Roses are red,
Violets are blue
Sugar is sweet
And so are you
But
The roses are wilted
The violets are dead
The sugar bowl is empty
and so is your head.
You know, I could take that to be all emo and all "woe is me, there is no good in life" which is basically emo. But it rhymes, and at the end it calls the reciever of the poem thingy stupid. So there is an attempt at humour in it, making it corny and not emo.
On to another topic.
Lets talk about something serious no? Seeing as I haven't for a while. Whats a major controversial issue? or used to be one? I know! Religion!
Ok, to all religious believers, I am not trying to offend you for my following comments.
I am an infidel, semi.
By defintion an infidel is someone who respects your religion, but doesn't believe in it, or at least parts of it. I believe that there is an unknown force out there, but I don't believe that it has a name, or gender. Especially not a name like God. But that is only because it is dog spelt backwards, and dogs aren't the cleanest animals. This being, you would probably relate God with purity, which usually takes on the form of white, unlike the thought of dogs. The first thing that pops into your head when you hear the word "dog" isn't clean, or at least it shouldn't be.
on to a sub-topic.
If I was forced to follow a religion, it would be muslim/islamic/bhuddism. one of the previous.
another sub-topic, related to the above sub-topic.
Allah is a better name, although it means the same thing, then God. It just flows better, recieves better etc etc.
I really don't know how I got into this topic. Well, I do, I just don't know why. So I will quit before I drown in my own observations and opinions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Oh no you ditn't! Let the shit storm ensue.
Now that my attempt at being a stereotypical modern witch hunter is done, let's get on with the pain. Maybe you'll actually respond to this one.
Infidels are primarily non-believers. Not exactly someone that doesn't WHOLLY agree with you is an infidel. For example, I don't see various protestant/catholic groups calling each other Infidels, and to an untrained eye, they most certainly don't agree with each other. And usually they do not respect the religion. In it's original context it was something used to describe ALL non-believers, period. End of semantics.
So your basis of discrediting the name God is on the fact that it just happens to be the reverse of the word "dog". And that a dog, in your opinion, isn't the cleanliest of animals? I'm sorry, but that's the lamest excuse I've ever heard. It's actually because you are afraid of germs that there is a problem. Dogs can be quite clean, and aside from that there's no proof that any substantial amount of common illnesses result from someone coming in contact with a dog. I have a dog, and he's never done anything but slobbered on me. I'll stop there, but humans do enough slobbering of their own.
Moving forward.
You pick the word Allah because you like the sound of the word better, that's nice. But you do realize that the Qu'ran teaches that women are inferiors, don't you? I kinda doubt that you do, because you don't seem to be the type that would follow something that subjugates feminism...
And what's your reasoning behind wanting to be Buddhist? Is it because you like the name, too?
Alright, I think that will end the mode in which I attack your arbitrary line drawings and opinions.
Now with more of my own personal opinions:
I believe that any religion that is widely practiced in the world right now (excluding Wiccanism, Satanism and Hinduism that I can think of immediately) have basely similar teachings. I don't really care what you believe about God or what you call him so much that you do believe in a benevolent higher power. From that common point it is easier to deal with other things.
It is my personal belief from my own endeavors to this end that my experience and knowledge hasn't come up with a reason why Buddhism/Christianity/Islaam have to be mutually exclusive. That's based off of reading at least SOME scripture of each.
Sorry for you. You decided to digress on a topic that is a rather large part of my life. Especially currently.
Oh, how right you are. And they call us Yanks arrogant. Such high and mighty words coming from someone who admitted that they claimed they had only studied religion for "all of five years".
Beautiful.
Let's start with correcting your choice of wording. Nibbana is the more correct term that you might want to work on there. Nirvana is most likely a westernizing of the word. In modern times they equate to the same things, like other bastardizations of language.
