Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Humph Warden Bennett on June 06, 2017, 09:29:07 PM
-
From the Indy
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-bridge-terrorists-imams-refuse-funeral-prayer-khuram-shazad-butt-rachid-redouane-a7774291.html
This a cross faith, and a non faith issue. Should anybody be considered so vile that no words should be said at their funeral?
-
Don't know about "should", but if that is the way it is, then why not?
-
From the Indy
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-bridge-terrorists-imams-refuse-funeral-prayer-khuram-shazad-butt-rachid-redouane-a7774291.html
This a cross faith, and a non faith issue. Should anybody be considered so vile that no words should be said at their funeral?
Ian Brady, for one!
-
Funerals are for those still alive.
-
Funerals are for those still alive.
Says who?
-
Says who?
Well, if any dead person wants to deny the point, I await their contribution....
-
My own feeling is that a funeral should be allowed but in these cases kept private.
If the press did not make such a huge fuss about it the general public would be none the wiser. They only seem to want to whip up an hysterical reaction for their own prurient news values.
I don't know whether these sad individuals deserve a funeral. But I do think the relatives feelings need to be taken into account and however hard we find it to come to terms with this issue can't we for once as a society be better than those pathetic creatures we are giving the last rites to.
-
Says who?
Well the dead aren't aware of their funeral, are they?
-
Well, if any dead person wants to deny the point, I await their contribution....
You miss the point. For instance Chistians believe that the funeral rites are most definitely for the benefit of the deceased. Or are you going to gainsay that?
-
You miss the point. For instance Chistians believe that the funeral rites are most definitely for the benefit of the deceased. Or are you going to gainsay that?
Am I going to gainsay that they think it? No. Am I suggesting that they are wrong? Yes. Because it's the living ones that carry it out.
-
You miss the point. For instance Chistians believe that the funeral rites are most definitely for the benefit of the deceased. Or are you going to gainsay that?
Do they, I haven't heard that? How can a dead person benefit from a funeral?
-
Do they, I haven't heard that? How can a dead person benefit from a funeral?
How? Because, we believe, it helps ease the transition deceased's soul from this life into the next.
-
How? Because, we believe, it helps ease the transition deceased's soul from this life into the next.
And how on earth does it do that, even in the unlikely event the human consciousness does move on into some sort of afterlife?
-
And how on earth does it do that, even in the unlikely event the human consciousness does move on into some sort of afterlife?
Through the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and the prayers of his Church.
-
And Dumbledore.
-
My own feeling is that a funeral should be allowed but in these cases kept private.
If the press did not make such a huge fuss about it the general public would be none the wiser. They only seem to want to whip up an hysterical reaction for their own prurient news values.
I don't know whether these sad individuals deserve a funeral. But I do think the relatives feelings need to be taken into account and however hard we find it to come to terms with this issue can't we for once as a society be better than those pathetic creatures we are giving the last rites to.
Excellent post Trentvoyager & I concur.
-
I don't know whether these sad individuals deserve a funeral. But I do think the relatives feelings need to be taken into account and however hard we find it to come to terms with this issue can't we for once as a society be better than those pathetic creatures we are giving the last rites to.
Completely agree. Even taking religion out of the equation altogether, there's something about being the bigger person in giving a funeral to those we deem untouchable. It's about responding to barbarism with a touch (at least) of civilisation, exemplifying humanity over savagery.
-
Funerals are for those still alive.
Not entirely.
There's also the issue of giving someone a funeral in line with their values in life. You could, given the right or wrong set of circumstances, give a confirmed and well-known atheist a full Catholic Requiem mass with all the bells and smells, or cremate a Jewish person (traditionally forbidden in Judaism). It's not as though the stiff in the box is going to complain - they're dead. But why would you do such a thing? Wouldn't that merely be rude, a vulgarity, a final way of asserting your values over ones that the dead person disagreed with and may well have found abhorrent? How much respect does that show for the dead? None whatever, I'd say.
So I don't agree that funerals are wholly for the living, not when in such things the living can show themselves to be a bunch of absolute twats.
-
Not entirely.
There's also the issue of giving someone a funeral in line with their values in life. You could, given the right or wrong set of circumstances, give a confirmed and well-known atheist a full Catholic Requiem mass with all the bells and smells, or cremate a Jewish person (traditionally forbidden in Judaism). It's not as though the stiff in the box is going to complain - they're dead. But why would you do such a thing? Wouldn't that merely be rude, a vulgarity, a final way of asserting your values over ones that the dead person disagreed with and may well have found abhorrent? How much respect does that show for the dead? None whatever, I'd say.
So I don't agree that funerals are wholly for the living, not when in such things the living can show themselves to be a bunch of absolute twats.
