, I just go by what I know from Shias I know.

Is Shiasm a religion? Is it separate from Islam? Were they fighting for religious reasons?

Hey Sam, what was the name of Abraham's son who was prepared to be sacrificed?

Then why yet another Prophet and yet another book if neither offer something new? It just simply doesn’t make sense to me.

Had qur’an be corrupted, and no way to memorize it, it still make sense if another one comes.


There is one God – OK yeah knew that.
Mohammed is his last Prophet – OK so what?

Oh, wait – you mean because you’re the last Prophet you get extra women and get to become the military leader .. now it’s becoming clear. Most military leaders in the ancient ME claimed to have divine guidance. Alexander was worshipped and revered for over a millennia there.


Muhammad claimed to have divine guidance long before wars. Under hard pressures, still no war; they even were forced to hijrah (moved) from mecca to medinah, left over houses and many things. Several years of ahimsa.
Apparently, things were not as good as in India. Maybe because it was not British they dealt with (which had some busy ‘works’ with the allies in WWII), or maybe eventually realized ahimsa alone was not effective enough to keep people lives.
War verses are regarded as ‘permission’ to go war. After several years dealing pressures with ‘passive resistance’, obviously it was not effective that time. You’re not gonna just sit and let your family living miserably under long time threats in your own home.
As leader of his community, it is kind of compulsory to him to become military commander, nothing to do with the last prophet status.
Muhammad is the last, nothing special, that just means revelation is enough. No more required for those willing to follow, the guide is already there, and promised to be kept as is for the whole time. It’s all set.

As for women, the reason people call muhammad as what.. a sexual bastard?
Had there not war, not many widows, I speculated he would not have many wives, but nonetheless, that’s not the case, because actually he did have.
Tradition of kings, they can have 100 concubines in their ‘harem’, and considering muhammad position, he could also get the same. But he got far from 100. He married them, and I guess those wives were happy with him.
What about it? oh yaa… nothing to do with the ‘last prophet’.

Alexander, he could have been had divine guidance, who knows?



Maybe he’s pulling a Bush and going for pre-emption? That’s a “defence” in a manner. It all depends how one looks at it. So he’d probably say it is you who don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t know true Islam. I don’t know. But certainly he read the Qur’an and he found in it inspiration for war. There’s no denying that. He even quotes the number of passages that inspired him to kill people.

This is what happens when you “give an inch” as they say -they take a mile.


Maybe he knows better. Maybe I don’t.
But I believe it is not ‘inspired’, better to use your previous term ‘justifying’. What I see, inspiration of war comes from some fellow foreigners came to their homeland, which do what you quote ‘given an inch, asking a mile’. I know what this quotes did. My homeland is the sample; colonialists came without invitation, stick up a mile when an inch was not even given; and that happened for hundreds of years. Apart from others, some region (of muslim people) did fight against this colonialists, justified the fight as jihad, and that seems more effective compared to others. Anything effective in protecting homeland and its people, is good anyway.

As for pre emption, it might be justified as defence. But he said, he wanted to rule the world, that is not the case.


Lets look at it this way. The country of Iran was conquered (or as my Persian buddy puts it – culturally raped). Why did Muslims have a mandate to conquer the whole of the country? Persians may have had agreements with Arabs and may have received tribute – but in 5000 years they had never conquered the whole of the Arabian peninsula. Why the sudden mandate just post-Islam to conquer Iran? It was justified in the name of Islam and it obviously did happen.

So a good question is: Where in the Quran is a mandate to conquer and kill Persians?

What of Greece? Sicily? Egypt? North Africa? Spain? India?

What about Constantinople? Was that justified?

Is it that all these people for all these centuries who read the Qur’an and conquered other people – that ALL got it wrong?

Well, what does THAT say?


Well, I have the same question. I didn’t find any mandate.


That’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is as a means to end violence and ones own actions will not perpetuate violence in the future.

Let us compare: Bush is in line with the notion that greedy hungry powers need to be crushed and killed like vermin while Gandhi thought peaceful passive resistance was the way – don’t even harm animals.

