Stratovarius Community

http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/February18/1863.html

Hope this does not become a trend! :sick:

One could argue that for thousands of years Christian men could stone their wife to death if she did not "kiss his ass" or was found to be an "imperfect" wife.

One could also say that this man is an exception, and not the rule.

But, keep in mind to be asked for a divorce is the ultimate insult to a Muslim man. Divorce is not that common among people of the Muslim faith.

We should also make a thread for every murderer of every other religion as well!

I once read a story of a woman who shot her husband for hiding the remote.

NeonVomit wrote:We should also make a thread for every murderer of every other religion as well!

Why so protective of Muslims?

Oh, yeah, men kill their wives by beheading them every day of the week.

@Carcass, she probably wanted to watch her soap operas.

Seriously, things like that have happened.

browneyedgirl wrote:

NeonVomit wrote:We should also make a thread for every murderer of every other religion as well!

Why so protective of Muslims?

Oh, yeah, men kill their wives by beheading them every day of the week.

@Carcass, she probably wanted to watch her soap operas.

Seriously, things like that have happened.

I'm not protective of any religion.

I'm just asking why the religion of the person in question is the only reason this story is newsworthy.

Men of widely varying religions kill their wives all over the world, and vice versa, every day of the week.

I just think that all religions are seriously fucked up.

Stealth wrote:I just think that all religions are seriously fucked up.

This is why I am atheist.

Ragehead91 wrote:

Stealth wrote:I just think that all religions are seriously fucked up.

This is why I am atheist.

Because Stealth thinks that all religions are seriously fucked up?

Carcass wrote:

Ragehead91 wrote:

Stealth wrote:I just think that all religions are seriously fucked up.

This is why I am atheist.

Because Stealth thinks that all religions are seriously fucked up?

Olay, maybe not every religion is fucked up, but yeah, I have pretty much the same opinion as he has.

Because Stealth thinks that all religions are seriously fucked up?

That is my reason.

browneyedgirl wrote: Why so protective of Muslims?

His sympathies for these devils are documented rather prodigiously in this forum.

Christian men don't stone their wives- if you'll recall the story of Christ saying to the mob that was about to kill a prostitute, "let him who be without sin cast the first stone."

'Honor' killings on the other hand, happen in every country that the jihadists infiltrate. And it's not just wives that get killed but sisters and daughters as well.

Nihilistic blood cults may be popular in some countries, but over here in the US, honor killings are prosecuted.

miditek wrote:Christian men don't stone their wives- if you'll recall the story of Christ saying to the mob that was about to kill a prostitute, "let him who be without sin cast the first stone."

'Honor' killings on the other hand, happen in every country that the jihadists infiltrate. And it's not just wives that get killed but sisters and daughters as well.

Nihilistic blood cults may be popular in some countries, but over here in the US, honor killings are prosecuted.

Everywhere in the West, honor killings are prosecuted. It's one of those semi-myths in the US that all (or parts) of Europe is adopting Sharia law or something. I have some news -- it will never happen. Europe has hard-core conservatives with immense power. Imagine a few Rush Limbaugh:s who you never even see, with quiet and immense political and financial power comparable to some evil James Bond villains... dug into a trench a thousand years deep. There will never be Sharia on their front lawn.

No matter what Christ said, Christians as a group thru the ages have done things which we now would consider pretty barbaric.

I still maintain that one main difference between the two religions is that "Christianity" (for lack of a better word) has had to coexist with the values and attitudes of Western post-enlightenment. Christianity adapted in a way, and it wasn't always an easy process. Islam will adapt also, and will have to do it even faster -- the alternative is to perish. It won't be easy.

Yes, alot of Muslim men try to control the women in their life with fear, or threats of harm. (Unfortunately, alot of Christian and atheist men do that, too) I don't think, actually, religion has that much to do with whether guys mistreat or control women. It's just what some sonsofbitches do. >shrugs<
I know some religions are still ingrained to treat women pretty much like property, and there are still religions in which guys tell ladies how to dress, what to eat, and there are religions which won't allow women to wear make-up, or cut their hair.
Maybe thats the reason so many women turn away from religion, and personally, I can understand why.

Many abused women have went to their pastor, priest, rabbi, guru, etc. and have heard the same 'ol shit: "Be a good little wife&please him in every way and all will be alright." BULLSHIT!
A guy with a psychological need to control&abuse never changes, and many abusive men use religion as a means to excuse their behavior.
Which is the reason girls need to be taught to be independent, and confident, so if they tragicly wind up in a relationship with some self-centered, mean chump they have the courage to leave the asshole and start a new life.
Thats exactly what the lady in the article did, and she lost her life anyway.
Well, many abused women have said, "better death, than a lifetime of torment at the feet of some sadist."

Carcass wrote:

Ragehead91 wrote:

Stealth wrote:I just think that all religions are seriously fucked up.

This is why I am atheist.

Because Stealth thinks that all religions are seriously fucked up?

JensJohansson wrote:No matter what Christ said, Christians as a group thru the ages have done things which we now would consider pretty barbaric.

I am Christian and believe, but this one, I have to admit, is true... Don't forget, time changed so did this religion - We cannot say nowadays believers are guilty of the deeds people had done in 13th century...

BEG wrote:Many abused women have went to their pastor, priest, rabbi, guru, etc. and have heard the same 'ol shit: "Be a good little wife&please him in every way and all will be alright." BULLSHIT!

That's pretty much the same... Time changed so did the rights of women. Half a century ago, women just had to stay at home, cook and clean. Today, they got a nice job too etc and are equal to men...
But that is in our culture and it seems not every culture has kept up pace with that... unfortunately...

miditek wrote:

browneyedgirl wrote: Why so protective of Muslims?