But the only people who will get upset about that twattery are the living. If people are holding a service that is inappropriate it is the living choosing it and being affected by it.
-
Through the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and the prayers of his Church.
And that means what in reality?
-
Not entirely.
There's also the issue of giving someone a funeral in line with their values in life. You could, given the right or wrong set of circumstances, give a confirmed and well-known atheist a full Catholic Requiem mass with all the bells and smells, or cremate a Jewish person (traditionally forbidden in Judaism). It's not as though the stiff in the box is going to complain - they're dead. But why would you do such a thing? Wouldn't that merely be rude, a vulgarity, a final way of asserting your values over ones that the dead person disagreed with and may well have found abhorrent? How much respect does that show for the dead? None whatever, I'd say.
So I don't agree that funerals are wholly for the living, not when in such things the living can show themselves to be a bunch of absolute twats.
I don't attend funerals these days as I don't find them meaningful for me, even if I was fond of the dead person in life.
-
But the only people who will get upset about that twattery are the living.
Well, yes.
If people are holding a service that is inappropriate it is the living choosing it and being affected by it.
That's what I said, yes.
-
Well, yes.
That's what I said, yes.
In which case whatever happens, funerals are for the living.
-
All humans in all communities around the world have held funerals since ancient times. Even some animals like elephants are said to 'mourn' their dead and spend some time at the site of the dead. Funerals have various functions...
1. They are supposed to ease the passage of the dead into the other world, through various religious rites.
2. The dead are believed to be 'alive' and watching the funeral. All special attention and good words are said to make them happy.
3. The bereaved are said to have a psychological benefit due to the funeral and the support of people around them.
-
In which case whatever happens, funerals are for the living.
No. I said that too.
-
All humans in all communities around the world have held funerals since ancient times. Even some animals like elephants are said to 'mourn' their dead and spend some time at the site of the dead. Funerals have various functions...
1. They are supposed to ease the passage of the dead into the other world, through various religious rites.
2. The dead are believed to be 'alive' and watching the funeral. All special attention and good words are said to make them happy.
3. The bereaved are said to have a psychological benefit due to the funeral and the support of people around them.
I do not think the dead are believed to be alive!
-
I do not think the dead are believed to be alive!
What do you mean? You do not think that the dead are alive or you do not think the dead are believed to be alive?
The former is ok. The latter is not. There are billions of people who believe that the dead are 'alive' somewhere else.
-
What do you mean? You do not think that the dead are alive or you do not think the dead are believed to be alive?
The former is ok. The latter is not. There are billions of people who believe that the dead are 'alive' somewhere else.
I do not think dead people are believed to be alive by many people in Europe.
It is after all, a crazy idea.
-
I do not think dead people are believed to be alive by many people in Europe.
It is after all, a crazy idea.
That is just your opinion and you are welcome to it. Btw...I don't think you are right in saying that many people in Europe do not believe that the dead are 'alive'. I am sure many people do believe that!
-
But the only people who will get upset about that twattery are the living. If people are holding a service that is inappropriate it is the living choosing it and being affected by it.
I might be getting off topic but thuscreminds me if the discussions about human remains on display in museums. Doesn't affect the living and yet it feels so wrong to me, because almost certainly the dead person would have come from a culture where there were definite beliefs about the importance of burial or other rites.
And yet why should I care?
-
From the Indy
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-bridge-terrorists-imams-refuse-funeral-prayer-khuram-shazad-butt-rachid-redouane-a7774291.html
This a cross faith, and a non faith issue. Should anybody be considered so vile that no words should be said at their funeral?
Nobody should feel that they have to conduct a service for someone if they feel that to do so would be a travesty of their roles and beliefs.
-
I might be getting off topic but thuscreminds me if the discussions about human remains on display in museums. Doesn't affect the living and yet it feels so wrong to me, because almost certainly the dead person would have come from a culture where there were definite beliefs about the importance of burial or other rites.
And yet why should I care?
it doesn't matter why here, it matters that you do. The dead on the other hand....
-
That is just your opinion and you are welcome to it. Btw...I don't think you are right in saying that many people in Europe do not believe that the dead are 'alive'. I am sure many people do believe that!
I doubt it because we are better than that!
-
I doubt it because we are better than that!
Who is 'we'? Who are 'we' better than that? (Note mebbe avoid an an populum fallacy)
-
I doubt it because we are better than that!
Christians believe in 'everlasting life' in the spiritual sense as do many other religions. I wonder if there are reliable statistics about this, all I could find was something from the Pew Research Centre who seem to have polled sections of the population in many european countries (not including the UK!), making comparisons with the USA.
Nobody should feel that they have to conduct a service for someone if they feel that to do so would be a travesty of their roles and beliefs.