I never put out the exact reasoning behind why I think the religions of Islam, Buddhism and Christianity aren't mutually exclusive. So thanks for jumping the gun for me. I mainly tout that claim because they share the sense of good that is common amongst man. Each of them share principles of killing is bad, and that letting your baser emotions (such as lust and greed) run off with your being is the way that you stay corrupted forever.
They all share a belief of an ultimate good and an ultimate bad. They all have a belief in a form of heaven. Good call though, on them not actually believing in any one God. They never venture forth the idea of how we came to be, though. That's not as important to them as escaping into Nibbana. Though they do believe in powerful celstial beings, mind you.
Quite right you are about Jihad, as well. I've actually long known that their religion didn't preach the mindless slayings of Americans or of enemies of the Islamic belief. Various sects do, however, put that spin on things. That's what you hear about, the one's that make sure to hit the news.
Again, quite right about the names, but I don't really see what this has to do with anything that I said. Qabala has quite a few names for "God" as well. That really has nothing to do with anything. In fact, in Qabala they're more like attributes then something thta you would recognize as a name. Also, it is believed that Allah is actually derived from a pagan name for "God" in that region. Allah being also a name for a former moon god when entire pantheons existed pushing forth polytheism.
I think that it's great that you wanted to share some of the things that you know about religion, some things that I hadn't brought up, but going beyond the scope of something is very difficult to win by. Especially when your opponent knows more than he let on.
I didn't ever make mention of half of the things that you seemed to be trying to refute. In fact, about the only things that I can see you actually rebuffing is a somewhat inferred sense that Buddhists believe in a "God" and that the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland actually call each other infidels. Not surprising for me to not know about when it concerns me very little what they call each other. In fact, if you wanted to teach me something, tell me which of the protestant groups that they belong to. Any reference that I can find just labels them as "Protestant", something that's very sweeping.
BTW, you indeed are talking to a Christian American, but your stereotype is greatly misplaced. In my eyes I've sort of been "behind enemy lines" in this state of my home. Their views are everywhere and mine are a great deal less complicated and less in the majority. I don't think that the fact of me being American, or Christian, blinds me to the extent that you seem to think. I explore everything as much as possible. And I'd definately like to see why you'd think that Americans of all people would have no dealings with anything but Christian religions. Silliness, to be sure, we latch onto them like the next fad in a never ending cycle.
Now I expect us to be able to play nice together. One of the most dangerous things about playing this game of ours is hurt feelings. I have none, I expect you to react in kind. That being said, I think I'm done for now
Well I'm glad that I have dissuaded you from a hazardous line of thinking.
I know, I use aplenty the stereotype of the ignorant American. It's easy to do. But I know from first hand experience that we aren't all like that. And actually, I have a great deal more and personal experience with those of us who are not as ignorant as we are labeled.
The problem with stereotypes is that they are adhered to with much blindness. That's their actual danger.
And thank you for refreshing my memory on the case of Ireland and England. It's one of those lurking news stories that few feel are important because it never makes it mainstream (much like AIDS and Genocide/civil war in Africa, but that's been getting its press lately). I slapped my forehead when you said it was the Church of England. I still often forget that they are actually protestants. I know how that must sound, it's an odd thing really. After all, it was mainly formed so that the King could do whatever he pleased.
And yes, one of the things I find most tragic is the necessity of "Westernizing" foreign cultures. That's why "Smith" and "Jones" and other such names are so prevalent in our society today. Because Americans are lazy. If you want to peg the majority of us with something, it would be that. But I find that it happens a great deal less than it did at which time things were still being shaped in the world. But then people bring back long lost beliefs all of the time with new meanings and names (Wiccanism is my least favorite of this. I don't have any reasons that I can say for not liking the religion as a whole, not enough information. But whomever decided that it needed to be dealt so was ignorant of public opinion.)
I have plenty of examples of the sad "westernizations" of things. Mind you that the "West" isn't solely us lazy Americans.
Post a Comment