For those of you who are religious

[Sakib]

sakib,

The problem of evil (or theodicy) in general, and the logical and evidential arguments from evil in particular contest the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god would not permit the existence of perceivable evil or suffering, which can easily be shown to exist. Already Epicure pointed out the contradiction, stating that if an omnipotent God existed, the evil in the world should be impossible. As there is evil in the world, the god must either not be omnipotent or he must not be omnibenevolent. If he is not omnipotent, he is not God; if he is not omnibenevolent, he is not God the Allmercyful, but an evil creature. Similar arguments have been performed by Schopenhauer.

Well no not really, of course there would be evil.

If my post is dumb then all the garbage you are spewing is dumb! Sorry your laws don't apply! So I disagree with your religion greatly! It has changed drasticly in the past 60 years! Alot of leaders have changed the interpretation of it! Muslim women were among the first to own land, buisnesses and so on! now where are they? they hide behind vails and are to be seen not heard!

Wrong again! Religion hasnt changed at all but the people who are under that religion have changed. Get it right!
Which thikko made u think women are hiding behind vails? What are you talking about? You make no sense. And rather than attack religion (which is what you aint doing) you;re attacking the followers. Attack us all you want you're getting nowhere. And what "laws" are you chatting on about? I attack or Ummah myself because i'm not impressed the way islam has been followed over the last century. Read the Quran and you might actually get some idea rather than make stuff up. These leaders you speak of have just "twisted" the translation to favour themselves. and that iswhat i call CORRUPTION. If the twisted meaning doesnt fit in with the rest of the quran or principles in hadith then you know its wrong.

[Sakib]

Also, you never answered Skeba's question.

which is....

[Sakib]

sakib,

The problem of evil (or theodicy) in general, and the logical and evidential arguments from evil in particular contest the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god would not permit the existence of perceivable evil or suffering, which can easily be shown to exist. Already Epicure pointed out the contradiction, stating that if an omnipotent God existed, the evil in the world should be impossible. As there is evil in the world, the god must either not be omnipotent or he must not be omnibenevolent. If he is not omnipotent, he is not God; if he is not omnibenevolent, he is not God the Allmercyful, but an evil creature. Similar arguments have been performed by Schopenhauer.

What ever happened to god wanting to test us by temptation of evil deeds?

[Jessica]

ps :

i have loads of women wearing tchadors in my area and i have noticed that under them, since they don't get exposed to the sun, they have the most beautiful skins and hairs.

[Skeba]

which is....

My question was the only post I've made in this thread.

"How do you know that all religions can't be man made?"

[the dirt]

Muslim women hide behind vails and are to be seen not heard!

Or not to bee seen, but heard? Maybe both, eh

[Jessica]

Muslim women are BOSSES at home, trust me.

The veil was created to protect women against male desire from puberty onwards.

When you take into account the number of women who are raped in our western society, maybe not showing as much flesh isn't a bad idea.

[estranged.1098]

When you take into account the number of women who are raped in our western society, maybe not showing as much flesh isn't a bad idea.

Let's just kill all women, then nobody can rape them. 

Have you compared the numbers of raped women in different socities?

[Jessica]

When you take into account the number of women who are raped in our western society, maybe not showing as much flesh isn't a bad idea.

Let's just kill all women, then nobody can rape them. 

Have you compared the numbers of raped women in different socities?

The figures exist

there are less rapes in muslim countries.

Factual.

I am not pro or against anything, i am just stating.

I also know that almost all muslim wives wear very normal clothes inside their homes, including sexy clothes.

They just cover up to go out.

They are usually not little creatures who need protection inside, they are matriarchal societies, like in italy or even china. They are the boss inside the house, usually, the man's mother being THE boss. Same in India.

[Brody]

sakib,

The problem of evil (or theodicy) in general, and the logical and evidential arguments from evil in particular contest the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god would not permit the existence of perceivable evil or suffering, which can easily be shown to exist. Already Epicure pointed out the contradiction, stating that if an omnipotent God existed, the evil in the world should be impossible. As there is evil in the world, the god must either not be omnipotent or he must not be omnibenevolent. If he is not omnipotent, he is not God; if he is not omnibenevolent, he is not God the Allmercyful, but an evil creature. Similar arguments have been performed by Schopenhauer.

Well no not really, of course there would be evil.

If my post is dumb then all the garbage you are spewing is dumb! Sorry your laws don't apply! So I disagree with your religion greatly! It has changed drasticly in the past 60 years! Alot of leaders have changed the interpretation of it! Muslim women were among the first to own land, buisnesses and so on! now where are they? they hide behind vails and are to be seen not heard!

Wrong again! Religion hasnt changed at all but the people who are under that religion have changed. Get it right!
Which thikko made u think women are hiding behind vails? What are you talking about? You make no sense. And rather than attack religion (which is what you aint doing) you;re attacking the followers. Attack us all you want you're getting nowhere. And what "laws" are you chatting on about? I attack or Ummah myself because i'm not impressed the way islam has been followed over the last century. Read the Quran and you might actually get some idea rather than make stuff up. These leaders you speak of have just "twisted" the translation to favour themselves. and that iswhat i call CORRUPTION. If the twisted meaning doesnt fit in with the rest of the quran or principles in hadith then you know its wrong.

Ok Well what is a religion with out its followers? Nothing! And If I making up that Muslim women were among the first women to share near equal rights with men then you obviously no nothing about world history! So how do you know that your translation is not twisted? I do remember how upset you got over a little depiction of allah in the newspaper! you lashed out wishing death for the publisher! so you sound just as twisted to me!

[SLCPUNK]

Muslim women are BOSSES at home, trust me.

Huh?

[Sakib]

which is....

My question was the only post I've made in this thread.

"How do you know that all religions can't be man made?"

Logically somewhere along the line there must be an accurate religion. Some follow mankind desires but there's some that dont. You gotta hunt

Muslim women are BOSSES at home, trust me.

Huh?

Yes indeed. Women in islam must be carefully looked after because they have troubles men dont have such as menstrual cycles where hormones are left, right and center. That's one of the reasons probably Prophethood wasnt passed onto a woman because she'll have too much to deal with.

Just for the record as Jess has suggested, the wife and husband must get on with eachother and must fulfill each other desires be it sexual or not, providing it aint illegal.

[Brody]

which is....

My question was the only post I've made in this thread.

"How do you know that all religions can't be man made?"

Logically somewhere along the line there must be an accurate religion. Some follow mankind desires but there's some that dont. You gotta hunt

Muslim women are BOSSES at home, trust me.

Huh?

Yes indeed. Women in islam must be carefully looked after because they have troubles men dont have such as menstrual cycles where hormones are left, right and center. That's one of the reasons probably Prophethood wasnt passed onto a woman because she'll have too much to deal with.

Just for the record as Jess has suggested, the wife and husband must get on with eachother and must fulfill each other desires be it sexual or not, providing it aint illegal.

Thats where you are wrong.. imho.. Women are more stable then men! Its just ignorant people that say things like you have said..

EDIT* Have you ever had a girlfriend? How many women or girls as friends do you have? Im guessing very few with you ignorant veiws that women need to be watched over? As women are becoming more independent we are finding that they tend to accell better then men in the math and sciences..

[Brody]

and many other things.. Look how many women hold political office and there menstrual cycles don't get in the way! Look how women now have an active role in militarys!

[Sakib]

Brody again you misunderstand everything. The husband suports wife in the marriage and the wife supports husband. As for women in the military it's difficult for them to get married because there job is sometimes always in the way. I never said women are more stable than men or men more stable than women, all i said was sometimes things like having children and stuff can be a very stressful thing for a women and if not supported well by husband can lead to catastrophic dents in her life.

And again i apologised for my anger so i'm not so sick and twisted as you may presume about the cartoons. And i have many female friends + acquaintencies (2 i am very close to), four sisters, a mother.

By the way do you know how difficult Prophethood is? No. If you read in details about the perils both physical and mental its very difficult and select few were chosen to deliver the message.

I never said anything about women being incapable of high leadership. What ever happened to the Muslim Queens.

If you actually read my post i said "probably" (to do with the bit about prophethood to men) which means maybe, there's no definite reason but allah knows best. Think about it logically, in those times, there were grand families i mean really big.

As an example, lets say for the sake of argument about 1400 years ago a war was taking place. A woman may have had up to 7 young children to attend to. The children are generally naturally closer to the mothers (i'm talking very young children here and maybe kids in general) so as a man's role to protect the family, it's easier for men to go to war than women. THAT DOES NOT MEAN WOMEN CANT FIGHT IN WAR HOWEVER! I HAVE READ ACCOUNTS IN ISLAMIC BATTLES WHERE THERE WERE WOMEN IN WAR!! Just a question for thought but how come I've never seen a child say "father" before "mother?" Every child i know says "mama" or woteva first. Thats a different issue, sorry.?