Quite right. In any case if one or even several refuse there will always be someone else, somewhere, who will disagree and be prepared to do it & they won't be likely to talk to the press about it so works out better in the end.
-
My own feeling is that a funeral should be allowed but in these cases kept private.
Seeing as it is the 'ministers' of the religion to which the dead terrorists belonged who are refusing them the funeral rites practised by and for the adherents of that religion, surely it is none of the business of Christians, Pagans or atheists what they choose to do or not to do about the bodies of these particular Muslims?
-
From the Indy
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-bridge-terrorists-imams-refuse-funeral-prayer-khuram-shazad-butt-rachid-redouane-a7774291.html
This a cross faith, and a non faith issue. Should anybody be considered so vile that no words should be said at their funeral?
Getting back to the original subject. how does this idea differ from the old Christian practice of not allowing people who committed suicide to be buried in consecrated ground?
-
Seeing as it is the 'ministers' of the religion to which the dead terrorists belonged who are refusing them the funeral rites practised by and for the adherents of that religion, surely it is none of the business of Christians, Pagans or atheists what they choose to do or not to do about the bodies of these particular Muslims?
Good point owlswing & i think you are right but,as discussed, we only hear about those 'ministers' who won't do it, there are bound to be some who will but they won't make publicity out of it.
[quote/]Harrowby Hall - Getting back to the original subject. how does this idea differ from the old Christian practice of not allowing people who committed suicide to be buried in consecrated ground?[end quote]
It's certainly just as unforgiving & judgemental HH. Mens rules, not God's.
Honestly i believe when murderers and the like die and are buried or cremated,no-one outside the funeral directors who surely have a confidentiality code, need to know anything about the time and date or who officiates if anyone. Then nobody would be taking umbrage & certainly no religious ministers would be giving opinions to the press. It could easily be done discreetly. Could be done while the press is still up in arms about the murders or making headlines with the murderers' life stories!
-
Seeing as it is the 'ministers' of the religion to which the dead terrorists belonged who are refusing them the funeral rites practised by and for the adherents of that religion, surely it is none of the business of Christians, Pagans or atheists what they choose to do or not to do about the bodies of these particular Muslims?
I take your point - but I was replying to the original post that opened it out to cross faith and no faith posters. Which is why I framed my thoughts in that particular way.
Obviously if we restricted ourselves in what we posted about, the board would be even quieter than it is. But I will now restrict myself to only commenting on atheist issues - I expect to see you only on the pagan board. Except I won't be there because I shouldn't comment on it.
-
I've never thought that the Muslim clerics who refuse to say rites for suicide bombers are seeking publicity. Rather they are trying to send a message about the unacceptability of linking their faith to terrorism and murder.
-
I've never thought that the Muslim clerics who refuse to say rites for suicide bombers are seeking publicity.
ok....
Rather they are trying to send a message about the unacceptability of linking their faith to terrorism and murder.
Which is publicity is it not? :-\
-
I take your point - but I was replying to the original post that opened it out to cross faith and no faith posters. Which is why I framed my thoughts in that particular way.
Obviously if we restricted ourselves in what we posted about, the board would be even quieter than it is. But I will now restrict myself to only commenting on atheist issues - I expect to see you only on the pagan board. Except I won't be there because I shouldn't comment on it.
Honestly Trent - I really thought that you had, one, a thicker skin than that, and two, were inviting the opinions of the adherents of all faiths and none.
I gave my opinion - mine, no-one elses, on the specifics of the case in question.
Again my opinion, and not expected to be approved of by more than one person in any group of one million persons of any or all or no faith, I would stuff then as fuull of bacon as I couls and then roast thjem over an open fire pit and hang them from a tree for the birds to feast on!
Now you've, and any other interested parties, got something worth bleating about - go to it! :D ;D :P :P :P
-
You miss the point. For instance Chistians believe that the funeral rites are most definitely for the benefit of the deceased.
What is the benefit to the dead?
Or are you going to gainsay that?
I am.
-
What is the benefit to the dead?
I already explained this. We believe that it helps ease the transition of the soul from this life to the next.
I am.
What, that we don't believe that?
-
I already explained this. We believe that it helps ease the transition of the soul from this life to the next.
What, that we don't believe that?
How does it help, can you explain?
-
I explained that earlier on too.
-
I explained that earlier on too.
But that wasn't a meaningful explanation.
-
But that wasn't a meaningful explanation.
I can't be accountable for your lack of comprehension.
-
I can't be accountable for your lack of comprehension.
Well help me comprehend it then.
-
So what exactly goes MISSING when we reach that stage we call death & after when we are considered dead?
Nick
-
Eh?
