blancheunal

It is difficult to see how we can do without religion but certainly we can change our religion to suit a global world in a better fashion.....the Buddhist religion might be the better choice beyween the religions we have presently....but I am not sure

It seems to be a very peaceful one, doesn't it?

This I completely agree with 100%. Religion is the bain of modern times and we would be better off without it.

At last, someone who doesn't misinterpret

The reason you feel this is brought about by the religion you follow.....which is a religion of abrogation....subjugation by force and intolerance of any other religion...brought about by an evil warlord 1400+ years ago...who subverted the religion and set in tablets of stone...his legacy...a legacy of murder and territorial conquest....and the presentation of the IMMUTABLE status of Muhammed as the ONLY true prophet.....none before or after can claim to be the same.....what an affront to ALLAH......that a mere prophet can dictate his own status and have it maintained for eternity.

What a hatred?

I am really disapointed about these comments, because you got it all wrong. If you read the thread completely you'll understand that our topic is not which religion is better. But let's quote from the Holy Bible:

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife - with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads".

Leviticus 20:10;20:11; 20: 13

"Do not allow a sorceress to live."

"Whoever sacrifies to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed."

Exodus 22:18, 22:20

I really feel sorry to make these quotations, because I am not a religious person at all. And I know very well that all religions have been violent at some point in the history and the world would be a better place if there were no religions in my opinion. I know that I am a good person who cannot harm the tiniest creature and I didn't need any religious preachings to teach me this.

Basically what I wanna say is (and was last night) that Pope talked like a politician and not like a religious person and it was a mistake and he endangered the lives of many christians living in the arabic countries:

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Christians in the Middle East are growing uneasy over the widespread Muslim anger at Pope Benedict XVI, saying they increasingly worry about growing divisions between the two faiths.

The region's minority Christian communities generally live in peace with their Muslim neighbors, but their relations are often strained and the uproar over the pope has brought some violence - attacks on at least seven churches in the Palestinian territories over the weekend.

"I wish the Catholic pope had considered the reaction to his remarks," the head of the Egypt's Coptic Orthodox Church, Pope Shenouda III, told journalists Sunday.

"Being enthusiastic about one's religion shouldn't lead to judging other peoples' religions. "Criticizing others' faith breeds enmity and divisions."

He knew that would be the reactions and he showed the world how muslims are outrageous. This is not the way to peace and he should have known that.

It seems this speech is more for an academic audience than people at large and certainly this PAPA is more of the professor type than someone well versed in talking to the common man or the masses. He seemed to be so highbrowed and lofty in this speech (in trying to impress the professors at the university?) than he has simply outmanouvered himself

g.

oh yes

"I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on-- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara-- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian.

The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the three Laws: the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur'an. In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point-- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself-- which, in the context of the issue of faith and reason, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion. It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.

But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels,” he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words:

Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.

God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death....

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: In the beginning was the logos. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts with logos. "

This is a partial quotation. You'll find the complete text at:

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

I sometimes think that humans should be extinct instead of animals this would be far better for the world

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/...?ltl=1158580378

I'm gonna sign all the petitions on the net about this

And this is my cat sleeping right now in my morning gown.

You know how dolphins are happy and make something like a show when ships or boats are near They trust people and look what happens.

Is this your dog Dani ?

http://www.glumbert.com/media/dolphin

Reality sucks big time

oh my god !

Is there a link to a petition or someting to protest this cruelty? I cant stand to see animals suffering.

And I didn't know that people eat dolphins??? Incredible.

Now I can sleep as we settled the matter. It was a pleasure to talk to you, I hope we can soon talk about replicas too, because I wanna buy a datejust so bad

Thanks ryyannon !

Goodnight to you all...

I really can't speak for other forum members, but to be a Muslim you can be any colour or nationality, no?

EDIT: As mentioned earlier, I have not got angry

Yes, of course. But I don't want to be understood as a member of another nation either. For those who don't know: Turks are basically asian, from central asia. Their ancestors were nomads. Some groups settled in central asia (such as hungarians, turkmens, azerbaijan etc. some member states of the former soviet union) and some came to anatolia and thus they were divided into different nations and religions of course.

There are many jewish people who are turkish citizens and I assure you that turks do not hate jewish, on the contrary they are pretty happy to be here

Another young Muslim who was a cashier at work was a horrible person. She was about 16-17 very young, but had an enormous hatred of Jews, an opinion I think installed into here by older relatives.

Terrorists bombed a synagogue here in Turkey and many people died.

I see.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe when you say (not you specifically dont get angry again) "muslim" and "muslim nation" you mean "arabs"???

yes we ALL HATE terrorists.

but I'm still curious about what comes to your mind when you think of a muslim girl, say it sincerely.

Don't get angry. I don't say you are marginalizing muslims as at this very moment you are talking to a muslim girl I am sure you are a very nice person. But, you should live it to understand it. Everytime I go to a foreign country, I feel it. The officers who give the visa, the customs etc. become suspicious as soon as they understand that I am from Turkey, although I am an ordinary tourist. 10 days ago, a friend of mine went to USA and she said how she felt humiliated when the officer interrogated her about the real !!! purpose of her journey. People never believe me when I say I'm Turkish. They try to speak Spanish or Italian to me, because they already have an image of muslim girl in their mind and I dont't fit in. Because I don't have a dark complexion or I'm not wearing a scarf and a long dress.

Don't think that I am tolerant to islamic terror. We suffered it too, al-kaida bombed two HSBC buildings here in Turkey, maybe you know that and people working in those buildings were mostly muslim.

Yes, there are people that are easily manipulated in this way, but these are ignorant ones, people who have nothing but religion to hold on to. You cannot expect them to see things in the way you do. And I think they feel frustrated or offended when europeans marginalize them, and once isolated, they become angry and some of them become dangerous, even terrorists. Pope is not an ordinary person, he should have known this and should have talked considering all that.

Is there is any such thing as a non-violent religion?

All religions have extremists who engage in violence in the name of religion. Whether now or 1000+ years ago.. either in defense of said religion or as part of a "crusade"

It just goes with the turf, I guess!

That's what I mean. Not every muslim is a potential terrorist. I live in a country where 90% of its people is muslim (at least according to statistics) and I personally don't like to be associated in anyway with these bearded men in the above picture.

Answer.... D.....Man

The Muslim Nation is everytime [censored] off..for all and everything was not it is Muslim....

The Pope,catholics, Football...sometimes the Wheater....

The islam if tolerance teaches ..... but the only speak from the Muslims is violence

See for yourself Mickey.

"Muslim Nation"???? What is it? Who are they? You mean Iranians?

Of course it doesn't help, but this event verifies the prejudice against muslims, doesn't it?

I think it's backwards. He made this comment, because he knew exactly what would happen... the reactions etc. I think it's pure provocation.