His sympathies for these devils are documented rather prodigiously in this forum.

Yet another fine example of the stupidity of religious fanaticism.

Talking of religion...What do you think was happening one second before "the big bang"????

Stratowarius wrote: Talking of religion...What do you think was happening one second before "the big bang"????

Let me ask you this: What would Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc., say was happening before Earth was created? How would they say the planets, including Earth, were created?

Stratowarius wrote: Talking of religion...What do you think was happening one second before "the big bang"????

Scientists of the previous universe finally got the LHC working.







Seriously, I don't know, but I'm not going to just make up an explanation for it and call it the Truth.

I try to be respectful of every belief system, whether your a person who believes in god or a person who believes in science, who says that we can't co-exist?

I personally judge a person by their deeds not by what faith they do or do not hold.

There is no such thing as "belief" in science because science is not based on faith.

I think that whatever the answer is, that it is true whether people believe it or not. This creates limits to science vs. the truth or makes us be careful about how we define concepts and thoughts. People can try and prove or disprove this and that, but it won’t change the absolute truth. I don’t think we can gather the data to create a 100 % certainty with 0 margin of error. That why we have agnosticism, and eggnogsticism for holidays

Types of agnosticism

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:

* Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "absolute agnosticism")

—The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a God exists or not, and neither can you."

* Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")

—The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deity is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deity exists or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out."

* Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)

—The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway. [Citation needed]

* Agnostic atheism

—The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any. [9]

* Agnostic theism (also called "religious" or "spiritual agnosticism")

—The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.)

* Ignosticism

—The view that a coherent definition of God must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of God is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.[10][dubious – discuss]

Stratowarius wrote: Talking of religion...What do you think was happening one second before "the big bang"????

I used to read loads of popular science books in my teens and started recently to brush up my memory on these things.

I believe that the answer most scientists would give you is: nothing. The question itself is absurd, that's when it all started. But then on the other hand, all our theories fall apart when we are getting close to the initial condition of the universe.

One can always ask the ultimate question, why do things exist in the first place? This one makes me dizzy. Claiming that God created everything, that He is the prime mover, is just intellectual laziness.

In the words of Fernando Pessoa:

Christmas

A God is born. Others die. The Truth
Neither comes nor goes: only the Error changes.
Now we have another Eternity,
But the previous was always better.

Science: blind, useless spade work.
Faith: crazily living its cult dream.
A new God is only a word,
Don't seek or believe: it is all hidden.

The Finnish translation makes a little more sense... right, off to bed with me.

Stratowarius wrote: Talking of religion...What do you think was happening one second before "the big bang"????

There's always the popular Cyclical Universe(s) theory. You know, the universe expands, then shrinks like a rubber band, collapses on itself and BOOM new Big Bang

and Miditek, I really REALLY hope you were being sarcastic....

Stealth wrote:There is no such thing as "belief" in science because science is not based on faith.

I'll say that science is a religion because it tries to explain the origin of this Universe. It just uses evidence and theories instead of God.

NeverendingAbyss wrote:

Stealth wrote:There is no such thing as "belief" in science because science is not based on faith.

I'll say that science is a religion because it tries to explain the origin of this Universe. It just uses evidence and theories instead of God.

Huh? Science tries to explain the origin of this universe. Most, if not all scientists would tell you that they don't know the ultimate answer to the question of the universe's origin. And that's ok. It's ok to say that there are things we don't know about our universe and the galaxies within it. You have to be humble enough to admit that we don't have definitive answers. Religions cannot cope with the idea of men not knowing something about our universe and our place in it. Saying that God created the universe is a very easy way out.... Saying that God is just eternal and that no one created him is even easier. I think that most religions are a reflection of human arrogance in the sense that many religious people have a need to have an answer for everything. They also need to believe that there is an innate reason for their lives. They cannot live with the idea that life per se is meaningless. For atheists (including myself) this idea is nothing to be depressed about.
Going back to NeverendingAbyss's statement, science is not a religion because it uses empirical data and experiments in order to test theories. Religion is based on blind faith that contradicts the available evidence. To say that science is a religion because it tries to explain the origin of this universe is like saying that religion is an astronomical science for the same reason... I don't see how that statement could work.

stratoplayer wrote:There's always the popular Cyclical Universe(s) theory. You know, the universe expands, then shrinks like a rubber band, collapses on itself and BOOM new Big Bang

This theory is pretty much discarded. It's called something like oscillatory universe, or something...

Recent studies suggest that the universe just keeps on expanding and expanding and all that remains in the in are black holes. Even they are eroded by a thing called Hawking radiation, but extremely slooooowly. It will take an eternity.

Hawking radiation can be aplicable on a lot of things in our sordid world. Sorry to say.

miditek wrote:

browneyedgirl wrote: Why so protective of Muslims?

His sympathies for these devils are documented rather prodigiously in this forum.

Christian men don't stone their wives- if you'll recall the story of Christ saying to the mob that was about to kill a prostitute, "let him who be without sin cast the first stone."

'Honor' killings on the other hand, happen in every country that the jihadists infiltrate. And it's not just wives that get killed but sisters and daughters as well.

Nihilistic blood cults may be popular in some countries, but over here in the US, honor killings are prosecuted.

Because I do not advocate the elimination of all muslims in the world which we all know is what you hope and pray for, that means I sympathise with them as a religion and any atrocities they carry out? Dude, come on. Try actually reading some of my posts sometimes.

If a Christian man kills his wife (and I don't think there's any shortage of that going on) it's hardly news.

And yes, honour killings are prosecuted anywhere in the western world. But since you have no idea what Europe is actually like, it's easy to make assumptions.

Stratowarius wrote: Hawking radiation can be aplicable on a lot of things in our sordid world. Sorry to say.

WTF are you going on about?