-
Well SOMETHING was there & kept us moving around then NOTHING. What we call death.
-
Ad_o it would be really helpful if you'd take the time to explain things from the Orthodox point of view.
Others do that.
Answering questions briefly& dismissively is rather....arrogant.
Also gives the impression you don't know the answers.
-
Ad_o it would be really helpful if you'd take the time to explain things from the Orthodox point of view.
Others do that.
Answering questions briefly& dismissively is rather....arrogant.
Also gives the impression you don't know the answers.
Fair do's to Ad_O he/she (I've never quite fathomed which he/she is, he, I think tho') does explain things from am Orthodox point of view, but as if he were talking to some who follows the Christian faith in one form or another and thus when he quotes a biblical reference he assumes that we all understand what he is talking about.
I, personally, left Christianity, Anglican High Church, behind 56 years ago, so unless the Biblical reference has some resonance or connection with Paganism and/or witchcraft it usually means nothing to me. When I say resonance or connection I mean something like the impossibility of reconciling Exodus 22:18 and the Sixth Commandment.
-
Thanks Owlswing & you could be right, i haven't been here that long & maybe he has explained things exhaustively in the past.
Didn't mean to have a go ad_o but when you replied to a question with,"Eh?", i thought that was insufficient.
The Orthodox position, for anyone who doesn't know, on funeral rites is that they not only help those left behind but help the deceased's spirit on it's way to Paradise. In my view, for those who believe, the readings, psalms and hymns are comforting and helpful in the gradual process of mourning.
Most of all, the Orthodox funeral service is independent of how anyone feels about the deceased, in that sense it's neutral and performed for any person regardless of what they may have done.
The Catholic requiem Mass serves same purpose.
Now Owlswing I going to google Exodus 22:18 and compare it with the sixth commandment - but that's for another discussion.
-
Now Owlswing I going to google Exodus 22:18 and compare it with the sixth commandment - but that's for another discussion.
It always is, it always is . . . .
-
Honestly Trent - I really thought that you had, one, a thicker skin than that, and two, were inviting the opinions of the adherents of all faiths and none.
Eh?
I wasn't inviting the opinion of anyone. I wasn't the originator of this thread. My skins plenty think enough. It's other people's comprehension I question, not to mention their understanding of what a forum is about. :P :P
-
When I say resonance or connection I mean something like the impossibility of reconciling Exodus 22:18 and the Sixth Commandment.
Impossible? Why?
-
Impossible? Why?
'Thou shalt not kill' should apply to witches is too. What is wrong with a bit of 'double, double toil and trouble'? It is no worse than some of the nonsense attributed to Christianity like the, 'speaking in tongues', gobbledegook. That reminds me, my broomstick is in need of a service. ;D
-
Since the dead are just that, dead they wont know much about anything anyway and then let those that want to perform some sort of ceremony, ritual or service, do so, then perhaps everybody will be happy; just don't ask me or people that share my non-religious views to attend or contribute to costs of the burial, after all they are now the best kind of terrorist you can get.
ippy
-
Some Christians are against cremation as they believe the body needs to be intact to be raised from the dead! ::)
-
How literally ON earth, is that possible as the body begins to rot quickly after 'death'????
Do these peeps not think things through properly or what ?
-
How literally ON earth, is that possible as the body begins to rot quickly after 'death'????
Do these peeps not think things through properly or what ?
Magic!
-
How literally ON earth, is that possible as the body begins to rot quickly after 'death'????
Do these peeps not think things through properly or what ?
It appears that they don't put their brains in gear!
-
Since the dead are just that, dead they wont know much about anything anyway and then let those that want to perform some sort of ceremony, ritual or service, do so, then perhaps everybody will be happy; just don't ask me or people that share my non-religious views to attend or contribute to costs of the burial, after all they are now the best kind of terrorist you can get.
ippy
You're quite safe ippy cos no-one will ask you to attend or give any money.
Some Christians are against cremation as they believe the body needs to be intact to be raised from the dead! ::)
Who? Catholics have been cremating for a long time, been to two Catholic funerals that ended up in the crem. That's old hat.
How literally ON earth, is that possible as the body begins to rot quickly after 'death'????
Do these peeps not think things through properly or what ?
It's just a tradition trippymonkey, belief that though the flesh decays the spirit is intact & anyway no-one much from the Christian fraternity worries now about what happens to human remains. Jews and Muslims probably want to retain some old traditions which don't hurt us.
'Thou shalt not kill' should apply to witches is too. What is wrong with a bit of 'double, double toil and trouble'? It is no worse than some of the nonsense attributed to Christianity like the, 'speaking in tongues', gobbledegook. That reminds me, my broomstick is in need of a service. ;D
I daresay in OT times people had extreme ideas about witches because they were scared.