Now, with this in mind: Who do you think is the complete dimwitted imbecile and who the well thought-out philosopher!?!?

;)


I admire Gandhi as one of the greatest ever.
Who do you call imbecile? Is it Muhammad? Or anyone who committed fight? Or just muslims go jihad?
I didn’t call patriots of my country as imbeciles, they gave their lives (in fights, and many just were killed for giving food for other patriots) for me to enjoy living in independent country today. On the other hand, many thanks to renaissance in Europe; which brought colonialists all over the world, which gave them chance and capability to do your quote ‘given an inch and stick up a mile’ in any places they harboured. Do you think passive resistance can work alone, without fight? They sent scholar-patriots to jail, many alienated in small islands for years, living lonely place far from family and society.


Lets sum it up like this: The apple doesn’t fall far from the monotheistic-tree.

:)
Michael
[/quote]

So that’s the only tree you see?

true, but I am just trying to determine whether the meaning you are drawing (ie - monotheism is inherently violent) has any basis

For instance, is the argument "some people are doing it wrong therefore everyone is doing it wrong" valid?It is a difficult situation as humans have such a violent nature which is reflected in many of the religions that they have created. Even in Greco-Roman Myths there is a God of War but that is tempered with a God of Fertility or Love – a Goddess that enjoys a sense of humor and enjoys a good joke - including at the God of War’s expense :)

However, in the Middle Eastern monotheistic religions we find a single One God – one that gets jealous, surprised, angry and is homicidal to the point of murdering all of humanity - simply for the crime of acting on their own free accord. This God is the God that inspired the inquisitions, It supported Slavery, It enjoys a man to have 4 wives (so long as he doesn't like pork) and It iwas the nspiration for both Xian and Muslims to brutally kill and conquer most of the known world (the Xians way way way more so than the Muslims) in Its name.

It is History

Instead of relying on a well thought-out enlightened approach to human suffering – say something like empathetic meditation (empathy via neural plasticity); this God instead relies on the promise of eternal hell-fire and tricks such as a tax on non-believers to coerce belief. Indeed, these beliefs (especially if taught at a young age) will modulate the brain. They have a DIRECT effect on neural conductivity. If one lives their whole life in fear of a God the sits in judgment – expect that person's brain to be completely rewired towards this fear. It is so.

As a Great Jedi Master once said:
"Fear leads to Anger.
Anger leads to Hate.
Hate leads to suffering."
;)


Look at the rise of Christianity – witness the Dark Ages.
It’s demise heralds the Renaissance and the rise of secularism: The Age of Enlightenment.

Can one find another main stream religion that has even close to the violent history as Christianity and Islam?
:confused:
Michael

Is Shiasm a religion? Is it separate from Islam? You litterally took the next two question right out of my mouth!

Well? What do you think?

Oh, and then ask the same of the Bahai' and what of their holidays? Are they religous holidays?

LiveInFaith,

It's hard to say. Yes, if one doens't fight then perhaps one loses everything. But if there really is another better life for ALL of humans - does it matter in the least?

We're really still monkeys - run by instinct.
I'm sure my instinct would be to fight - Gandhi was obviously as enlightened person and he went above this instict and he won.

His is the better way.

Michael

You litterally took the next two question right out of my mouth!

Well? What do you think?

There are only two requirements to be a Muslim: monotheism and acceptance of Mohammed.

That makes all Shias Muslims. Do they have different practices?

Sure, because practices are determined by the Madhabs and Shias have a separate Madhab. The practice is about being part of a group. In Mecca, everyone can follow their own practices, it makes no difference. So no, its not separate from Islam, and their differences are part of their group culture.

There are only two requirements to be a Muslim: monotheism and acceptance of Mohammed.

That makes all Shias Muslims. Do they have different practices?

Sure, because practices are determined by the Madhabs and Shias have a separate Madhab. The practice is about being part of a group. In Mecca, everyone can follow their own practices, it makes no difference. So no, its not separate from Islam, and their differences are part of their group culture.So Baha'i are Muslim? They accept their is one God and they also accept the Mohammed was one of his Prophets...

