MadMax1's Posts
Nairaland Forum / MadMax1's Profile / MadMax1's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 79 pages)
 Literature / Re: A Mean Consensus - A Short Short Story by MadMax1(f): 7:12pm On Sep 23, 2010 |
You've got some rule book I'm obligated to hop to, being a 'Jesus follower?' I find your gap-jumping curious. I don't do things that way. Does that sound snooty? I'll let it. |
| Religion / Re: The Problem With Dreams, Visions And Clairvoyance by MadMax1(f): 6:55pm On Sep 23, 2010 |
Nuc I don't get it. If you're talking about the special effects in nature, natural selection explains it nicely, don't you think? Where's God to be observed therein? I know there's cause and effect in the sense of sowing and reaping; it's a fundamental underpinning of this world, but can they be observed, do you think? |
| Religion / Re: The Problem With Dreams, Visions And Clairvoyance by MadMax1(f): 6:37pm On Sep 23, 2010 |
Nature? Like the wild? Like a garden or something? The sea? Volcanos? Hurricanes? Cyclones? Earthquakes? I don't get it. Do you mean the cycles of things? And why can't one use the, er, 'intellect'? What else is there to use? You're not recommending the pinkie finger, are you?  |
| Fashion / Re: Product Reviews: Stop Wasting Money! Beauty Products That Actually Work by MadMax1(f): 12:48am On Sep 23, 2010 |
AyoB, you can use Olay regenerist AND Olay Quench; the regenerist is sort of a moisturising 'foundation' for the face, you can use your regular moisturiser over it if you wish. You don't have to 'choose' or anything; they do different things and won't interfere with each other. Princessdoja: Meladerm doesn't work for everybody; it's a waste of money for 90% of its users. It works great only for a few. There are much, much, much better alternatives. Is it hyperpigmentation you want it for? Please consider going for something else. It's the ingredients that count, not brand names. If it's hyperpigmentation or scarring from years of acne breakouts, try MaMa Lotion Mandelic and Malic Acid. |
| Religion / Re: The Problem With Dreams, Visions And Clairvoyance by MadMax1(f): 8:05pm On Sep 22, 2010 |
It took some fishing out and some 'leading' jare. Turns out these teachings were expunged from the bible in antiquity. Church priests would teach different classes of people different things, and added doctrines to biblical texts that suited the political power games they were playing, or that incorporated the views of some pope. The shenanigans involving the bible will make anyone cognizant of it almost throw the book away. They allegedly removed all verses and references to reincarnation from the gospels, John's gospel being the most edited. The texts had no name, they were just scrolls; the labelling came later- The Gospel according to this or that, etc. There were no photocopying machines or printers in antiquity so preserving texts meant rewriting the whole thing by hand, which instantly created an original hadnwritten copy. When they date scrolls they've no idea which copy they're dating, since there's nothing to distinguish copies from original; they're all handwritten. They put some of the missing and edited texts and teaching together from the contents of extant letters exchanged in antiquity between church clergy, letters extremely old. There were also other verified sources. There's also praying and learning without reading about them anywhere. These are always confirmed when actual research starts. It's common with everyone who has a relationship with God. He's a living Being, not an abstraction in a holy book and when you pray according to His/Her/IT's will, you get answers. There are shifts in consciousness and perception. You wake up, as if from a slumber you weren't aware you'd been in. It's quite common for people to find themselves capable of things and knowing things; events happening far from you, or events that haven't happened yet. I know people who are vouchsafed future events about places or individuals. It's different things with different people across different religions, but it's very, very common. It's something you must already know, and experience. Some would say it's the voice of their 'Higher Selves' doing all that in them. I don't pretend to know what that means. But I do know life is much more interesting when one allows God and Christ in, than life without God. There's simply no comparison. Why shouldn't you be a guru? A Yogi. Don't you want to? That's the point, isn't it? From what you say, Yoga seems to demand awesome self-discipline, though. Not everyone has that. I certainly don't. Honestly, it sounds fantastically interesting. |
| Religion / Re: The Problem With Dreams, Visions And Clairvoyance by MadMax1(f): 3:48pm On Sep 22, 2010 |
Deep Sight: It would seem so. But it is neither automatic nor compulsory that it be here, this particular world. There are other alternatives. An infinity of them. They may have the experience here, or elsewhere. To that category, return here is a viable option, nothing more. Deep Sight: That's a long stretch. I merely stated what reincarnation is as taught by Christ, and it does NOT say succesive cycles of human rebirths. Far from it. But you say, on AN earth, indicating the multiplicity of God's creation, the countless worlds in this physical universe and other universes that God made, where the experience of exercising free will in relation to other beings may take place. His creation is vast and without number. The test isn't flesh and roads and houses and oceans and sky; it's the choices you make in relation to God and other people; whether Love is what rules you or hate. So an infinity of worlds and realities is suitable for the experience, as long as other spirits are there for your freely made choices to be tested against. They are all the works of God. This universe is merely one of countless physical universes and dimensions. This world, planet earth, is one of an infinite number of worlds spirits take biological life and become dual-natured in. We may go to any one. While there we remember nothing of our past till we leave. It's different from the Buddhist/Hindu reincarnation. The rationale is the same. Hinduism/Buddhism is light years from mainstream Christianity in the sense of having long realised perfection or Christlikeness is a process that takes more than one lifetime. But it believes this world is all there is, the only place all our experiences happen in before we go to God. Not so. The ENTIRE creation of God, worlds upon worlds, realms upon realms, universe upon universe, are the limitless opportunities offered the spirit beings God made in His image. You've been to other places before you came here. Here, in the flesh, that knowledge is veiled from you, for very good reasons. You will remember when you shed the flesh, a clumsy hindrance, and revert back to spirit. The Hindu human rebirth doctrine is like automatically repeating the same class over and over in this world till all your lessons are learned and you are perfected and go to God. According to Christ, it doesn't happen that way. We come here only once, and our choices here determine our fate in eternity. I don't get what you mean by 'firmly inculcating the experience of the earth into his spirit'. We grow in love here, or we grow in hate, and the sum of our choices determines our fate after biological death. A Ghandi comes here, lives and dies. A Ted Bundy or Hitler comes here, lives and dies. Diffeerent things happen in eternity, the effect of the sum of their choices here. It is not a thing to be taken lightly. A child or baby who dies has a return to this world as a likely possibility, because this earthly life- or something similar- MUST happen so important cumulative choices can be made, that determines the fate of that spirit in eternity. When an adult dies, that's it. They do not have return here as a possibility. It would have to be extremely, vanishingly rare. They go on to Christ, and what happens next in eternity is between the two of them. We come here only ONCE. In a sense the verse by the unknow Judaic writer of Hebrews is correct: It is appointed unto men to die once, and after that the judgement. There isn't a Judgement Day. There's no time outside this place, and no 'days'. Your judgement day is the day you die. That's what Christ taught reincarnation as, and so, what I believe. |