I've no idea what witches were like in those days, do you?
The OT also says a lot of other stuff but was written in a different time and culture, very basic, but suited the people then. They were far worse without those rules.
Let's be thankful we live in more enlightened times!
-
I daresay in OT times people had extreme ideas about witches because they were scared.
I've no idea what witches were like in those days, do you?
The OT also says a lot of other stuff but was written in a different time and culture, very basic, but suited the people then. They were far worse without those rules.
Let's be thankful we live in more enlightened times!
1430 BCE to 1730 BCE - hardly OT times.
90,000women and men burnt alive for being witches on the orders of the Pope using Exodus 22:18 as justification and a fictional 'pact with the Devil' invented by Kramer and Spengler to turn witched into heretics so they could be burned - burning was the punishment for heresy NOT for being a witch.
A child in, say 1501, throws a stone at the senile old biddy who lives alone with her cats on the outer rim of the village, she mutters something about 'nasty little bastard' under her breath. a week later the boy dies! Coincidence? Probably, but she would almost certainly die as a witch for having killed the boy with a spell that she muttered when his srone hit her.
Exodus 22:18 takes precedence over the Sixth! But not only witches; adulterers are among quite along list of exceptions to the Sixth in the 'revealed word of God', which I am told the whole Bible, OT and NT, is!
-
Some Christians are against cremation as they believe the body needs to be intact to be raised from the dead! ::)
No. That's not it. Our bodies could be ripped into a million pieces. That's not the problem. What we do believe is that burial reflects our hope in the resurrection. Lex orandi lex credendi. Besides, cremation is heathen.
-
No. That's not it. Our bodies could be ripped into a million pieces. That's not the problem. What we do believe is that burial reflects our hope in the resurrection. Lex orandi lex credendi. Besides, cremation is heathen.
I definitely don't wish to be resurrected, I hope death means death, no afterlife.
-
1430 BCE to 1730 BCE - hardly OT times.
Are you really sure about that?
-
1430 BCE to 1730 BCE - hardly OT times.
90,000women and men burnt alive for being witches on the orders of the Pope using Exodus 22:18 as justification and a fictional 'pact with the Devil' invented by Kramer and Spengler to turn witched into heretics so they could be burned - burning was the punishment for heresy NOT for being a witch.
A child in, say 1501, throws a stone at the senile old biddy who lives alone with her cats on the outer rim of the village, she mutters something about 'nasty little bastard' under her breath. a week later the boy dies! Coincidence? Probably, but she would almost certainly die as a witch for having killed the boy with a spell that she muttered when his srone hit her.
Exodus 22:18 takes precedence over the Sixth! But not only witches; adulterers are among quite along list of exceptions to the Sixth in the 'revealed word of God', which I am told the whole Bible, OT and NT, is!
We do have a shameful history Owlswing. None of us can deny that.
Not only what you state here but the Crusades.
Christians against Christians too. Persecution of groups like the Quakers.
Terrible persecution of Jews.
I am sorry about that.
None of that would happen now but there are still Christians who justify particular points of view by referring to the OT.
However we do not live in the dark ages Owlswing, we have religious freedom& will do all we can to protect it.
(Not concerning Christians but extremist Muslims justify some of what they do by citing Q'ranic texts and Hadiths.)
-
Are you really sure about that?
OH F*** - Thanks HH - should, of course, read 1430 CE to 1730 CE!
-
I wouldn't be too sure about that!
Really Floo?
Any Christian who quotes the Ten Cammandments to justify any behaviour is using the OT as justification!
Like, I think, that marriage must be between one man and one woman.
-
Really Floo?
Any Christian who quotes the Ten Cammandments to justify any behaviour is using the OT as justification!
Like, I think, that marriage must be between one man and one woman.
I have removed my post I misread Robinson's post, my senility is getting worse! ::) Of course some Christians justify their nastiness by referring to the OT.
-
I already explained this. We believe that it helps ease the transition of the soul from this life to the next.
So no actual benefit to the dead.
-
So no actual benefit to the dead.
Only in your opinion but you don't get to decide that for others.
-
1430 BCE to 1730 BCE - hardly OT times.
Huh?
Should that be
1430 CE to 1730 CE
-
Only in your opinion but you don't get to decide that for others.
Go on then, give us some evidence that funerals benefit the dead.
Your assertion about your belief is only evidence that a funeral benefits the living by providing them with some comfort that they have helped the dead on their way. However, it's totally illogical. Why would God set things up so that a funeral makes things better for the dead person?
-
Only in your opinion but you don't get to decide that for others.
For the non-irrational evidence does that.
-
Go on then, give us some evidence that funerals benefit the dead.
Your assertion about your belief is only evidence that a funeral benefits the living by providing them with some comfort that they have helped the dead on their way. However, it's totally illogical. Why would God set things up so that a funeral makes things better for the dead person?
The Church prays that God might ease the departed souls journey to the next life for we believe in a merciful God. It is all about grace. If you have no knowledge of grace I wouldn't expect you to understand.
-
The Church prays that God might ease the departed souls journey to the next life for we believe in a merciful God. It is all about grace. If you have no knowledge of grace I wouldn't expect you to understand.
No ... he said evidence.
-
Might I ask why, when we 'die' does our spirit, for want of a better word, not just suddenly appear IN the other life?
Nick
Magic.
-
Might I ask why, when we 'die' does our spirit, for want of a better word, not just suddenly appear IN the other life?
Nick
For that you would need to know more about theosis. It is a process of becoming in union with God. This process continues after death if we have not attained to it in this life. Only when it is completed are we able to be in the presence of God.
-
The Church prays that God might ease the departed souls journey to the next life for we believe in a merciful God. It is all about grace. If you have no knowledge of grace I wouldn't expect you to understand.
So God, in his infinite wisdom might forget to ease the departed soul's journey unless you have a funeral.
Your God's a bit shit isn't he.
-
For that you would need to know more about theosis. It is a process of becoming in union with God. This process continues after death if we have not attained to it in this life. Only when it is completed are we able to be in the presence of God.
And you know this how?
Evidence please, not just beliefs.
-
So God, in his infinite wisdom might forget to ease the departed soul's journey unless you have a funeral.
Your God's a bit shit isn't he.
That's not quite what I said.
-
You miss the point. For instance Chistians believe that the funeral rites are most definitely for the benefit of the deceased. Or are you going to gainsay that?
Yes. From what I was reading it is prayers that was being refused.
It was praying for the terrorist's souls that God would look on them favourably, that was being denied.
Apparently at an Islamic funeral it is normal to pray for the souls of the deceased.
https://islamqa.info/en/763
-
So we're relatively imperfect, even in 'spirit form'?
Christianity thinks that too.
Both RC and orthodox seem to do it.
http://www.ourcatholicprayers.com/prayers-for-the-deceased.html
The Imams refused to use intercessionary prayers for the terrorists, which meant not doing the funeral. It's called Janazah
-
What kind of a god is susceptible to prayer????
The Abrahamic one
No more weird than other forms really
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_32.html
-
So in its infinite wisdom it can sort of 'change its mind' ???
So it doesn't always make what we might call the 'right decision' first time?
Lots of cultures go through rituals and prayers to help the deceased on their journey.
It's not new.
Anyway, it gives the living something to do.
It's not weird just because Muslims do it, most of the world does it in one form of another.
-
The Church prays that God might ease the departed souls journey to the next life for we believe in a merciful God. It is all about grace. If you have no knowledge of grace I wouldn't expect you to understand.
If you believe in a merciful god you must wear rose coloured specs when reading the Bible. The god character is far from merciful, just the opposite, in fact.
-
The Church prays that God might ease the departed souls journey to the next life for we believe in a merciful God. It is all about grace. If you have no knowledge of grace I wouldn't expect you to understand.
Merciful?
To paraphrase Stephen Fry - Any God who would inflict cancer on children is NOT merciful; he is a monster, a vindictive sadist.
-
Why would I care what Stephen Fry has to say? The geezer's full of himself.
-
Why would I care what Stephen Fry has to say? The geezer's full of himself.
As, my dear Ad_O are you!
You care more for your God and his unpleasant bastardry than the suffering of children.
-
As, my dear Ad_O are you!
You care more for your God and his unpleasant bastardry than the suffering of children.
Why is anyone or thing allowed to suffer? But then that is one of the great mysteries of this life.
-
Why is anyone or thing allowed to suffer? But then that is one of the great mysteries of this life.
It's vastly less of a mystery than why some clowns posit a god who (a) created this state of affairs, (b) didn't create it but allows it to exist or (c) is such a waste of space that it can't prevent it.
Now that is a mystery.
-
MMMM
So let's just ignore it eh?? - LALALALA I'm not listening !!
It all says so much more about the person than any gods.
-
Who said anything about ignoring except you?
-
So what do YOU feel is the reason YOUR god seems to cause or at least IGNORE these awful things ???
????Why is anyone or thing allowed to suffer? But then that is one of the great mysteries of this life.????
-
The reason why there is suffering in the world is Adam's sin. As fpr why God allows it, at least this side of the Parousia, I can only speculate. God knew creation would fall even before the foundation of the world but he also knew that through the resurrection of Christ creation would be redeemed and lifted even higher than it was before the fall.
-
MMM Seems you're quite prepared to believe Christian mythology but nobody else's eh?
Oh, of course, the Bible is 100% true, isn't it?
Isn't it? ;) :o
-
The reason why there is suffering in the world is Adam's sin. As fpr why God allows it, at least this side of the Parousia, I can only speculate. God knew creation would fall even before the foundation of the world but he also knew that through the resurrection of Christ creation would be redeemed and lifted even higher than it was before the fall.
Your post has just proved how evil your god is!
-
Your post has just proved how evil your god is!
Evil, no, illogical yes
-
Evil, no, illogical yes
If god knew, when it supposedly created human nature, all the suffering it would cause, that makes god evil in my opinion.
-
If god knew, when it supposedly created human nature, all the suffering it would cause, that makes god evil in my opinion.
Which presupposes that there is a better way with less evil. Which is the logic problem not an issue about evil.
-
Which presupposes that there is a better way with less evil. Which is the logic problem not an issue about evil.
Hmmmmmmmm!
-
The reason why there is suffering in the world is Adam's sin.
Jackanory starts early these days doesn't it?
-
That's not quite what I said.
I can't see any other way of interpreting it without bending logic beyond breaking point.
-
Why would I care what Stephen Fry has to say? The geezer's full of himself.
That doesn't mean he is wrong on this point.
-
The reason why there is suffering in the world is Adam's sin. As fpr why God allows it, at least this side of the Parousia, I can only speculate. God knew creation would fall even before the foundation of the world
So God knew there would be immense suffering if he went ahead and created the World. but he still did it anyway.
Your God is a shit.
-
Which presupposes that there is a better way with less evil. Which is the logic problem not an issue about evil.
... which better way a traditional omni-everything god would know, want and be able to bring about, obviously. Lots of people desire no suffering in the world, but while that takes care of benevolence, people are handicapped by the lack of omniscience and omnipotence - that lack doesn't apply to a traditional god.
Of course, to escape the watertight logic of this you have to chop off one of the legs of the tripod.
-
Which presupposes that there is a better way with less evil. Which is the logic problem not an issue about evil.
Not creating the Universe at all would have resulted in less suffering.
-
Not creating the Universe at all would have resulted in less suffering.
... or creating the universe but without suffering in it, which wouldn't be a stretch for an omnimax god
-
Not creating the Universe at all would have resulted in less suffering.
And you have an absolute calculus on that? Off you go then.
-
... or creating the universe but without suffering in it, which wouldn't be a stretch for an omnimax god
Is It? Maybe this is the best is all possible worlds?
-
Is It? Maybe this is the best is all possible worlds?
If you can imagine a better, then it clearly isn't.
Voltaire did a number on that old one a long time ago, of course
-
If you can imagine a better, then it clearly isn't.
Voltaire did a number on that old one a long time ago, of course
?indeed - so show that it is better. Ah you didn't so assertion
-
Are we all assuming THE GOD made all this & not some minor deity having a BAD DAY ?!?!?
I believe there's a phrase for this thought. NS Don't say it !!!
-
Why is anyone or thing allowed to suffer? But then that is one of the great mysteries of this life.
No mystery at all! It is because the God of the Christians is a sadistic bastard who revels in getting and keeping his followers by threats of the most unpleasant tortures as punishment if the do not kneel berfore him and do exactly what he says no matter how evil are the things he tells them to do!
-
All the 'Semitic' religions have used terror & hate to keep their 'slaves' in check.
None of which can be proved to be of any good whatsoever !!!
-
All the 'Semitic' religions have used terror & hate to keep their 'slaves' in check.
None of which can be proved to be of any good whatsoever !!!
And yet slavery is not something that is unique to them, and is something that followers of those religions have campaigned against.
-
Agreed but I didn't mean the type of slavery such as stealing Africans etc.
I meant the way in which these 3 religions have treated their adherents & what may happen if they leave or, Heaven Forbid, preach against it !!!
Religions don't treat people, people do. My mum gave me some cake yesterday, that seems quite pleasant even though she is religious and I am not.
-
'People' will do anything if they can 'blame' it on some other dubious character.
Human nature.
Islam is a direct reflection of the Muslim mind & politics of its invention then. IS are only carrying on what Islam's founder did then.
What is the 'Muslim mind'? Is it somehow different to other people's minds? Are Gabriella and I different in terms of having different types of mind?
-
To a degree yes as you're not a Muslim - well I THINK not but....
Although I would never say ALL Muslims think alike as we'd have IS wallies all over the place.
So what is a 'Muslim mind'?
-
Islam itself, technically, is the Muslim mind. But you know as well as I do that THAT'S not always the case. It's amusing that so many Muslims leave what we might call Islamic countries to go to NON-Islamic ones for a better life.
They then create mini Islamic states there with Halal butchering & implications of their own law/Sharia groups etc. Try any of these things 'our' way ie Christian, in, say, Syria & Pakistan to some degree & you'll soon get told what to do.
These can all be checked out on the net.
So people create Islam and then that changes them? How does that work then?
-
And you have an absolute calculus on that? Off you go then.
If there are no people to suffer, there can be no suffering.
Job done.
-
?indeed - so show that it is better. Ah you didn't so assertion
The same Universe as this one but without smallpox.
-
The same Universe as this one but without smallpox.
Doesn't even have to be as big an ask as that - currently I'd settle for the same universe without toothache.
-
Doesn't even have to be as big an ask as that - currently I'd settle for the same universe without toothache.
My sympathies :(
But yes, the principle works just as well. Toothache is easily explicable under naturalism; but under theism? What's going on there?
-
Not to mention period pain, let alone childbirth.
Oh hang on, it's because women are dirty and evil. Forgot that.
-
Not to mention period pain, let alone childbirth.
Oh hang on, it's because women are dirty and evil. Forgot that.
Yep women have to put up with the pain of childbirth because Eve was a naughty girl and tempted that frail male of the species, Adam, with the apple! ::)
-
No woman. No cry!!!!
-
Not to mention period pain, let alone childbirth.
Oh hang on, it's because women are dirty and evil. Forgot that.
Apparently God couldn't have created women who are not dirty and evil. This god seems to be a bit incompetent.
-
God had to create women, as soon as it realised that the male of the species couldn't survive without them. ;D
And God had to give men infinite patience to put up with the whining of females who think it is an achievement to walk upright and talk at the same time.
Just stop with your sexist nonsense.
-
Dear, Dear! ;D
I know you think you are being light hearted and funny. But the denigration of men in society is a serious problem tied in with men's own attitude to themselves - a jokey 'poor dears can't cope' attitude does not help with self image for, particularly young males. Low self-esteem is acknowledged as one of the causes of the high rates of male suicide. Seriously you need to stop.
http://www.esquire.co.uk/culture/longform/a9202/britain-male-suicide-crisis/
-
Oh come on I was just having a joke, women have been subjected to sexism since they climbed out of the primeval swamp. It is interesting to note how a bloke gets so upset when the tables are turned, even when it was not meant to be a serious comment! Anyway this a subject for a separate thread. Why don't you start one if it bugs you so much?
I might start one. But as I was brought up not to make demeaning jokes about women I find it very strange when you, or other woman do just the same thing that you complain about men doing. Stinks of double standards to me.
BTW I'm not upset. I'm annoyed at your stance. There is a difference.
-
I might start one. But as I was brought up not to make demeaning jokes about women I find it very strange when you, or other woman do just the same thing that you complain about men doing. Stinks of double standards to me.
BTW I'm not upset. I'm annoyed at your stance. There is a difference.
Oh dear, get over it. ::)
-
Oh dear, get over it. ::)
Can't address the subject - so switch to patronizing instead. Noted.
-
I think men can cope perfectly well without women, just as many women have to cope without men. A lot have no choice in the matter, they have to!
Of course they have to accommodate any lonely feelings but many succeed very well without a partner.
No harm was meant but none of us should make jokes which are demeaning to the opposite sex. I've been annoyed about "Typical women" comments in past. Yes the sexes are different it's stupid to deny that but we're all human beings and have insecurities.
Trent, that article is spot on, thank you for posting. I hope everyone reads it.
-
Getting off topic, but I agree with Trent. Any sexism hurts.
-
And yet slavery is not something that is unique to them, and is something that followers of those religions have campaigned against.
7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her.
Exodus 21;7
The revealed word of the Christian God which, to be Chtristaion, Christans MUST follow!
-
7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her.
Exodus 21;7
The revealed word of the Christian God which, to be Chtristaion, Christans MUST follow!
Err, no. It is part of the Old Testament. Christianity is exclusive to the New Testament. I'm not a Christian (except in some vague cultural sense) but I do know the difference between the Old and New Testaments.
-
Not quite. Otherwise the OT wouldn't be part of the Christian Bible. Same God.
-
Not quite. Otherwise the OT wouldn't be part of the Christian Bible. Same God.
True, but occasionally you come across Christians - Bashful Anthony was one, I recall - who pretty well write off the OT as superfluous - or if that's not the right word, then of minor importance. Hence the old gag: "How do you hide something from a Christian? Put it in the Old Testament, they never look in there."*
* Exceptions apply, especially about gays though not mixed fibres.
-
The revealed word of the Christian God which, to be Chtristaion, Christans MUST follow!
Have you tried shopping in Hounslow less?