Can Muslims be monotheistic and accept Mohammed was the Last Prophet yet also accept the fact that the Qur'an has been altered over the years and hence have new better “perfect” books like the Bahá'u'lláh's Kitáb-i-Aqdas and The Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá?

They do meet your definition after all….

So Baha'i are Muslim? They accept their is one God and they also accept the Mohammed was one of his Prophets...

Can Muslims be monotheistic and accept Mohammed was the Last Prophet yet also accept the fact that the Qur'an has been altered over the years and hence have new better “perfect” books like the Bahá'u'lláh's Kitáb-i-Aqdas and The Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá?

They do meet your definition after all….

If they accept God and the Prophet, they are Muslims. Even Shias have issues about the Quran, some of them claim parts of it are missing, etc.

Anyway, in terms of faith, anyone who recites the shahadah and means it is a Muslim.

One of these days, I have to educate myself about the Bahai.

So then, that just leaves - what defines a religious (generic) holiday and what defines a Islamic Holiday?

So then, that just leaves - what defines a religious (generic) holiday and what defines a Islamic Holiday?

Religious holidays are connected to the Quran.

And in general? .... say: non-Islamic religous holidays?

And in general? .... say: non-Islamic religous holidays?

Those are culturally defined but since Muslims like to include religion in many parts of their lives, they may have religious elements as well. But they won't be connected to the Quran. e.g. in Saudi Arabia, they have a Murabta during Hajj because Mecca is pretty close and people can perform umrah easily so having some time off during that time is useful.

This may also be the case in other Islamic countries nearby. But its not the case for Muslims in other places.

I have to say: seeing people praise Allah as they cut themselves, it's pretty hard to say its secular???

I have to say: seeing people praise Allah as they cut themselves, it's pretty hard to say its secular???

Muslims praise Allah even when they are cursing, it is a linguistic disease they suffer from.

I'd like you to tell me what you think of this (http://savetheummah.blogspot.com/2006/10/without-cleansing-heart-muslim-is-not.html) article.

Muslims praise Allah even when they are cursing, it is a linguistic disease they suffer from.

I'd like you to tell me what you think of this (http://savetheummah.blogspot.com/2006/10/without-cleansing-heart-muslim-is-not.html) article.Kind of reminded me a little of Christian sermons I would have heard as a kid.

He is certainly making some sense - but he is not all that objective. Of course he sees things though an Islamic lens. There is a preconceived notion that society can heal by returning to classical agreed upon Islamic interpretations and fostering development through tried-and-true Islamic tradition. I feel he has a sense of loss at the state of Islam.

There is also comparison occurring.

Did he ever stop to think that maybe it would be best for Islamic societies if they simply let Islam slip away into the pages of history? If they focus their energies on getting economies working, fixing their environments creating fare and representative secular governments and dealing with psychological issues cognitively? In the beginning he suggests that poor ethics was correlated with secularism and good with religious mindedness. Well, that’s just not the case. Ethics are what we make of them – as a society. I may personally think it is ethically wrong to take more than one wife and that its perfectly great to have sex before marriage ;) ….lol…:p seriously, we each have our own moral compass within an ever changing society. It will change as we change. That’s just evolution.

So I’d say he has some good points and I can see where he is coming from. I’m not saying a more secular view is going to work - it may not work either – these are age old questions. We’ll have to wait and see….

Michael

Well he's not a priest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Winter) if thats what you're thinking.;)

... just that he seems slanted and his peace was missing an option...

It is a difficult situation as humans have such a violent nature which is reflected in many of the religions that they have created. Even in Greco-Roman Myths there is a God of War but that is tempered with a God of Fertility or Love – a Goddess that enjoys a sense of humor and enjoys a good joke - including at the God of War’s expense :)

However, in the Middle Eastern monotheistic religions we find a single One God – one that gets jealous, surprised, angry and is homicidal to the point of murdering all of humanity - simply for the crime of acting on their own free accord. This God is the God that inspired the inquisitions, It supported Slavery, It enjoys a man to have 4 wives (so long as he doesn't like pork) and It iwas the nspiration for both Xian and Muslims to brutally kill and conquer most of the known world (the Xians way way way more so than the Muslims) in Its name.