| Literature / Re: A Mean Consensus - A Short Short Story by MadMax1(f): 2:53pm On Sep 22, 2010 |
Books are simply a huge accomplishment. It's amazing that you write them. I'm not sure I'd be qualified to make recommendations, though. Don't you need an expert in that particular non-fiction field for that? I merely do a lot of reading; I'm not an expert on books and wouldn't know what to recommend really. Yeah. Adichie is amazing. She won a MacArthur genius grant. I'm not sure but I think she's the first Nigerian to win it. Where on earth is Aletheia? Haven't the faintest idea what novel to read next and he might have excellent titles I haven't read to recommend. Like you and nuc, he's got great taste. Purist: I'm afraid so. A jump from acid acrimony to demanding books is a very large leap, don't you find? The friendly in-between stuff that inclines me to send things or receive them from people is pointedly missing. |
| Religion / Re: The Problem With Dreams, Visions And Clairvoyance by MadMax1(f): 2:15pm On Sep 22, 2010 |
One quick addition. We don't mean the same thing by the word 'reincarnation',MyJoe. I'd mentioned earlier that reincarnation as Christ taught it is NOT the popular idea of it. Christ did NOT teach successive human rebirths. Although it's possible, under unusual circumstances, for a spirit to be born here a second time, in which case he'd have no memory of the other time, we live this life only once. When we die, we're done here. We're eternal spirits made in the image of God. This life isn't the beginning of our existence,nor its end. When we're here we're spirit beings who take on flesh, and by that, a dual nature; body and spirit. Death is merely us shedding the body and reverting back to our natural spirit form. What happens after we die is between that individual and God. Christ did NOT teach the Hindu/Buddhist doctrines of successive cycles of human rebirths and experience. Reincarnation, as He taught it, had nothing to do with repeat human births, nothing to do with this world, everything to do with the idea that each of us comes here only once and the sum of our choices determine our fate after we leave this life. It has everything to do with the fact, which shocked me, that NO ONE attains Christlikeness (perfection to other faiths)in a single lifetime and so we don't automatically go to be with God after we die. It is a continuous and very long process, and spirits are at different stages of it. This biological life on earth is merely a single step in a long road. It is a very important step; it determines what happens when we leave time (the physical universe) and go back to eternity, which is not a long or endless expanse of time, but the complete absence of time. We then move towards God and progress in Christlikeness, or we are repulsed by God and separated from Him (hell). Christ saves us all, Moslem, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu; Jesus is an infinitesimally tiny fraction of who and what Christ is. No one gets to God without Him. But not all men are saved. Which is their own choice. When someone like,say,Ted Bundy dies he leaves his body and reverts to spirit, an evil spirit. He is not attracted to God but repelled and separated from God. Still God loves him.What happens in eternity is between him and God. But at the end of it all, in the very long run, it's not likely every spirit will be saved, ie, reunited with God. Some may be lost. Christ did not teach successive cycles of human rebirths. This life is not a step we repeat. It's part of a long,long road towards God, from whom we are separated. The purpose of our existence is being reunited with God. It is a goal which takes much much much more than this life. This life is merely one of the steps we've been taking in that direction before time began. That's what He taught and what I accept. You seem to have read Yogi Ramarachi more thoroughly than I. I skimmed through until something caught my attention at the middle, and that when I began to pay attention. No idea what his views on the Jewish Messianic expectations were, though I'll check now. The Essenes were an obscure Jewish religious group. Him saying Jesus was an Essene is just elevated idle speculation; nothing whatsoever backs it up. Yogi Ramaracha is a Hindu/Yoga Master. His guru's name was Baba Bharata. Mystic Christianity is a compilation of his teachings on the subject, and the only one on Christianity thus compiled. All his other teachings are in Yoga. Fourteen Lessons in Yogi Philosophy and Oriental Occultism, A Series of Lessons in Gnani Yoga The Yoga of Wisdom, A Series of Lessons in Raja Yoga, etc. Are you perhaps uncomfortable with a Yogi calling Jesus 'Master' and acknowledging him as the Christ? Do you want Yogi Ramarachi to be a Christian or Essene (only Jewish and long extinct, I think)? He was a Hindu/Yoga master that lived over a hundred years ago. A former lawyer converted to Yoga, likely, from conventional religions. Who knows, perhaps by the time you become a Yogi master/teacher your views on Christ would have changed. How do you know there is reincarnation in successive human cycles? I don't know whether it happens or not, only that Christ didn't teach it, and so I don't believe it. Your views on continuous human reincarnation, as a believer, would be interesting. Buddhists believe we're returned, not only as people, but as animals and fish and insects and inanimate ojects like rocks. Nuc, you keep making me laugh. Yeah, I work, but I get to delegate a lot and so get to do pretty much what I like with some of my time. I do a lot of reading. Books are magical things. It takes you into the minds of other people, alive or dead, and you get to know some of their thoughts and the things that were important to them. Someone may have been dead for centuries and yet you get to know him or her from the words they left behind. It's like the cave paintings our ancestors made, when they decorate walls with imprints of their palms and feet, as if to say, 'I was here. I was alive.' And those paintings, countless thousands of years old, are still there till this day, while they are long gone. Books do something similar, and I love them. If I'm online I'm probably doing online research, and often log in here at the same time. Your selecting Ayn Rand's books told me you're into heavy reading. But there are millions of books and we've merely read different things, nothing more. |
| Religion / Re: The Problem With Dreams, Visions And Clairvoyance by MadMax1(f): 7:14pm On Sep 21, 2010 |
Yoga sounds far more complicated than Krishna and Arjun's conversation in Chap VI of the BG. 'Slayer of Madhu', 'Hero long armed', 'Son of Pritha'. They discuss the yogi, but it isn't as detailed as above. It's a very brief chapter. It sounds really complicated. A sentence there cracked me up, where you describe the qualities of the supreme seeker, Sadhaka: who is learned in the scriptures and interested in spiritual matters, ebullient, intelligent, good-looking, studious, sound in mind, resolute, selfless, skillful, generous, keeping young, gentle, worshipful of his guru, and fearless. The 'good looking' part that made me laugh. If you're not a looker you can't be a Sadhaka? Lol at entrepreneurs who retail yoga. Seriously though, Buddhists believe the state they call enlightenment isn't reached in one lifetime. But there is something called a 'Short Path', a dangerous state of affairs where some rare individuals may do just that. Does the equivalent doctrine exist in Yoga? Yoga is a subset of Hinduism then, and derives from it? Can you explain more about it please? What are its tenets? What is the 'cosmic breath'? How do you know when you have reached the last stage of Yoga? 'There is now no duality between the knower (the Sadhaka) and the known (God) because the two are merged into one.' What does that mean? Nuclear. |
