I want to do it before he does. I'll call my local newspaper to be sure I get some pub.
I want to do it before he does. I'll call my local newspaper to be sure I get some pub.
I've been drawing pictures of Muhammad (sp?) for years now --- come and get me be-otches.
Throw a bible on top of the quran and you can piss of more people. Of course, no will die because you burn a bible.
Friday nite wrote:
I want to do it before he does. I'll call my local newspaper to be sure I get some pub.
That's really exciting.
and those who accept the Quran as truth will burn, too.
What kind of stupid God would hold the belief or disbelief in an a empirical propopsition as the highest moral good? Especially one that is clearly lacking in evidence and clarity.
A)You don't "choose" to believe shit, you are compelled by unconcious factors. You can't imagine that all the people in Saudi Arabia are just idiots and all the people in South Carolina are smart.
B)This "afterlife as theology quiz" shit is just dumb as hell.
You're not the Messiah, you're a very naughty boy!
why don't you burn your underwear.
wellnow wrote:
You're not the Messiah, you're a very naughty boy!
You, sir, owe me a new keyboard.
legally blonde wrote:
why don't you burn your underwear.
I would but I'm going Caribou? Rancho? Dinetab? What's that dang word? GI Joe? Oh yeah, Commando!
No need for books anymore, everything is now digital. Burn away!
I seek you out, and give you 99 lashings. I will throw stones at you and your grave.
Brian wrote:
What kind of stupid God would hold the belief or disbelief in an a empirical propopsition as the highest moral good? Especially one that is clearly lacking in evidence and clarity.
A)You don't "choose" to believe shit, you are compelled by unconcious factors. You can't imagine that all the people in Saudi Arabia are just idiots and all the people in South Carolina are smart.
B)This "afterlife as theology quiz" shit is just dumb as hell.
Actually, I'm pretty sure I chose. Not all my family took that path, I just chose to. I made a conscious decision based on my perception of the world, just like a scientist makes a decision based on his perception of the facts. Facts don't tell you anything until you decide how to read the information they convey. Thanks, though, I'm pretty conscious of my decision!
deez nuts wrote:
No need for books anymore, everything is now digital. Burn away!
Good point. If I delete the Quran will the nuts burn me in effigy?
Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings (Heinrich Heine)
someone else wrote:
Actually, I'm pretty sure I chose. Not all my family took that path, I just chose to. I made a conscious decision based on my perception of the world, just like a scientist makes a decision based on his perception of the facts. Facts don't tell you anything until you decide how to read the information they convey. Thanks, though, I'm pretty conscious of my decision!
I wouldn't call that "choosing." You were simply persuaded by the reasons for religious faith.
Do you "choose" to believe that diseases are caused by things like germs, viruses, and bacteria, as opposed to spells and witchcraft? No, of course not. You are helpless to believe because, upon evaluation, the reasons and evidence for the germ theory of disease are so overwhelmingly convincing to you.
No one "chooses" (or should choose) to believe anything. You evaluate the reasons for a proposition, and you are either persuaded or you're not.
In the case of your faith, you were convinced by the available evidence and you act accordingly. That's not "choosing."
chauncey wrote:
I wouldn't call that "choosing." You were simply persuaded by the reasons for religious faith.
Do you "choose" to believe that diseases are caused by things like germs, viruses, and bacteria, as opposed to spells and witchcraft? No, of course not. You are helpless to believe because, upon evaluation, the reasons and evidence for the germ theory of disease are so overwhelmingly convincing to you.
No one "chooses" (or should choose) to believe anything. You evaluate the reasons for a proposition, and you are either persuaded or you're not.
In the case of your faith, you were convinced by the available evidence and you act accordingly. That's not "choosing."
Interesting perspective.
This could easily lead down that infamous path that goes something like "Nobody ever really chooses anything since this would imply the existence of a free will and be in direct contradiction to the (obviously? true) fact that all matter and energy (including humans) simply abide by the laws of physics all the time. QED".
But, not going down that path for the moment, it strikes me that:
1) People do not generally spend much if any effort deciding the merits of their faith by some seemingly objective analysis of whatever pertinent facts can be gathered.
2) That said, it is not unreasonable to speak of choosing one's faith. Not speaking for previous poster, but one might for instance, look at the world and the teachings of various religions. Then one might decide that a particular religion seems to fit "the facts" a bit better than another. According to you that is not a choice, but more of a revelation. However, based on this "revelation" one may choose to practice a particular faith.
In doing so, one will be constantly exposed to certain teachings/ways of looking at the world and will come to believe in these - if only by uncritical repetition. At that point, one believes in a number of things as a result of a conscious choice to join a particular religious group. Hence, beliefs can result from choices, although perhaps not in the immediate, direct way that some may (ironically) believe.
What do you think?
The problem with the Quran burning protest is that it does nothing, nor is it very original.
If Terry Jones really wanted to do something clever he would have secured a $15,000 NEA grant and put a statuette of Mohammad in a jar of urine and photographed it.
The Koran is very offensive. We should burn it and all other blaspheming books. Let the biology textbooks add their tinder to the fire, for the lies of their authors deserve nothing more.
okay, so I don't like the idea of this Quran burning, though I support their right to do it. I just have a question i've never got satisfactory answer to.
It obviously isn't a Quranic edict to not desecrate the Quran, since the Quran predates written revelation. The Quran was only codified into written word ~ 80-100 years after Muhammad. During Muhammad's life it was recited by rote from memory ("Quran", meaning "A recitation" derives from the verb "Iqra'", which was the imperative Gabriel gave to Muhammad. Literally: "Recite"). You can't burn a recitation, so clearly this respect for the (later) written word is a later guideline. But when? Which Hadith? and, is it binding?