[Discussion] Gold digger girls..

[minamoto]

Well, I was in the UAE for a time.

My thread was actually a play on words. Ied al Fitr. The original spelling was eId al fitr. The thread was about an ISIS militant who used a truck loaded with a considerable amount of explosives and then went to sell discounted ice in a Shiite-dominated area of Iraq just north of Baghdad - then detonated after a bunch of people gathered around.

IED is an acronym for Improvised Explosive Device.

I'm actually more along the lines of a cynic when it comes to Islam. I believe it is a deceitful religion born of demonic influence. That isn't necessarily the case that every muslim is a demon - but that the system is selectively used to generate well-meaning followers who serve as a front for a militant agenda of conquest.

Islam's stated goal is, essentially, a socialist utopia. Since Muhammad was a merchant, there are even some fairly decent teachings in there regarding economics. For example - ISIS has started minting gold coins and the Gold Dinar of other Islamic nations. This is, frankly, wiser than the fiat currencies that are getting ready to implode. Anyway - there are numerous commands and laws that can be taught within a socialized platform meant to take care of the people within society and protect them from harm.

On the other hand, Muhammad was a warlord who stated it was his objective to, essentially, conquer the world and subjugate it to Islam. This is why there are commands to kill those who convert from Islam both in the Qu'ran and as narrated in the Hadith. Of course, these are generally not what is taught in western and modern societies - but it's still available to read and there are recruiters from militant organizations that search for people who are open to becoming mujahedin.

It can be surprisingly subtle in how it plays a hammer and anvil strategy. For example, a common sentiment I see is: "Muslims believe they are supposed to protect others from harm." This is specifically mentioned in the notion of protection against 'radicals.' Of course - non-muslims are not allowed to protect themselves from said 'radicals.' It establishes a double-standard where 'moderate' muslims are unwilling to invoke penalties upon 'radical' muslims while the 'radical' muslims have no problems declaring both kuffar and having a blast killing both.

Since differentiating between who is and isn't prone to spontaneous explosions is a little difficult until after they are wired to explode, I generally consider all muslims as being equally likely to spontaneously explode, lash out with knives, or otherwise inflict bodily harm upon those around them.

At least until I've observed a consistent pattern that suggests otherwise in the individual.

Which means exceptions are somewhat few and far between. They do exist, though.

all religions are fake and full of lies!

 

[Aim64C]

all religions are fake and full of lies!

They are hardly fake.

Of the Abrahamic religions, we get accounts of real people, real events, and the various spiritual interpretations these people had regarding those events. Some of the details can be difficult to track through history, and there has certainly been some loss of accuracy over the millennia, but they are none the less an attempt to describe history and life, itself.

Now, you have to differentiate between the history, writings, or documents of a religion and the dogma of said religion. Religions are human institutions that have often operated as governments within their own rights. Just as the governments we are familiar with as westerners attempt to control things like the monetary system, religions often aspire to the same and dogma builds as a standard interpretation of readings that become treated as if they are the source reading/text. This leads to systems of control within religions - but they are no more or less present in religion than they are in government. It's just a slightly different operating mechanism.

For example - see the "separation of church and state" debate I'm having in the other thread about the baphamut statue. Schools serve the dogmatic end of law, teaching people what to think the law says rather than actually teaching them what the law says.

Same process.

Anyway - if you want to get down to the spiritual aspects of religions - you ultimately get down to the fundamental concept of purpose.

Not everyone actually faces the question... but life is ultimately optional. No one has to live. It's just something we do, but why?

Now, many people are fine with answering that question from an academic standpoint. It's not a real question to them. You can find them in every corner of the world. They're happy to give an answer that, for them, satisfies the logical question - the 'academic' side of it.

But what about people who have hit a point where they genuinely don't see the point in living? It seems rather silly - we endure a lot of stuff... for... what? To what end? For what cause? Why shouldn't we just punch out when it gets tough to handle or when we're tired of playing the game?

That's when the answer to this question is no longer academic. People who don't find the answer aren't around to give us their opinion. Those who have found the answer often affiliate with some religious set of beliefs. It isn't necessarily that we completely subscribe to a religion and believe the dogma - it is that we relate most closely with the philosophies espoused by that religion or denomination.

Faith is something that is born out of the realization that there is no way to know if you have a correct answer, but requiring an answer to plug into your thinking.

Now - not everyone experiences this. People often have absolutely no reason to seriously confront the option of life, and rarely are required to have an answer in order to survive. Those who don't are perfectly fine to sit back and criticize each other and the various ideas floating around out there.

In a way, however, it's like people who have never stepped off of land criticizing sailors for learning to swim. Once you've been aboard a sinking ship, the people who would have agreed with the land-lubbers about the senselessness of swimming are all dead.

There is a lot of reality about religion.

Piecing together more ancient religions is far more difficult, but there are interestingly similar tales shared amongst them that are an attempt to account for historic events, strange happenings, etc. Even if the stories are exaggerations or flawed in their accuracy - many of the philosophies that stem from those stories are powerful and influential.

Depending upon what, exactly, you believe - some of the accounts are evidence of encounters with beings of advanced technological capability. The similarities of accounts told by geographically isolated peoples is certainly intriguing to that end, not to mention some of the unusual construction arrangements used by ancients that seem to have no structural or aesthetic purpose yet were clearly intentional and according to some plan.

Religions aren't necessarily lies. They may be tainted by human quests for power (and some may be flat-out structured to be used for conquest) - but it's imprudent to write them all off as lies.