| Literature / Re: A Mean Consensus - A Short Short Story by MadMax1(f): 4:43pm On Sep 18, 2010 |
MyJoe: Is it fiction or non-fiction? It must involve a great deal of work! If you don't like SF how will you 'get' 2001 or The Gods Themselves? Asimov created an alternate universe par excellence in the second and best segment of the book. Please don't read them if you don't like the genre. Good grief. You should check out Half of a Yellow Sun. Adichie is supremely gifted. There is no way she will not win a Nobel prize if she keeps that up. Best novel I've read from an African author in ages, apart from Ben Okri's The Famished Road. She's possibly the best African novelist I've come across yet. Better, even, than Chinua Achebe. That's saying a lot. The novel is already a modern literary classic. |
| Religion / Re: The Problem With Dreams, Visions And Clairvoyance by MadMax1(f): 4:20pm On Sep 18, 2010 |
Point taken. Lol, well, truth is far, far, far stranger than fiction. The famous scientist JSB Haldane said, 'The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose.' 'Mummy'? He-he. Just inching towards my mid-thirties nuc. I'm not geriatric yet. Enjoy the weekend. |
| Religion / Re: The Problem With Dreams, Visions And Clairvoyance by MadMax1(f): 2:59pm On Sep 18, 2010 |
MyJoe: Thank you for sending it. Hmm. Sex does have 'dirty' and 'impure' associations in some religious circles. I know fundamentalists who consider it a 'spiritual weakness' they occasionally succumb to for the mechanical begetting of children. Some sweaty biological drive like lust may have been considered an impure and 'unholy' method for the Son of God to be conceived. Instead, Mary was 'impregnated by the Holy Spirit'. I did not think of that. It makes a lot of sense. The Jews were expecting a martial messiah, a political ruler who would drive their oppressors away with a great slaughter. They hadn't had it easy since the Assyrians conquered them and many went into slavery and exile. It was the usual Jewish ethnic perspective on things, as if the world and all existence revolved around them and whatever they wanted. It was a childish wanting to get their own back, hit back at those who had hurt them. 'Just you wait till our Messiah comes. He'll deal with y'all.' They were not expecting a spiritual Messiah, whose mission was all about emancipating the spirit beings they were, with zero interest in local human politics. In fact, that they knew his birth parents counted against him with the Jews. In the gospels the Jews told Him, 'We know your parents. When the Messiah comes he'll come out of nowhere.' They had vague ideas on some supernatural entity that would appear from nowhere and lead them into war against their oppressors, and take the throne of Israel. They were after all, the 'Chosen Race'. Against that ethnocentric fantasy, reality can have no hold and would clash unpleasantly with it. Only Matthew's gospel mentions the Virgin Birth. Luke is a derivative account, which the writer compiled from several sources. The other gospels say nothing about it. Even more odd, Jesus does not mention it once. Curious. Yes. Your explanation makes a lot of sense. nuclearboy: If you don't know the source, how do you know they are carrying the message they're supposed to carry? Isn't there something sneaky about labelling something 1st and 2nd Peter, knowing full well Peter didn't write them? Doesn't that action in and of itself negate the message in it? I know people do a lot of things from sincere fervour and zeal. But lines have to be drawn somewhere. The source matters to me. I read the bible as merely the opinions of people I don't know. Some people witnessed a divine event and told others and wrote about it. I think the essentials of the gospels is true, and I believe it, for reasons of my own. For instance, if Jesus were actually the Son of God, his perspective would not be human, and he would be untouched by the social and cultural biases of his times. For instance, he would not be a sexist or a chauvinist or discriminate against women in any way, because of his own divine perspective, and his knowledge, which other men would not share. I scrutinized the gospels. It was EXACTLY so. In one instance he was talking to a Samaritan woman and his disciples, who'd gone to get food, returned and were astonished to find him talking to a woman. They didn't comment, but they were astonished. Men simply did not do that. Go through the gospels and pay attention how Christ treated women. It's revealing. I understand and agree with your view to a large extent. If a thing is true, the source doesn't matter. But if the source cannot be trusted, how can the truth be accepted then? Truth is crucial. Everything should be transparent and clear. The shenanigans and pious lies concerning biblical content in antiquity is too much, and very off-putting. On demons, you're a Christian. You know there is spiritual darkness in 'high places', you know there are adversaries. We don't know much about them. But they're not our problem. We're a 100% responsible for our actions. They are restrained. You really must get some idea of how powerful God is. We don't know what God is; no man has seen Him. It is utterly beyond us. In the flesh, we remember nothing. Against Him, all opposition is a crude joke of sorts. There are far more angels in the world than human beings at any point in time. They freely take human form, if and when they have to. They are so powerful you'd think it was God if you encountered one in its natural glory, and fall to your knees in worship before you can help yourself. In the bible, notice how many times someone would encounter an angel and start to worship, only for the being to tell them to stop that; that it's just a messenger? Some angels are so poweful, a great one can be in charge of an entire universe, just like a less powerful one can oversee a town or a village or an individual. And those are just willing spirits who serve God out of love. God ITself is not a thing a sane creature opposes.God is so powerful the word 'powerful' loses all meaning. We really are safe here. From everything except ourselves. Whatever hold demons, devils or whatever have in our lives is up to us. They can do nothing to us or through us without our consent and cooperation. They cannot override our free will. Whatever we choose, we choose. You're absolutely right. We just want other things to blame. |
| Religion / Re: The Problem With Dreams, Visions And Clairvoyance by MadMax1(f): 3:18pm On Sep 17, 2010 |
Absolutely fascinating. Can you email it now please? Use the email addy you have. It'll get to me. The Grail Message is merely the reworking of old ideas in ancient Gnosticism. Perhaps especially from Manichaesm ( Prophet Mani). The originals of Mani's writings, which is 1900 years old, is kept in Germany. The author of the Grail Message,Oskar Ernst Bernhardt, is German, an amusing coincidence. He wrote under a pseudonym, abdurashin. It's a compilation of his lectures in the early twentieth century. It's a reworking of old religious ideas with his personal biases and prejudices, inclusive of the quaint sexism and parochialism of the 19th century Germany he grew up in. In one funny passage he declares home and hearth a woman's divinely ordained place, and says it's a tragedy for women to bob their hair or be active in sports. It stems from the culture of ideal womanhood of antiquity, where women are seen as pure things and therefore, purer receptacles of the spiritual than men. Since, you know, spiritual things hastily check ge.n.itals first before its effects are observed.Everything in the Grail Message is from ancient Gnosticism, mixed with other ideas from here and there, like Buddhism. The