| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dave" |
| Date: |
07 Feb 2006 07:01:26 PM |
| Object: |
No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
So any picture of an Arabic man is forbidden? Or only if there any hint
that he might be Mohammed? What if there is just a possibility? What if
there is just a suspicion? What if there is just a slight vague chance?
What if it is supposed to only be someone who looks a bit like Mohammed?
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 08:24:21 PM |
|
|
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> said:
So any picture of an Arabic man is forbidden? Or only if there any hint
that he might be Mohammed? What if there is just a possibility? What if
there is just a suspicion? What if there is just a slight vague chance?
What if it is supposed to only be someone who looks a bit like Mohammed?
Exactly. Why should a Muslim agree that some drawing is of the Prophet
of Islam, just because a non-Muslim paper says so?
It's because some Muslim extremists took this as an issue to use in
their war against the west. And they knew they had, among a billion
Muslims, enough hotheads to make a deal out of it.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 09:18:21 PM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
Why should a Muslim agree that some drawing is of the Prophet
of Islam, just because a non-Muslim paper says so?
Perhaps because of the way the drawings were titled.
:-)
Jenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 11:04:19 PM |
|
|
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
Why should a Muslim agree that some drawing is of the Prophet
of Islam, just because a non-Muslim paper says so?
Perhaps because of the way the drawings were titled.
:-)
I appreciate the smiley, but I can title any image, "Muhammed". Why
should anyone believe me?
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
08 Feb 2006 10:44:20 AM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
Why should a Muslim agree that some drawing is of the Prophet
of Islam, just because a non-Muslim paper says so?
Perhaps because of the way the drawings were titled.
:-)
I appreciate the smiley, but I can title any image, "Muhammed".
Yeah, you can. But you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO!
Why
should anyone believe me?
Because when it comes to things like this, anyone just has to believe
the lying, deceiving and totally untrustworthy Atheist/Christian/Jew?
j.m.
#1491
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
08 Feb 2006 12:48:23 PM |
|
|
"j.m.1491@gmx.net" <j.m.1491@gmx.net> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
Why should a Muslim agree that some drawing is of the Prophet
of Islam, just because a non-Muslim paper says so?
Perhaps because of the way the drawings were titled.
:-)
I appreciate the smiley, but I can title any image, "Muhammed".
Yeah, you can. But you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO!
Why
should anyone believe me?
Because when it comes to things like this, anyone just has to believe
the lying, deceiving and totally untrustworthy Atheist/Christian/Jew?
It is almost as though there is unspoken collusion between people on
both sides of this, to treat scribbles on paper as being what they are
purported to be, instead of saying "Nobody, Muslim or non-Muslim, can
really depict Muhammed, try as they might, and lie as they will."
Did I say "almost"? People exist on both sides who want the other side
to lose, big time, and they have to agree that the battle must be
waged.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
08 Feb 2006 05:28:35 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 05:04:19 GMT, Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
Why should a Muslim agree that some drawing is of the Prophet
of Islam, just because a non-Muslim paper says so?
Perhaps because of the way the drawings were titled.
:-)
I appreciate the smiley, but I can title any image, "Muhammed". Why
should anyone believe me?
Because it suits their purposes to utilize it at face value. Such
doesn't mean they believe you.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 09:42:06 PM |
|
|
Jenny6833A wrote:
Jim07D6 wrote:
Why should a Muslim agree that some drawing is of the Prophet
of Islam, just because a non-Muslim paper says so?
Perhaps because of the way the drawings were titled.
:-)
Does the image need to be plausible?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 09:54:39 PM |
|
|
On 7 Feb 2006 17:01:26 -0800, "Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1139359827.993612.27840@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
So any picture of an Arabic man is forbidden? Or only if there any hint
that he might be Mohammed? What if there is just a possibility? What if
there is just a suspicion? What if there is just a slight vague chance?
What if it is supposed to only be someone who looks a bit like Mohammed?