It is History

Instead of relying on a well thought-out enlightened approach to human suffering – say something like empathetic meditation (empathy via neural plasticity); this God instead relies on the promise of eternal hell-fire and tricks such as a tax on non-believers to coerce belief. Indeed, these beliefs (especially if taught at a young age) will modulate the brain. They have a DIRECT effect on neural conductivity. If one lives their whole life in fear of a God the sits in judgment – expect that person's brain to be completely rewired towards this fear. It is so.

As a Great Jedi Master once said:
"Fear leads to Anger.
Anger leads to Hate.
Hate leads to suffering."
;)


Look at the rise of Christianity – witness the Dark Ages.
It’s demise heralds the Renaissance and the rise of secularism: The Age of Enlightenment.

Can one find another main stream religion that has even close to the violent history as Christianity and Islam?
:confused:
Michael

Given that there are 2 100 million christians and 1 300 million muslims in the world, how many of those are violent as you indicate?
You seem to establish that buddhists are more peaceful by dint of theory rather than reality

details the pride and culture of Thai people along with the principle religion of Buddhism and how these are tied in with this most Noble of Fighting
http://www.muaythaionline.org/features/born2fightvideo.html


You can even find sites that are just as prone to sensationalism as the OP


Not unlike other religions Buddhism also has “skeletons in its’ closet” which it carefully conceals in the Western world. There are dark aspects in this “philosophy of compassion, non-violence and tolerance”. Zen-Buddhism for example influenced the most sophisticated warrior philosophy of the East: the extremely brutal and suicidal Samurai Ethics. In Tibetan Buddhism one can find believes in spirits and demons, in secret sexual practices, in war gods, in occultism. Lamas search to influence their retinue and the world with all sorts of magical rituals. In Sri Lanka Buddhist violence and Buddhist racism are the order of the day. In Burma and in Kashmir Buddhist armies are fighting. And yet the Dalai Lama has another face that peeks out from behind the mask of goodness, charity and kindness, which gives one pause to think more deeply about the shadow sides of this “man of peace.” Why is Buddhist fundamentalism so dangerous - because it shows a tendency to religious Fascism! It’s not well known that the brain trust of the SS in Nazi Germany was extremely interested in Vedic- and Buddhist- teachings, in the Lamaist culture, and in Zen-Meditation with the goal to construct with elements of these eastern believes its own Nazi-Religion. (See: www.trimondi.de/H-B-K/inhalt.hi.en.htm ) Buddhism – if it will become congruent with western values like democracy, human rights, equality of gender etc. must be “reinvented”. The condition therefore is an open, critical and honest debate.
http://www.iivs.de/~iivs01311/EN/links.htm

It seems that rather than referring to actual buddhism, as it is practiced in the world, you provide an idealistic view of it as if it is the norm - similarly, in your presentation of monotheism and particularly islam, you present and eccentric practice as if it is the norm

lightgigantic,


I posted on the other post.

However, you see
a) I am not a Buddhist.
b) Of course the Japanese are Buddhist and Shinto.
c) Of course Tibetans still hold to their own beliefs combined with Buddhism.


If you are suggesting that Christianity and Islam is a mixture of some of their own belief along with that of many others. Then yes, I agree. That is true. Then perhaps it is best to look at each belief within the belief?


Lightgigantic do you suppose that Hindu who have heard of Christ, but rejected the whole notion of Christianity (they are Hindu after all) go to heaven? If not what do you suppose will happen to them after they die? Replace Hindu with "Atheist" – what is your answer?

What are your thoughts on Mohammed? Do you suppose he was the Last true Prophet of God and the Qur’an replaces the Bible?

In your opinion: Are both the Qur’an and the Bible true? If not which is true and which is not true?


Michael

PS:
I think you will find that History shows Christianity was the bloodiest religion in the history of humanity. Islam was not all that far behind. Both felt compelled to kill and/or convert any people who held differing belief.

Isn't Buddhism the most peaceful (mass) religion?

that depends on where this alleged "religion" is geographically situated. culture impacts expression