original sources are better. I can't type texts from harcover Gnostic writing, so you'll forgive me if I refer you to a wikipedia article on Gnosticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism All the tenets and even terminology of Gnosticm is borrowed in the Grail Message, from 'error' to 'emanations' to the ideas themselves. To his credit, the author doesn't credit himself as the source of his ideas. Leave that to his followers. I hear Grailers believe Bernhardt to be the Holy Spirit Jesus promised his disciples would come to lead them into truth. He must have missed his flight by almost two thousand years. Never mind the Bible clearly showed that promise was fulfilled, and continues to be. I don't credit that rumour though. Bernhardt's views are interesting but unfortunately I'd read extensively on many religious texts and saw little originality in it. They're old ideas wrapped around his personal religious opinions, many of which aren't his either. Grail Messagers are sure they have found the zenith and spring of truth itself, and few of them ever read anything else beyond that. Even if the ideas aren't original there's no way for them to know it. But if a thing is true, the source, plagiarised or original, hardly matters. It'll stay true all the same. There's nothing new in religion, and certainly not in the 20th century. It has all been said before. Can you please explain more about Yoga? Who's to say you won't get revelations? I fully expect you will. Lol at the meat thing and the corpses of killed animals. It's all about the sales pitch. I was stricken when a course involving fish was denounced as a 'cruel meal.' Those things are alive. But life and death is the way of this world jere. Cruelty to animals is one thing. Food is another. I hate cruelty to animals though. Even more than cruelty to adult humans. A human can strike back, an animal cannot. The most unspeakable cruelty for me is that to a child. I can't think on it and think straight. I deeply value human life, and I believe I can't ever rob another of it. But when I think about the horrors some terrible human beings subject children to, I know beyond a shadow of doubt I can kill a person. I was reading about a guy who kidnapped a two year old, despoiled, and tortured her to death. Imagine what the last hours of that child's life must have been like. Horrendous cruelty to a helpless creature that can not comprehend the evil you are doing to it even while you're killing her. My God. No doubt I still have a lot of spiritual growing up to do. Because there might be no suffering or pain, but if I catch someone at that sort of thing, I will kill that person. I share your confusion about the demon thing. I know there are 'powers and principalities' that are not of God, but we're shielded from them. I don't think Hitler and the rest are possessed by demons. They're just very sick people who don't think they're ill, who had the means to carry out their twisted fantasies and 'visions'. It's usually ideology run amok. With Hitler, he elevated the romanticism of the German 'volk' and rolled out his own twisted ideas on social Darwinism, that some races and classes of people are inherently, genetically inferior to others and must be eliminated before they contaminated the purity of the gene pool. It wasn't just Jews. It was gypsies and gays and the mentally feeble and the crippled,etc. I don't think demons are allowed in our decision-making process. Otherwise, how can we be then be judged for actions that are not our own? It's hard to wrap the mind around but Hitler is Hitler and Stalin is Stalin and Bundy is Bundy and they are simply that evil. If a policeman that can shoot another human being gets to head a totalitarian regime, do you expect mercy and humanity? It'll be terror and a nightmare existence for those citizens. It's what happened with Idi Amin, where a merciless human being had power. There are some really terrible people and you don't want them near where they may control your fate. It happens everyday, in every corner of the world; someone is killing somone or doiing some other 'small' evil because they can only access the small scale. When those people get large scale access, they wreak terror on a grand scale. They're not possessed. That's too easy a cop-out. They're just not very nice human beings. I don't understand demonic possession, but it was clearly depicted in the gospels. In every single instance, the possessed was not harming other people or doing evil. The possessed was severely physically afflicted by that possession, in need of healing. The possessed was the one being harmed, not other people. From the gospels, demonic possession was an affliction that could be physically observed, and which physically or mentally incapacitated the possesssed in some way. People who do evil are not possessed then. They just choose to do the things they do. They rationalise, like we all do. To them, their actions are not evil. To them their actions make perfect sense. Observe how some of them conscript countless thousands to do their bidding, because those rationalisations were 'rational' to others too. Was an entire country 'possessed' in Nazi Germany? Of course not. To the Nazis, Hitler made perfect sense. |
| Religion / Re: How Joagbaje Became God by MadMax1(f): 1:28pm On Sep 17, 2010 |
Jesoul=topic=512364.msg6761673#msg6761673 date=1284593036: |
| Fashion / Re: Product Reviews: Stop Wasting Money! Beauty Products That Actually Work by MadMax1(f): 9:09pm On Sep 16, 2010 |
b4 and after pictures? lol. OK nanidee. Iranoladun, Browncocos might know. Any decent cosmetics store in Lagos should store sunscreen. They're not hard to find. If you've a regular beauty store, ask the owner to buy them. Sometimes they don't buy stuff cos no one asked for them. I use SPF 85. Usually the higher the spf the thicker and greasier the sunscreen. Not so with Netrogena Helioplex range. Don't know how they did it. If you're light-skinned, spf 30 might not be enough for the tropics. The Morroccan oil; no idea where they can be got in Lagos. There should be alternatives just as good. Name brands really don't count, as long as they have the quality ingredients you need for your skin and hair. |
| Religion / Re: How Joagbaje Became God by MadMax1(f): 9:03pm On Sep 15, 2010 |
Love you too JS. Who wouldn't? You're so random. |
| Religion / Re: How Joagbaje Became God by MadMax1(f): 7:03pm On Sep 15, 2010 |
Lol, I'd forgotten I ever 'yabbed' Deepie. I like Deep Sight, Enigma, and I respect MyJoe a lot. I admit I used to tease DS mercilessly until I understood him better. Maybe you're at that stage now. Deep Sight is all right. He has his good and bad points, just like you, just like everyone else. That's something obvious, isn't it? Yes, it is. Look at our Deepie over there going, 'just address the question'. How can anyone be mad at something like that? Come now. |
| Religion / Re: The Problem With Dreams, Visions And Clairvoyance by MadMax1(f): 5:56pm On Sep 15, 2010 |
