lol 4/5
Could you rank these in terms of sinfulness and explain your reasoning behind the ranking? (too bad there is no ask nfq topic. an ask sixonfour one would also be nice -.-)
Sex before marriage
Masturbating before marriage
Sex with sombody else during marriage
Masturbating thinking of somebody else during marriage
Sex with your partner during marriage
Sex with your partner thinking of somebody else during marriage
Masturbating thinking of your partner during marriage
After Fabian's idea example, here's my "ask Bisqwit" thread. (Despite Fabian's warnings that it might not work out well -- which I realize is a possibility for more than the reasons he listed.)
Fabian knew it all along and people used to laugh at him, but now his prophecy has finally become true!
I feel bad for having played a role in the hijacking of this thread.
Yes, because you used one of the languages of logic. With mathematic equations you don't make any claims about something in the real world, only within the system of logic. If I put 2+6 humans in a cell (with enough water and food) and wait, there might suddenly be more than 8. Maybe less. If I put 2 + 6 molecules somewhere, there might suddenly be more or less than 8. 2+6 still equals 8, but that's only undisputably true within the system of logic/maths.
I guess your claim that logic is nothing more than intuition is still wrong. Logic is more than that. Intuition is subjective. Logic is something that many people can agree on. It's "multi-subjective", if that's even a word. It's not objective though, but as close as we can get. You could maybe call logic our common essence of intuition.
It's that part of our intuition that manages to stand the most reality checks. Intuition is entirely subjective. Logic is a common system. More reality checks can be executed on a common system. That's the main difference in my eyes. Logic is superior in many ways, but for more personal matters intuition often works better. Because logic doesn't do a good job at taking the individual into account.
Please keep postcount low. Make use of the edit button.
This is not meant to be a recommendation thread. Please, only post if while reading the thread title you catch yourself listening to something.
Thanks.
the GazettE - NIL - 02 - Nausea and Shudder
July 21st:
strobeampli-chipsetsunset.xm using MilkyTracker :D
Edit: Now strobe-celestialkiss_final.xm
July 23rd:
Merry - "Aikokufuta - MASURAO"
Damn sexy song ^^
It think there is a mistake.
You try hard to break the matchbox into two, and you manage to rip
it into two pieces. But the flow of matches is not unhindered!
I don't question the usefulness of brain scans, but still, we don't know f.e. if thoughts are something spiritual/super-natural that can't be meassured. It could be that brain scans only meassure our brains' reaction to those kind of thoughts (if they exist). There is no way to tell. It is largely irrelevant for the experiments, but some conclusions we tend to make about them are kind of uncarefully rushed. They assume that the simpliest answer is the most likely one to be true. Which isn't bad for science, but I wouldn't claim those conclusions to be 'true' because we simply don't know.
There is no way to tell if what brain scans observe are actual thoughts or reactions/side effects to by essence unobservable thoughts. You seem to act as if you knew.
You have never observed the opposite. If you claim that you can make up rules on how this world works just by intuition you are playing God or assuming your intuition is led by God. Sadly, we don't know if that's true.
I'll refrain from posting now.
This seems to be true based on our experience (observations). Yet, by making this claim we assume that our observations are enough to make up rules on how this world works. We don't know if that claim is true, it just seems to be.
Logic doesn't require observation, but many previously made observations are taken into account when it is applied. Sometimes logic is used to prove that something people want to be true is true when in reality it doesn't prove a thing.
You are selecting only a part of reality denying the rest. Society is a pretty chaotic system. It's not that simple.
many people wrote:
It is logical.
It's easy to call something logical if you're sure it's true. It insults people who don't understand how it works and yourself if you're wrong. Many things would be logical to be true, but aren't true. Logic relies on the assumption that everything you have observed about a system should be able to determine its results perfectly. It assumes we know everything about it.
many people wrote:
They do this and that, therefore they..
Not all people of that specific group do this and that.
The world isn't simple and it insults God's creation if we claim it to be. In any case I think it's arrogant and naive to think we know the truth (or even part of it) about this world. Only God understands this world. If there is no God, nobody does.
Science works. We don't know why, but I'm glad it does.
There is no absolute proof in this world.
Maybe I lack imagination, but to me it doesn't seem like there's a lot of stuff to do in the game. It'd get boring to me very quickly. Also, I think it's bad that you can summon something called 'God' which looks very human and can be killed.. It clearly has nothing to do with what the word actually means.