You commit the very basic error of conflating "Arabic" with "Muslim".
What's your excuse for this appalling parochial xenophobic ignorance?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 11:07:12 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> said:
On 7 Feb 2006 17:01:26 -0800, "Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1139359827.993612.27840@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
So any picture of an Arabic man is forbidden? Or only if there any hint
that he might be Mohammed? What if there is just a possibility? What if
there is just a suspicion? What if there is just a slight vague chance?
What if it is supposed to only be someone who looks a bit like Mohammed?
You commit the very basic error of conflating "Arabic" with "Muslim".
What's your excuse for this appalling parochial xenophobic ignorance?
That is the mistake made by anyone who conflate these two situations:
1, The image looks like an Arab.
2. A non-Muslim says it is an image of the Prophet of Islam (PBUH).
Which is what happened.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rune B" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 08:01:17 PM |
|
|
On 7 Feb 2006 17:01:26 -0800, "Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like...
Actually... Mohammad was a white guy. Think whitest arab, then some.
There is some question about his lineage. He was a racist ***** too,
helped start and continue the arabian slave trade, amongst other
things.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
09 Feb 2006 05:42:53 AM |
|
|
On 7 Feb 2006 17:01:26 -0800, "Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
So any picture of an Arabic man is forbidden?
Nope. Just about any man. Don't quite know how that works out with the
local El Supremo's. I don't recall Nasser, Anwar, Saddam or the local
sultans/kings have a big problem in this department.
Or only if there any hint that he might be Mohammed?
Nope. That is just an added bonus.
What if there is just a possibility?
Basically, _ANY_ drooling old geezer with a ragged beard sporting a
turban can be mistaken for mo.
What if there is just a suspicion? What if there is just a slight vague chance?
What if it is supposed to only be someone who looks a bit like Mohammed?
"When in doubt, torch anything infidel in sight. That'll teach them a
lesson!"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 07:44:52 PM |
|
|
There are NO authentic pictures of ANY god. There are only imaginative
paintings that represent the artists 'opinion' of what god looks like.
Because there are NO real gods, only opinions, there cannot be any real
pictures, drawings or paintings of this non existent entity.
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139359827.993612.27840@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So any picture of an Arabic man is forbidden? Or only if there any hint
that he might be Mohammed? What if there is just a possibility? What if
there is just a suspicion? What if there is just a slight vague chance?
What if it is supposed to only be someone who looks a bit like Mohammed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 07:58:57 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
So any picture of an Arabic man is forbidden? Or only if there any hint
that he might be Mohammed? What if there is just a possibility? What if
there is just a suspicion? What if there is just a slight vague chance?
What if it is supposed to only be someone who looks a bit like Mohammed?
There are NO authentic pictures of ANY god. There are only imaginative
paintings that represent the artists 'opinion' of what god looks like.
Because there are NO real gods, only opinions, there cannot be any real
pictures, drawings or paintings of this non existent entity.
Mohammed isn't a Gawd, he's just the Muslim prophet who pretended to
talk to Gawd.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 09:37:01 PM |
|
|
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1139363937.295970.259510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Bill wrote:
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
So any picture of an Arabic man is forbidden? Or only if there any
hint that he might be Mohammed? What if there is just a possibility?
What if there is just a suspicion? What if there is just a slight
vague chance? What if it is supposed to only be someone who looks a
bit like Mohammed?
There are NO authentic pictures of ANY god. There are only imaginative
paintings that represent the artists 'opinion' of what god looks like.
Because there are NO real gods, only opinions, there cannot be any real
pictures, drawings or paintings of this non existent entity.
Mohammed isn't a Gawd, he's just the Muslim prophet who pretended to
talk to Gawd.
That's the official, dogma. However the actions of the fanatics shows that
their degree of reverence for Mohammed doesn't tally with the official
dogma. The same sort of thing is seen in some of the Christian sects with
respect to worship of the virgin Mary.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
08 Feb 2006 10:38:45 AM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
<snip>
That's the official, dogma. However the actions of the fanatics shows that
their degree of reverence for Mohammed doesn't tally with the official
dogma. The same sort of thing is seen in some of the Christian sects with
respect to worship of the virgin Mary.
Klazmon.
Good argument. Haven't thought about this.
Yes, the worship-like reverence Muslims show towards their prophet
should be considered far more idolizing than any actual drawing could
ever be.
But when has an inconsistency ever bothered the faithful?
j.m.
#1491
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
08 Feb 2006 05:26:20 PM |
|
|
On 8 Feb 2006 16:37:01 +1300, Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in alt.atheism
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1139363937.295970.259510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Bill wrote:
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
So any picture of an Arabic man is forbidden? Or only if there any
hint that he might be Mohammed? What if there is just a possibility?
What if there is just a suspicion? What if there is just a slight
vague chance? What if it is supposed to only be someone who looks a
bit like Mohammed?
There are NO authentic pictures of ANY god. There are only imaginative
paintings that represent the artists 'opinion' of what god looks like.
Because there are NO real gods, only opinions, there cannot be any real
pictures, drawings or paintings of this non existent entity.
Mohammed isn't a Gawd, he's just the Muslim prophet who pretended to
talk to Gawd.
That's the official, dogma. However the actions of the fanatics shows that
their degree of reverence for Mohammed doesn't tally with the official
dogma. The same sort of thing is seen in some of the Christian sects with
respect to worship of the virgin Mary.
And demonstrates idoltry doesn't require images.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
08 Feb 2006 05:25:28 PM |
|
|
On 7 Feb 2006 17:58:57 -0800, "Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Bill wrote:
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
So any picture of an Arabic man is forbidden? Or only if there any hint
that he might be Mohammed? What if there is just a possibility? What if
there is just a suspicion? What if there is just a slight vague chance?
What if it is supposed to only be someone who looks a bit like Mohammed?
There are NO authentic pictures of ANY god. There are only imaginative
paintings that represent the artists 'opinion' of what god looks like.
Because there are NO real gods, only opinions, there cannot be any real
pictures, drawings or paintings of this non existent entity.
Mohammed isn't a Gawd, he's just the Muslim prophet who pretended to
talk to Gawd.
Like 'The Shrubbery.'
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
09 Feb 2006 05:42:53 AM |
|
|
On 7 Feb 2006 17:58:57 -0800, "Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bill wrote:
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
So any picture of an Arabic man is forbidden? Or only if there any hint
that he might be Mohammed? What if there is just a possibility? What if
there is just a suspicion? What if there is just a slight vague chance?
What if it is supposed to only be someone who looks a bit like Mohammed?
There are NO authentic pictures of ANY god. There are only imaginative
paintings that represent the artists 'opinion' of what god looks like.
Because there are NO real gods, only opinions, there cannot be any real
pictures, drawings or paintings of this non existent entity.
Mohammed isn't a Gawd, he's just the Muslim prophet who pretended to
talk to Gawd.
Well, if it quacks like a duck:
- Mo cannot be pictured. Not even to make him look good.
- Mohammedans always write PBUH* after M's name.
- Say just about _anything_ about Mo, and WW3 explodes.
- Mo's body ain't there. He was taken bodily to heaven on a magic
horsie.
- Calling a leg a tail doesn't make it so.
Yup, Mo's a god allright.
* translates as: ***** Be Upon Him
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
09 Feb 2006 12:51:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:42:53 +0700, Jos Flachs <xwcruise@ksc15.th.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On 7 Feb 2006 17:58:57 -0800, "Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bill wrote:
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
So any picture of an Arabic man is forbidden? Or only if there any hint
that he might be Mohammed? What if there is just a possibility? What if
there is just a suspicion? What if there is just a slight vague chance?
What if it is supposed to only be someone who looks a bit like Mohammed?
There are NO authentic pictures of ANY god. There are only imaginative
paintings that represent the artists 'opinion' of what god looks like.
Because there are NO real gods, only opinions, there cannot be any real
pictures, drawings or paintings of this non existent entity.
Mohammed isn't a Gawd, he's just the Muslim prophet who pretended to
talk to Gawd.
Well, if it quacks like a duck:
- Mo cannot be pictured. Not even to make him look good.
- Mohammedans always write PBUH* after M's name.
- Say just about _anything_ about Mo, and WW3 explodes.
- Mo's body ain't there. He was taken bodily to heaven on a magic
horsie.
- Calling a leg a tail doesn't make it so.
Yup, Mo's a god allright.
* translates as: ***** Be Upon Him
Don't forget Mo swallowed swine semen and loved being cornholed by
camels.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rune B" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 08:03:37 PM |
|
|
On 7 Feb 2006 17:58:57 -0800, "Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mohammed isn't a Gawd, he's just the Muslim prophet who pretended to
talk to Gawd.
The difference between a prophet and a madman was a psychopathic
personality and good timing. The power of persuasion and all that
*****. Later people started catching on, basic science and culture
allowed certain questions to be posed etc. That's why there have been
no new major religions invented in so long.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
09 Feb 2006 05:42:53 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 03:03:37 +0100, Rune B <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006 17:58:57 -0800, "Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mohammed isn't a Gawd, he's just the Muslim prophet who pretended to
talk to Gawd.
The difference between a prophet and a madman was a psychopathic
personality and good timing. The power of persuasion and all that
*****. Later people started catching on, basic science and culture
allowed certain questions to be posed etc. That's why there have been
no new major religions invented in so long.
Rune, I can't quite agree. Mor[m]onism, Jehova's W, Scientology and a
shitload of other weirdo cults, springing out of any religion you can
think of aren't long on the scene to make a major impact. Competition
is simply to fierce.
Xtianity filled a void. The old humanized gods of the Romans were old
hat. Several religions competed to be the 'upgraded version'.
Microsoft, sorry, xtianity won. :-)
Mo had some success with the bedu's, and tried his hand in Byzantine
border provinces. Where the Byzantines (especially the priests!) were
hated much more than anything else. Hence the spectacular succes of
Mo. Had the Byzantines extorted the population slightly less, they
would still be Greek today.
Followers of Mo crossed the straights and went to Benidorm. Again, we
see a local Arian xtian population that absolutely hated there Gothic
non Arian overlords. The conquest of Spain you can measure almost on
your watch. You don't even need a calendar, as it took less than a
year.
After that the going got tough: Conquering Franks didn't succeed at
all, and the conquest of Eastern Europe took centuries.
A new religion can only succeed if the old one is seen as obsolete or
the population hates their rulers, or religion, even more than they
dislike their new overlords. Both of which haven't really happened in
the last couple of centuries.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rune B" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
10 Feb 2006 02:15:33 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:42:53 +0700, Jos Flachs <xwcruise@ksc15.th.com>
wrote:
A new religion can only succeed if the old one is seen as obsolete or
the population hates their rulers, or religion, even more than they
dislike their new overlords. Both of which haven't really happened in
the last couple of centuries.
That's an interesting thesis. I still don't agree that sects of the
same religion constitute a new direction though. They have the holy
books dont they?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 04:53:56 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:15:33 +0100, Rune B <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bqiou1pbjs3imf4k1ei9nl375b0sp05lud@4ax.com>
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:42:53 +0700, Jos Flachs <xwcruise@ksc15.th.com>
wrote:
A new religion can only succeed if the old one is seen as obsolete or
the population hates their rulers, or religion, even more than they
dislike their new overlords. Both of which haven't really happened in
the last couple of centuries.
That's an interesting thesis. I still don't agree that sects of the
same religion constitute a new direction though. They have the holy
books dont they?
And proceed to ignore parts which are inconvenient to their sect, and
invent new ones, in opposition to rival sects, thus rewriting it.
Which amounts to having entirely different texts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 08:24:19 PM |
|
|
Rune B <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:29kiu1p20hu2asmn15qiitu94sr2kakiu2@4ax.com:
On 7 Feb 2006 17:58:57 -0800, "Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mohammed isn't a Gawd, he's just the Muslim prophet who pretended to
talk to Gawd.
The difference between a prophet and a madman was a psychopathic
personality and good timing. The power of persuasion and all that
*****. Later people started catching on, basic science and culture
allowed certain questions to be posed etc. That's why there have been
no new major religions invented in so long.
Except that Mormons (LDS) got invented less than 200 years ago. And
Scientologists (if you consider that a religion and not a simple con)
started 50 years or so ago.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rune B" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
08 Feb 2006 01:27:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:24:19 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
Except that Mormons (LDS) got invented less than 200 years ago. And
Scientologists (if you consider that a religion and not a simple con)
started 50 years or so ago.
Well, I wouldn't call them *major*. I suppose mormonism has a large
following in the US, but they're mostly restricted to a few states,
right? How many people are we talking about? I thought they were at
most a few hundred thousand. As for scientology... I think that's
really classifiable as a mental disease.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
09 Feb 2006 12:48:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:27:17 +0100, Rune B <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:24:19 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
Except that Mormons (LDS) got invented less than 200 years ago. And
Scientologists (if you consider that a religion and not a simple con)
started 50 years or so ago.
Well, I wouldn't call them *major*. I suppose mormonism has a large
following in the US, but they're mostly restricted to a few states,
right? How many people are we talking about? I thought they were at
most a few hundred thousand. As for scientology... I think that's
really classifiable as a mental disease.
They're all mental disease.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 04:51:14 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:48:45 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <1k3nu1tk1kmphhkl1dduvk1n6gjkg22kdb@4ax.com>
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:27:17 +0100, Rune B <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:24:19 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
Except that Mormons (LDS) got invented less than 200 years ago. And
Scientologists (if you consider that a religion and not a simple con)
started 50 years or so ago.
Well, I wouldn't call them *major*. I suppose mormonism has a large
following in the US, but they're mostly restricted to a few states,
right? How many people are we talking about? I thought they were at
most a few hundred thousand. As for scientology... I think that's
really classifiable as a mental disease.
They're all mental disease.
Hear, hear.
Well spoken!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "808" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 09:50:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:24:19 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
Rune B <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:29kiu1p20hu2asmn15qiitu94sr2kakiu2@4ax.com:
On 7 Feb 2006 17:58:57 -0800, "Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mohammed isn't a Gawd, he's just the Muslim prophet who pretended to
talk to Gawd.
The difference between a prophet and a madman was a psychopathic
personality and good timing. The power of persuasion and all that
*****. Later people started catching on, basic science and culture
allowed certain questions to be posed etc. That's why there have been
no new major religions invented in so long.
Except that Mormons (LDS) got invented less than 200 years ago. And
Scientologists (if you consider that a religion and not a simple con)
started 50 years or so ago.
Religion is just a con that has outlived the original con man
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 10:51:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:44:52 -0500, "Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
- Refer: <J%bGf.2948$bW6.1590@bignews7.bellsouth.net>
There are NO authentic pictures of ANY god. There are only imaginative
paintings that represent the artists 'opinion' of what god looks like.
Because there are NO real gods, only opinions, there cannot be any real
pictures, drawings or paintings of this non existent entity.
There are pictures of the Sun.
Therefore, your assertion is provably false.
And don't try and tell me that the sun is not a God, please.
Thousands of followers will disagree with youre personal definition.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rune B" |
|
| Title: Re: No one knows what Mohammed looked like... |
07 Feb 2006 08:02:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:44:52 -0500, "Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
There are NO authentic pictures of ANY god.
Wrong prophet :-)
Also... you are wrong. Many religions have "sanctioned" pictures and
likenesses of their god(s).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