So I enjoyed the thoughts of the author on The Original Teachings of Jesus, but didn't take a revelatory approach to it. But sometimes what is true is a synthesis of the right time, and whether you are ready for it. Reincarnation is true, though not in the usual accepted sense of some linear human progression. I'd come across the idea all my life and positively hated it as a Christian, because I had a distrust of all things outside my circle of comfort, and religious conditioning made certain that my mental comfort was what was paramount, not the truth. It was only this year that I knew beyond doubt that it was true, and was shocked. I was even more astonished at how it worked, how interconnected all things are, how prayer works as a thing that is tied to the previous choices we've made, to how we've used our free will, and its effect on the large scheme of things and on other people. It's no surprise that a vast majority of prayer is self-centred and doesn't happen. Even when they're not, many do not get answered because the door hasn't been opened by prevous choices, or the door has been closed by previous things we've done. Or it is simply not in line with the complicated web that connects you and your choices with other people and the choices they've made. Many prayers don't get answered because it will result in harm to you or someone else, in the long run, when getting what you want sets off a chain of events that would never have happened if you never got what you prayed for in the first place. And sometimes prayer that would result in harm gets an answer, even if it will result in harm, because of the intensity of the desire for it. It seems to be an automated thing, ground into how things operate here. Seeing things you ask for may have less to do with God than you think, and more to do with you yourself, your choices, your thoughts and desires, cause and effect. Prayer isn't merely the things we verbally ask for. It's our desires as well. So we may desire a thing, good or evil, and not ask, and that desire alone sets off a chain of events that would 'fetch' that thing. It doesn't have much to do with religion; just that individual; Christian, Moslem, atheist, animist, whatever. This world seems to be made of some sort of 'yielding' fabric, and anything is truly possible. I don't think we've been allowed to discover just what we're fully capable of. Because of the selfishness and evil inherent in man. I don't know about devils and demons. The writer mentioned it happens in Russian Orthodix churches, during exorcism, when strange effects are observed, with male voices coming out of women, etc. The movie, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, is based on actual events, according to the movie. A young girl is tormented by demons, some of whom identify themselves. While the girl suffers horribly, an apparation of the 'Virgin Mary' appears to her and tells her she is tormented like that for the 'glory of God' or some otrher self-serving bull. God doesn't need to prove a thing to men, and He does not. If I had to point at a demon it would be the recurring apparitions of this so-called Virgin Mary. Mary in actuality was an ordinary human being. The apparitions didn't begin until she, long dead, was elevated by a pope to the status of Mother of God, and catholics began to pray to her. I may be wrong, but something seems to be masquerading as her. I read of its activities from the middle ages to the present. People themselves have either unwittingly concocted this creature and given it life, or it is a 'demon', in the commonly accepted sense. I don't know much about it. But I do know there are creatures made of things other than flesh. And that, as human beings are either turned towards God or away from God, so are they. I do know human beings are shielded from their activities. If they actually possess people, it's possible the means was provided through that person, or for that person. I really don't know. The immaculate conception thing. I don't believe for a second in a virgin birth. To serve what purpose? I think it's needless mystification, probably on the parts of Church fathers in antiquity. I think only 1 or 2 gospel writers mention a virgin birth. I think they may be additions. Recall that in John the Jews didn't want to listen to Jesus, because they knew his origins. Isn't that the son of so and so? Familiarity had bred contempt. Perhaps the church fathers thought Jesus as the Son of God would be a hard sell if people knew his birth father. That mystification would produce a personage 'worthy' of worship, make acceptance easier on the part of faithfuls. It's easier, in the spirit of religion, to say, 'Here is Jesus. He is the son of God. His birth, (as befits their own ideas on such things) was miraculous, it came of a virgin'. And people would go, 'OOh, he must surely be the son of God then'. But if they were to say, Jesus the son of so and so, born the ordinary way, is the son of God, the awe, they imagine, might not be so pronounced. Converts might be harder to win. But it wasn't the flesh of Christ that was the Son. It was his Spirit. The spirit being that he was and that took flesh, and was born. Just as we are spirit beings that are born, and inhabit flesh. A virgin birth contravenes the natural laws here, and God didn't put laws in place so He could flout them. They are respected. So I think, though I'm not sure and may be wrong, that Jesus had a natural father, and was born like anybody else. It's likely because God is His Father, and in the light of that, some overzealous people might have felt it's more tasteful if the natural father were made to vanish, so as to mystify a perfectly natural process. The only way people come here is through birth. No child is constituted of the genes and egg of the female alone. Without the male,conception will not happen. But all that is just conjecture on my part. It's possible that natural laws were contravened, that there was a virgin birth,as the much-added-to bible says. Anything is possible with God. Who is to say He may not decree a Virgin Birth for Christ? No one can speak for Him/IT/She/They. I merely doubt it. It's unnecessary. Jesus himself never once said he was born of a virgin. He is a Spirit in a body, because he needed a human body to interact here, nothing more. A virgin birth is completely meaningless, and subracts NOTHING from who He is: the Son of God. The son of a God is a Spirit being, just like God is a Spirit being. The flesh has no meaning. Once his work was done, he discarded it. Christ saying He is the 'Son' of God is just to describe a relationship that is beyond our understanding in terms we human beings would understand. He is not literally the Son of God; that's just a human concept, a way for Him to describe something non-human in human terms and symbols. He is something closer and better and grander and infinitely more complicated in relation to God, than a 'Son'. It is beyond us, but we accept the far simpler symbol He used for our benefit: Father and Son. What are your thoughts on the Immaculate Conception? And demons and devils? Have you read the attached Mystic Christianity? What did you think of it? You said 'we' when talking about Yoga, as if it's something you belong to. What other systems of belief do you subscribe to, apart from deism? Please do share your thoughts on these things as well. |
| Religion / Re: The Problem With Dreams, Visions And Clairvoyance by MadMax1(f): 5:53pm On Sep 15, 2010 |
The saved by blood thing is a truly odd doctrine. It takes conditioning to accept it without questioning its source. 'Bible is infallible' neatly takes care of that. There's also the amusing thing Christians do, where they clutch inside in fright at anything that deviates from standard fare, believing it to be demonic doctrines set to trap them and kick them off the road to salvation and righteousness. It seems rather simple. A thing is either true or false. What one believes is a thing completely apart from that. You may devoutly, gigiantically believe a thing all your life, for instance, that caucasians are intellectually superior to negroes, and die believing it. But your belief doesn't make it true. What's true and what's false operates in a calm zone outside the realm of the chaos that is 'belief'. I have to confess I did believe the blood and sacrifice thing in my indoctrinated phase. If you didn't, what else was there to believe, and still call yourself a Christian? So a God sends his son to take human flesh, so he may be sacrificed, so his own anger may be appeased, so the sins of humanity causing his fit of fury may be washed away in sacrificial blood. It's clear Paul is writing from his Pharisaic background, the themes of sacrifice and burnt offerings are very big with ancient Jews, wih Judaism. From the Genesis to Malachi, almost every OT book features animal sacrifice to take away sin,and even Christ is called the 'lamb' whose blood takes away the sin of the world in revelations. John, or the writer of Revelations, comes from that background as well. But you must remember that we will likely never know what the original documents and gospels contained, and those texts have had a long journey of additions and subtractions. It's interesting that modern Jews, even devoted Judaists, are no longer offering 'God' burnt offering, or sin offerings. But since they're not Christians and don't subscribe to the Jesus as the ultimate blood sacrifice to appease God doctrine, why did did they do away with burnt offerings and other offerings, though it's in the OT, the foundation of Judaim? Though it's prescribed by 'God' to Moses, assorted animal offerings for assorted sins? The Jews have stopped sacrifices. The Christians haven't. But much in the NT is suspect. There are books attributed to people who almost certainly did not write them. Like 1st and 2nd Peter,etc. Honestly, I sometimes long for easy belief. The incredible luxury of believing the bible or koran 'the infallble word of God' and accepting everything in it as from 'God', and rationalizing the evil the Jews did in the OT. all the murder and ethnic cleansing to rob others of their land and peoperty, as 'God-sent holy duty.' So easy. It would make one's life so simple. I remember how it used to be, how simple and clear it all was. I have to confess. too, that I know very little about a lot of these things. One wants to know what is true, not what validates my preconceived religious ideas, or what makes me feel warm and cozy inside because it's pleasant, or what's 'true' on the strength of many people believing it. An entire continent of millions and milllions believed themselves superior to the negro, the 'darkies', and since people who believed the same thing were all over the place, it re-enfoced the belief, validated it, and made it seem even truer still. However little I know, I have learned that 'true' and 'I believe this' are two entirely separate things. However unpleasant the truth, I'll take it over the popular view, over belonging to any religious club or 'in-group' who can make each other glow because they 'believe' the same things, anyday. On the other hand, since since we've been raised on a religious diet of the infallibility of religious books, be it the koran or the bible, it can hardly be any other way, and people who behave a certain way because of 'belief' can hardly be blamed. I was completely charmed when Oladeegbu, who has no shred of doubt in his mind I'm full of demonic heresies and hell-bound, was preaching to me, trying to convert and 'save' me. It was adorable. One thing. I do NOT think Christ came to earth merely to 'teach' or some such thing. I think that's nonsensical. There was something He came to do, something only He could accomplish, or which only He volunteered for. And it did have everything to do with the salvation of mankind, who are completely lost. All mankind, not a select few who believe themselves the 'chosen' because they were born into a particular religion, who think all others are bound for hell, who must be careful lest they 'lose' their salvation. It's amazing how many of these doctrines have little ground in the teaching of Christ himself, how many are man-made in antiquity, how many unscrupulous people hide under the gown of piety to wreak havoc, and how many people changed biblical texts to reflect their own personal (and quite sincere) views on many issues. Christ really is above religion. In a way, salvation is through Christ. In a way, it is also entirely up to the individual. The compassion and love of Christ is beyond all hopes of description. I still don't fully understand what went on, but I pray and hope to. But the blood thing is just the writer's judaism at work. Christ was preaching salvation in the gospels, telling people how they may be saved, and he was very much alive. He did NOT once say,'Wait till I die, avail yourself of my blood, and you will be saved.' John the Baptist was preaching salvation, and Christ was there, alive. But much in Christian doctrine rests on the writings and opinions of Paul. Whatever salvation is, it seems to have nothing to do with the death of Christ, or his blood, or his manner of death; the cross. If he'd been electrocuted or a train ran over him, he'd be just as dead. Crucifixion is an unimaginably agonising manner of execution, a favourite method of the Romans. The slave Spartacus, who led a slave revolt and was defeated, was crucified by the Romans. That didn't mean Spartacus was savior because he was crucified. Or that death and sacrifice must go with cleansing of sin. That's OT Judaism. Untold billions have lived and died before Christ came. But I do believe His death is important, only it's not what salvation is hinged on. It is part of what he came to do. He came, knowing beforehand what would happen to him, that he would be mercilessly tortured and killed,. That is self-sacrifice. In John He says he gave his life for his sheep. Perhaps that was what was He meant; knowing it was under a penalty of death, he came to show his sheep the way anyway. It is in what constitutes 'sheep' that Christians turn presumptious, deeming the sheep themselves alone. Christ is above religion. God is above religion. ALL religions are of human manufacture. But beyond having foreknowledge of his death, which He clearly does, that death is important in some way. It would have been absurdly easy for him to escape it, if he chose. I think He died because He chose to die, it ties in in some way with what he came to do here. The author of Mystic Christianity has very interesting theories on the subject. For myself, I don't know. But His life and death here accomplished something. Something very important. It has given Him a unique position in relation to us. It earned Him unspeakable power. He paid a price for something, for our sake, and accomplished it. I read holy books of diverse religions, but I rarely read individual books on religion, because I don't want to be told what to think. No one has any special hotline to the truth, and I prefer to look in my own way, at my own pace. This year I read the Storm book, some CS Lewis, the Mystic Christianity I attached, and the one you attached. It's easy to get confused and lost in a babel of religious opinionating. I can read religious opinions, but I take ALL religious books as just that, the writer's opinion or POV. Sometimes when I read a thing, I get a corresponding echo within. With Mystic Christianity, I rolled my eyes through most of the book, at things I disagreed with, and they were a LOT. But some things in it were astonishingly true, especiallly towards the end, and some things were new to me. I take it this book had much the same effect on you. To be honest I have come across quite a lot of the things he says. There are few original ideas in religion, and there's a tendency to think the place that we come across a thing for the first time is the genuine source of that idea. The Grail Message and its adherents are textbook cases of that sort of thing. I don't expect original ideas in a book on religion, just the writer's thoughts on existing ideas, and hopefully a facility to make one see old things in a refreshingly new way. |
| Religion / Re: The Problem With Dreams, Visions And Clairvoyance by MadMax1(f): 1:44am On Sep 14, 2010 |
MyJoe, I began the Original Teachings of Jesus a couple of hours ago and just finished it. It's a short read. It is, of course, the point of the view of the author on the subject; everything is merely his own opinion. But then that's what all books and theses on religion are; opinion. It's all shifting points of view. Chakra is a Japanese word for a sort of energy store in the human body. I know because I watched a lot of Naruto, the number one at surprising people ninja, lol. And read much on the Japanese, whose ancient culture I find fascinating. The concept of 'wa', harmony, survives till this day. I don't know what the author means when he uses 'chakra' here. He quotes from the gnostic gospels as easily as from the conventional ones. Is he Hindu? He incorporates some Hindu tenets; his description of creation in cycles in all Hinduism. He says Paul hadn't had time to 'develop' and struggled with his old nature a lot, and should be forgiven for his messier teachings, however contrary they may be. I agree there was struggle. Struggle with our baser motives is human and understandable. It will end only when we die. It would've been great if Paul had simply stuck to that and acknowledged himself a mere mortal, instead of the direct 'channel' through whom 'God' spoke and sent forth 'commands'. All his writing is merely his personal opinions on a variety of subjects. But he wanted them to be taken as something more. I enjoyed the brief history of Christianity, and the author's definitions of Christianity, one being the attitudes of a particular epoch. While there's a lot that isn't new, it's an interesting read. Thank you for the material. |
| Literature / Re: A Mean Consensus - A Short Short Story by MadMax1(f): 8:38pm On Sep 13, 2010 |
MyJoe, have you by any chance read Half of a Yellow Sun by Chimmamanda Adichie? What did you think of The Gods Themselves by Asimov? Parnassus, where are you, purgatory? No one, no one, no one reads Immanuel Kant for fun. |
| Religion / Re: The Burning Of Quran Issue by MadMax1(f): 8:26pm On Sep 13, 2010 |
OLAADEGBU: There are peaceful Moslems who object to killing 'infidels'. They're just not as many as one would think. There are different kinds of Moslems and Islams. Depends on geography. The Moslem from Southern Nigeria tend to have a regard for life, tend to be peaceful, and tend to be a different kind of Moslem from his counterpart in Saudi Arabia or Kano, just as a British born Moslem generally tend to differ from Moslems in Morroco or Bangladesh. Someone remarked that Northern Nigerian Moslems, poster children for stone age moronism, don't consider their Southern counterparts 'true' Moslem, perhaps because those ones don't get their hands bloody. The peaceful Moslem would wonder why the world detests Islam so. Unfortunately, the fundamentalist extremists are re-writing how Islam is defined and perceived by the world, and many in the Moslem world silently support them. They seem chronically incapable of self-correction. To give them their due you should learn what Islam was over a thousand years back. It stirs the blood. It was a religion to admire. But to have a religion that is more backward and barbarous in the 21st century than it was in the 10th, that is the lowest a religion can get. |
| Religion / Re: The Burning Of Quran Issue by MadMax1(f): 5:25am On Sep 13, 2010 |
bashy_demy: I don't speak for Christianity, as the word 'I' would have suggested to anyone else. And Christianity isn't the topic under discussion, Islam is and its barbarousness is. Unless my post is directed at you, I suggest you point your responses to the OP. |
| Fashion / Re: Product Reviews: Stop Wasting Money! Beauty Products That Actually Work by MadMax1(f): 8:46pm On Sep 12, 2010 |
Oh my. I haven't been in here in ages. So sorry. teetee2 dear, have you gotten that sunscreen yet? Since you're light-skinned you can't do without. Use it for a few weeks, and you'll see it's really all you need not to darken from exposure to sunlight. SPF50 minimum. Neutrogena. Use any moisturiser you like under it. You'll be as pale as anything in weeks.I'm sure jovi must've had the hair done and probably another after that. Brownbaby, I use the Morroccan Oil reviewed in the first few pages. Got it cos of the scent, for mosturising and conditioning. Scent comes first for me with hair products. I can use Philosophy on skin and smell like a dead raccoon, but hair must smell great jere. nanidee why do you want obagi?Obagi uses a higher than usual concentration of hydroquinone;from 4% upwards. That's why some of their products require a prescription. It's just jazzed up, old-fashioned hydroquinone you're shelling out for with obagi. |
| Religion / Re: The Burning Of Quran Issue by MadMax1(f): 8:21pm On Sep 12, 2010 |
You make it hard for me to take you seriously,nopuqueter. Why you imagine any post I make on Islam is meant for you is beyond me. I don't consider the Bible the word of God any more than I consider your Koran the word of God. The gospels have a troubled history, surely. They're men trying to give an accurate report of something very important. I believe the gist of what they had to say, especially the gospel of John. And my belief doesn't threaten anyone; nowhere in the NT am I instructed to go and kill people who don't agree with my religious views. Christianity is based on the NT. I think the mental states of the writers are okay, given there are no injunctions to murder people who don't believe as I do. Only a rabid lunatic would instruct others to kill and say it is their duty to God or Allah or whatever. We don't even know what 'God' is; whether it's a he/she/it/they; so how can anyone claim to speak for that entity, and tell you to go kill in the name of that entity? It takes a lunatic to issue such a thing, and it takes lunatics to obey. The OT has nothing to do with Christianity. That's the basis for Judaism, a diferent religion. But if you insist the OT equals Christianity then Moslems are Christians as well, since so much of the OT is in your Koran. Moses is not my problem. You don't see Christians killing people because of anything Moses did, so what's it to do with anything? We are not discussing the bible, or Moses, or the NT.We are not discussing what happened a hundred years ago, it is completely irrelevant. It's the 21st century and we're talking about Islam, and the barbarous, ludicrous, retrogressive, murderous religion it has become. There is no way to understate how uninterested I am in a 'my religion is better than yours' debate. That's not the issue here. But a chronic inability to face issues is one of the problems of Islam, no? Address yourself to the issues raised and stop running to the OT and other irrelevancies not under discussion to 'prove' only you know what. Those Moslems who kill innocent people in the North, did they tell you they did it because of Queen Isabella? Isn't it because of what the Koran says? If Isabella killed Moslems centuries ago, that somehow makes whatever Moslems do NOW all right? So I can go out now and kill any caucasian I see and say, 'They lynched blacks until recently,' because to your mind two wrongs, however little bearing they have on each other, somehow makes a right? The idea of Moslems not broadcasting their objections to killing to the world is absurd. More than a few mosques are used as rallying and arms dsibursement and recruitment camps for jihads. I think the fact that you have a moslem section on NL,with hundreds of threads, yet there is not a single thread by Moslems where killing or any wrongdoing in Islam is condemned, says all there is to say. In the parallel universe you live in Moslems might be told not to kill; in the real world their 'holy book' says they can, and so they do it. It's easy for them to see anything other than a moslem as sub-human and to kill it, because their holy book says it. They do it with sick regularity in the North of the country; are they at war there? Are they attacked first? Nope. You say if Allah commands you to kill you will have no qualms about killing. How does Allah command people to kill? How will you know when Allah issues such a directive? Through his prophets, no? Through your holy book? You see? There are no 'deviants'. Islam is a danger to itself and a danger to others precisely because of the silent consent of the majority, for the actions of a few. Because of a mindset that cannot face issues but looks for excuses and 'justifications' where none is to be found. |
| Religion / Re: The Burning Of Quran Issue by MadMax1(f): 11:52am On Sep 12, 2010 |
I agree with Myers. The Koran IS just 'a frackin book'. Nothing more. It's not holy. And no one should expect others to pay the same regard you do to your holy book. Someone tells you to kill other human beings who don't believe as you do. It says a lot about the unbalanced mental state of the person. If you need any other indication the Koran was merely guys sitting around putting their own thoughts on paper, it's the reward they say you get for murder: houris or wide-eyed virgins feeding you in paradise. If obsession with women and sex doesn't say 'men' I don't know what does. Your holy book says go and kill. And you're quite complacent about this, accepting 'Allah' as the source, based on nothing whatsoever. Even though you don't object to the killing, you call those who obey the Koran's command to kill 'deviants'. What are they deviating from? It's those who don't obey the Koranic injunction to murder non-moslems that are the deviants. Isn't that why many Moslems raise no outcry and don't censure those who kill? But you can come and raise a thread objecting to Koran burning with nary a blush. Observe the hundreds of religions out there and list those who bear a hatred for others, are intolerant, and consider murder part of their holy religious duties like Islam. I read an article in the UK about Moslems who say those who don't obey the injunction to kill are not true Moslems. That's not in Northern Nigeria, where the stone age morons proliferate. Those are educated British Moslems. No one is saying they're speaking for Islam, but it's very worrying. People rationalize the havoc they cause, but all efforts at containment are coming from outside Islam. Moslems themselves issue consent and passive acceptance of religious murder from silence. After all, what can they say? Their 'holy book' commands it of faithfuls. You kill others, desecrate their books, temples, churches and religious artefacts, but expect people to tiptoe around all that and respect your religion and your Koran. If you can't contain your rabid dogs, and have zero respect for the lives of others, you yourselves should be contained. |
| Religion / Re: Quran Burning Day; How Not To Be An Imbecille! by MadMax1(f): 7:39pm On Sep 09, 2010 |
nopuqeater: They may be idols to you, but they're priceless religious artefacts to the Buddhists, and the Islamic dolts who destroyed them had no right. The black stone in Mecca or wherever,that is a conerstone in your religion is just a black meteorite. Nothing more. But to Islam it is priceless. How would you feel if another religion can't understand that, and destroys it? But that is what the Islamists did to the Buddhists, and to you it's fine because it's 'idols'. Your religion needs to re-learn the tolerance and compassion its forebears had; Islam is virtually the only religion whose present is a disgrace to its past. I still recall a year they drew a cartoon in Europe and Moslems were killing innocent people in many countries over it, including in Nigeria. They murdered hundreds of people in the North. Imagine that. Can you point to an equivalent in the dozens of religions we currently have? That is how low Islam has sunk from what it originally was. So a man burned a Koran. Who cares? If other religions heard someone burned a bible or a copy of the Upanishads, you really think they'd care? And these are religions who tolerate mosques and korans in their countries, something foreign to the seat of Islam. You don't make a song and dance over religious murder or terrorism, but you can cry over a burned Koran, knowing full well you do much worse to the books and artefacts of other religions. You really need to get your priorities straight. People don't wash their dirty linen in public? That is 'wisdom'? Lol. It's a good thing there really are sensible Moslems out there who know what their responsibilities to their religion is. We live in a world where Islam is the face of terrorism, and all moslems, innocent and guilty alike, bear that stigma. It's the same stigma all Nigerians face worldwide because of the actions of a few. In what Islamic fundamentalism has made of the real world, there's no such thing as 'private dirty linen'. It's ALL public. Put your house in order and stop reacting like blind slugs to every single irrelevant thing, while major issues are there for you all to ignore or pretend those who practice them are 'deviants'. It may be enough for you to issue them passive support from silence while going about calling them 'deviants' on religious boards, but it's meaningless posturing at best. Do you have a thread in your moslem section where you call them 'deviants'? You strain your drink to remove gnats, and swallow a camel." Someone said that. It applies to most of you. Thankfully, there are good Moslems out there, and they speak out. Go and tell them to shut up, since that is your definition of 'wisdom.' |
| Religion / Re: Quran Burning Day; How Not To Be An Imbecille! by MadMax1(f): 4:13pm On Sep 09, 2010 |
I meant to say a disgrace to religion jare. I don't like criticising adherents of Islam, especially as there are many liberal Moslems I admire and respect. But it's very worrying when they can't seem to get their priorities straight. I'm yet to come across any Moslem here opening a thread to criticise terrorism or religious murder or paedophiles who hide behind their religion to indulge that madness. You see other religions self-correcting with criticism, but not theirs. In all the years there has been religious killing in the country, no Moslem body or cleric has ever come out to condemn murder in the name of religion. Oh but this they can open a thread about; someone burning a Koran. Who gives a frak. Is it people they're burning? And knowing full well other holy books are treated just as badly in Moslem countries. The unbelievable gall. I still recall priceless Buddhist artefacts and statues, thousands of years old, destroyed in one country by Islamists. They won't face the people giving their religion a bad name; they won't tackle their problems; but they can open a thread and yak yak yak about Koran burning. Nonsense. |
| Religion / Re: Quran Burning Day; How Not To Be An Imbecille! by MadMax1(f): 1:29pm On Sep 09, 2010 |
Islam is already a religious disgrace, both from the actions of those who murder by Koranic right, and the moslem populace with their passive acceptance of these things. They're rewriting what Islam stands for. I'm trying to think of a multi-religious country with a significant Moslem population that knows peace.None comes to mind. It's very hard to remember some Moslems actually have a head they use for thinking intead of merely pointing at the east. When Rushdie wrote The Satanic verses and that psychopath Ayatollah declared a fatwa, it was a leading Moslem cleric that sheltered Rushdie. Many liberal moslems banded together and declared that The Satanic Verses did not damage Islam as much as an order to murder the author has. So some people are burning Korans. It's not right but you moslems have no ground for complaint. You'd rather they burn Moslems instead, like moslems do to other human beings in the North? I don't know the moral leg you're standing on, given how rabid Islam is in its own intolerance, how full of hate. At least other religions do their evil to themselves; yours are to others, which is the worst. Stop defending the indefensible and put your house in order. |
| Literature / Re: A Mean Consensus - A Short Short Story by MadMax1(f): 11:28am On Sep 09, 2010 |
The squished book is easy. Just right-click its zip folder and 'Open With' Microsoft Word. It'll automatically right itself. Do you read Nigerian writers? I just love all your tastes in books. If you liked A Space Odyssey you'll enjoy Rendezvous with Rama. It's vintage Clarke. |
| Literature / Re: A Mean Consensus - A Short Short Story by MadMax1(f): 12:30pm On Sep 08, 2010 |
Thank you! |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 79 pages)
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 227 |