I'm allergic to carrots, potatoes, tomatoes, garlic, onions, spinach, paprika, leek, cabbage, vinegar and lots of other vegetables. I like eggs, milk and meat, beans, rice, fruit and corn (except for rye, I'm allergic to that) and nuts except walnuts and peanuts (allergic to both, peanuts aren't really nuts though). I don't know if I could live from just fruit, corn, beans and nuts and I don't even want to try. I'm glad there are animal products, they make nutrition a lot less complicated. I still often feel malnutritioned though.
Edit: I know a very healthy vegan by my definition of health btw. >_>
This post somehow ended up being really self-reflective. Stuff that is about me and not about this thread is marked with a spoiler tag:
I generally take part in debates most of the time because I think something I know may benefit others in the long run.
Hardly ever does anybody change their opinion during a debate, so that's a kind of a hard to achieve goal. Often people discuss because they are insecure about their own opinions. Debating then acts kind of like a reality check if their point of view can be defended easily.
I also often express my thoughts out of boredom (bad habit). I hardly ever care if I turn out to be right because I don't believe in the concept of universal truths at all. Often I can seem a bit crazy because I use very uncontroversial views when arguing. I do that because I think they are too important to be totally ignored, even if the prize is making a fool out of myself.
My main goal is thus getting people to think about their opinions. This makes them feel uncomfortable and that's how people often interpret bad intents into my words.
What's the difference between people who call themselves Muslim and are and the ones who call themselves Muslim and aren't then? It's like being montheistic (=religious) or being a heath or the difference between being a civilized country or a barbaric tribe. The ones in power get to decide.
In short, a Muslim is one who believes the Creator of everything is not like anything, and that Muhammad was the last prophet. If they don't believe that, they are not a muslim.
This definition doesn't contradict the existence of a free will that has an impact on your fate though. Also, the wikipedia article on Islam says there exist both groups of Muslims we talked about. There's even a third view, called the Sunni view, which I think is particularly interesting. Of course you can claim that only one of them is truly Islamic all the way you want.
It seems we've encountered different forms of Islam. I wonder which sticks more to the Quran.
Edit: Do you know? Can you quote a passage? Would be nice. :X
Oh I didn't mean to say they're the same. There's similarity and there's difference.
The Muslim girls who don't marry their destined partner (i.e. the guy their fathers pick), but choose some love marriage are f.e. defying Allah's will and their punishment is an unhappy life and hell. So I've heard. They aren't disciplined enough and that's why Allah doesn't approve them, they are not worthy. At the same time their parents might be wondering why Allah punishes them with such stupidly unobedient daughters.
sixofour wrote:
If 1 person described a horse, and another person described a chiken, you cannot say that they are both talking about the same thing.
If they argue on which of these two animals' meat tastes better to a generic human being and one "knows" it's definitely the chicken because (insert obscure reason / evidence / logic) and the other claims it's clearly the horse, I'd say the talk about the same thing. And that thing is claiming absolute truth of a certain belief related to meat.
I don't mean to compare preference to choice of religion, it's just for pointing out how I can say they're talking about the same thing when it's evident they don't. >_>
Kuwanga
A Muslim doesn't have to cite Quran or quote his Prophet to tell people about his creed. Muslims accept Islam over other belief systems becase Islam is the only religion which relies on logic, aswell as revelation. You might think it sounds snide, but it is the case.
Not all belief systems are offshoots of christianity, nor are they all "giving the same claims, but in different flavors" Christianity and Islam differ on the very fundamental things about the Creator of the Universe.
Muslims believe that the Creator created all things, defined them, directed them in everything they do, good or bad, and He does not resemble the creations in any way. He doesn't change or exist in a location or direction. Or have a form. Or have a mode or process. [I could go on and on about the differences]
When a muslim tells someone about the creed, he isn't hopeing that his words convince that person. He is hoping the Creator willed for that person to be guided. And if the person still refuses, than as they say, "That is that"
Christians also don't have to cite a thing.. A Muslim who wants to save a Christian friend from the torments of hell probably would though. And he'd pray to Allah for that friend's sake.
Islam believes that Allah picked a destiny for every human being, but they are still able to act against it. They'll get punished for it during their lives and burn in hell afterwards. Christians believe it's people's free choice to believe or not to and they will also be sort of punished by feeling an emptiness inside through all their lives and the gates to paradise will remain closed.
The concept of Christianity sounds much nicer, as a Muslim I'd probably call them undisciplined and deceived non-believers. As a Christian I'd maybe call Muslims violent, misguided victims of Satan.
I don't see how any of their differences makes the religions uncomparable. Both claim to be the absolute truth on questionable bases.
Those very differences you've listed are what I'd indeed call different flavours of the same thing. One of those religions might be right, all of them might be wrong. And I count evolutionists as a religion. No way to tell for a human being. I think I'll stop caring now..