As for leaders in women, Look at Benazir Bhutto or Queen Saba (Sheba). Islam isnt as sexist as you like to propogate Brody unfortunately for you.

Lastly you ask "What is a religion without its followers?" A religion doesnt need followers. A religion is a religion. Again this foolish questioning about followers being the religion. Indeed they give the image of the religion HOWEVER the real religion is in the scriptures and the accounts.

EDIT: FOR example, Hindus many believe that killing animals for food is wrong. HOWEVER sciptures such as the Rigveda and Vedas clearly encourage giving meat for food as gift and Hindu scholars agree idol worshipping is wrong.  AND THIS IS ALL IN THEIR SCRIPTURE.

[Skeba]

Logically somewhere along the line there must be an accurate religion. Some follow mankind desires but there's some that dont. You gotta hunt

According to who's logic? And I'm not sure what the last 2 sentences mean.

I mean, if a person believes in evolution for example, it's pretty logical for him/her to think that somewhere along the line, the natural events (thunderstorms and such) became something that had a greater force behind them. A god, or in some 'religions' (can't really call them all that organized when pepole didn't propably even have an all that developed language), gods. It seemed very logical, that he/she/they were in control of the weather, and if they control the weather they could propably control everything. If they control everything, they also control the destiny of the people. So people were better off keeping those gods satisfied.

And this is just of the top of my head, so don't take the example literally, but still. What is the logic that there has to be 1 right religion if a person believes in evoltion. And remember, believing in evolution doesn't mean a person can't be religious.

[SuperMike]

I believe in God because I feel he is trustworthy and I believe he's a higher being that's behind the power of fate. And this is coming from my own opinion, not by what my family tries to ram down my throat. I believe he planned my life the way it is so I just go with how it is and learn how to think of it in a good way.

[Mal Brossard]

How does one define a man-made religion from one that isn't?

Christianity is man-made-- it was started by human followers of Jesus, his disciples, with alleged messages from God mixed in.

Buddhism is man-made-- the Buddha was simply a prince who gained a lot of followers.

Islam is man-made-- as far as I know, the prophet Mohammad was a man who supposedly received a message from Allah.

Judaism-- man-made.  A couple people claim to receive messages from God and go from there.

The only one I can think of that wasn't really man-made was Hinduism, and only because no one really knows how it started, other than that it may have been brought in by Aryan settlers of India around 4000-3500 BC.

Speaking of Hinduism, nothing in Hinduism says not to kill animals, and as far as I know, few Hindus believe that.  If you go to an Indian restaurant, many dishes will have lamb, goat, or chicken.  The only "edible" animal that is protected is the cow.  You will never see beef (and rarely pork) dishes eaten in Indian food.

It is more often that one will find vegetarians in Buddhism than in Hinduism.  Buddhist laws regarding not eating meat are highly open to interpretation.  Some equate killing with suffering, some say the two are different.  The main interpretation I've heard is that killing is not necessarily suffering, but also one should not "want" to eat meat.  Do not desire anything, do not crave anything, do not go out of your way to do something you really want.  So eating meat is alright, but you should not desire it (or anything else for that matter) too heavily.  Desiring something and having that desire unfulfilled is the main cause of stress and suffering in life.  Removing stress and suffering is the main goal.

[Sakib]

You can't call Islam man-made because you said Muhammad (peace be with him) got a revelation from allah. I can understand from an athiest point of view or a non muslim view why you think that because you dont believe muhammad (peace be with him) was allah's messenger.

Christianity in some bibles clearly states it was a book inspired by god and clearly the book shows its mans words. Majority of christianity from what ive heard follows st. Paul a man.

Taurat -(torah) originally was a revelation from Allah but apparently its changed and become man made.

Hinduism and buddhism i dont know too much but hopefully soon i'll learn of them in more detail.

What catches me on Islam is that many scriptures of religion tend to get lost or modified. The quran hasnt been modified as there's no proof or evidence to suggest it. The original chapters are in museum in turkey and from that era. So if in islam allah has decreed this is the final testament and wont change one bit, the fact islam claims the quran is from allah makes one think "how?" and so i've read the quran and it makes perfect sense from translations i have read. I read 3 translations from; Muhammad muhsin khan and muhammad hilali, Abdullah yusuf Ali and Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall to check things.

[Jessica]

I believe some people can " hear".

Outside of religion.

Moses heard, mahomet, JPII probably did.

Not all are prophets, past or present.

It's a shame messages get mixed up.