Reply to What exactly is Chechyna'a beef with the USA?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "What exactly is Chechyna'a beef with the USA? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It's obvious that you feel personally threatened by what I have shared, though I gave no personal details whatsoever.

I am merely stating what I have personally experienced as fact. All men of all religions violate the laws of their religions and they do it all the time. Yes, my experience includes Saudi men . They are no different. They are all men, period.

The point is there is no such thing as a lock solid religious action. It is human beings after all who invented religion, and when it suits them , so called devout or not, they set aside.

Men are imperfect and any religious following made up of men will be imperfect and fail to meet its ideal, not just rarely, but most of the time.[/quote]
I got no idea why you feel I'd be threatened by what you shared.  What do I care? The world is full of Arabs, do as many as you like.  My husband have cousins here.  They enjoy the [b]local talent[/b] with abandon. They aren't devout.

In fact, what you say and what I say is in no way in contradiction, and I don't know why you keep picking at it.  Again: devout Muslims do not have girlfriends.  If they do, they aren't devout.  I don't question that men you slept with put their religion aside to have a piece.  All I am saying is that it makes them not devout.

[/quote]

Yes, clearly you resent and are threatened by my point: that no man is[i] always devout [/i] when religion stands in the way of their more base motivations , but rather than debate that point you :

Suggest that I am "the local talent" in other words[i] a prostitute[/i] for the simple fact that I pointed out that plenty of muslims who pray five times a day, who fast, who go to mecca, who give zikat, will also have sex outside of marriage and , given a choice between no sex , and doing something against their religious teachings,  will choose to make an exception for themselves. Not once, not twice, but again and again and again, NOT BECAUSE said woman is " the local talent" , but because, well, they are men and they really , really , really would like to have sex now, please.

No religion can take that out of them, because all religion is, is an aspiration of an ideal.

No religion has a premium on morality, and your suggestion that somehow, while thsoe Shia may make things oh so convenient and easy for themselves, the Sunni belief is "pure" and that there is somewhere a religion for the "pure and devout" is indicative of intolerance, and kinda sickening.

That's the kind of talk that really turns off Americans. Like President Obama says, "its not a competition". In America its considered offensive to say that one religion is "more devout" than another. Its rude. It  offends. It should.

Men are just men, and if they set whatever religious beliefs they have aside either  to beg a woman to have sex with them, or to plant bombs that kill 8 year old children, its not because they belong to a "less devout faith" , but because in the case of killing, they have a lot of hate and rage inside of them, and they gave into it, because they are human, and sometimes that is pretty ugly.

[/quote]
Dude, you take the cake for, I dunno, bedside theorizing and making things up about people you don't know. I'm not Muslim. I have nothing but a shoulder shrug reaction to both Sunni and Shia creeds. I don't know how you take my statement that "Shias have temporary marriage and Sunnis don't" and make it into a manifesto of Sunni purity.  It's just a factual statement.  You also overlooked my comment that the Muslim marriage rules for the men are so lax that they make temporary marriage essentially unnecessary since divorcing a woman in Islam is very easy.

Let's review, again.  Yes, Islam forbids sex with women outside of marriage. Yes, many Muslims will have sex outside of marriage. Yes, that means they are violating tenets of their religion and are by extension, not devout.

I think you are confusing devoutness with goodness.  Complying with all the rules of the religion doesn't make you either pure or dirty.  It just makes you, well, in compliance or out of compliance.  So if you are hung on the word "devout", let's make it easy for you and drop it.  Here - Muslims who have sex outside of marriage are breaking the covenants of their religion and can no longer say that they comply with them all.  Better?

No, you can't say that one religion is more devout than the other. But you can certainly rank followers of a religion on a scale of how closely they follow its teachings. So all things being equal, a Muslim who doesn't have sex outside of marriage is following the rules more closely than the one who does.  See? We managed to not use "devout." Good job.   If you want to debate that no one follows their religion THAT closely, well, whatever - it still doesn't mean that he isn't breaking the rules.

"No religion has a [b]premium[/b] on morality, and your suggestion that somehow, while thsoe Shia may make things oh so convenient and easy for themselves, the Sunni belief is "pure" and that there is somewhere a religion for the "pure and devout" is indicative of intolerance, and kinda sickening.

I think the word you're looking for is "monopoly."  (or "puts a premium", which will still be wrong as they all do, with their own concept of morality.)[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics