rtwngAvngr
Senior Member
- Jan 5, 2004
- 15,755
- 512
- 48
- Banned
- #21
This is make up, smoke and mirrors, a lady in a box, and a man with a cape. A show, if you will. They'd be fools to let them in.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
rtwngAvngr said:Warning: This thread may make you dumber.
canavar said:Why don't you let people decide this theirselves?
With such commentaries you only widen the frequency of informative posts.
canavar said:Kathianne. I agree partly with your sources.
Yes, in Turkey there are over 70.000 mosques. No other country has more mosques in its country then Turkey.
But what counts is not quantity, but quality. Every mosque in Turkey is state-run, Imams - now even woman imams - are educated by the state via "Diyanet" which was described before and are public officials.
In Turkey there are no radical mullahs in mosques. All Imams are educated by Turkish state and they are on wage list of Turkish Finance Minitry not on SAudi List. Diyanet is every Friday faxing every Friday (Friday is like Sunday for Christs) the prayers into the mosques.
Religion in Turkey via mosques is very centralized and nothing happens without Diyanet. There is no authority in Turkey besides Diyanet to manage Religion in Turkey. Through absorbtion of Islam by the state Islam is being managed and depolarized in Turkey. The turkish style of laicism doesnot convert its claim of laicism by putting Religion under or beside the state and only manage both factors. But rather Turkish laicism gives the state the interpretation monopol of Islam and arranges legal religion life to be bureaucracytated.
This is the form of laicism in state politics and on individual basis being secular does not mean being anti-muslim. It means leaving religious issues to private life and keep it out of politics.
Here Atatürk as he holds prayers:
http://www.atamizindeyiz.com/01/resimler/10.jpg
http://www.atamizindeyiz.com/01/resimler/13.jpg
Atatürks mother wore headscarf, do you think he hated his mother?
No it is an dress-code established in special public areas.
Turkey-Turks are in majority Muslims allthough there are different branches of Islam in Turkey. Anyway, Turkey-Turks were the ones who freely adopted Islam and were not forced to. So Turks chose Islam becuase they believe in it.
Kemalism (Ideology of Atatürk) is not static and there were always paradigm changes in reliance to Islam.
So in 1980s after Leftist-Rightist clashes and afterwards military coup, the so called Turkish-Islam sythesis was born makeing Islam fully autonomous from non-turkish influence.
And in your article it is said that Turkish Military relies on ideolgies such as martyrdom and Islam and so on. You don't believe this yourself or do you?
Now comeing to the streets as you wanted me to mention:
you can go to prostitute bars or into the mosque. It is up to everyone himself.
You can wear tanga on the beach or headscarf in the street.
No one in Turkey is forcing anyone to pray or fast in Ramadan.
From the remarks here i can see that noone really knows about Turkey. And the only way to change this is not by discussion forum but by comeing with your american wealth to Turkey and see it yourself.
rtwngAvngr said:No.
I think europe should do what I think is best, which is to not allow any more muslim influence in their continent.
Kathianne said:Canavar, I may be reading things wrong, but it seems to me that GW is pushing EU to accept Turkey, but they are balking. At the same time, Turkey is leaning more towards Iran, which of course is going to make the West all the more sure to not include?
Kathianne said:Canavar, I may be reading things wrong, but it seems to me that GW is pushing EU to accept Turkey, but they are balking. At the same time, Turkey is leaning more towards Iran, which of course is going to make the West all the more sure to not include?
Eightball said:Whats this say about all religions?
First of all, a belief system is supposed to be Creator spawned/authored. Right?
Secondly, why would the system/tracts/verses have to be eliminated or changed to mean something different, new or better?
This is where I have a very hard time with these belief systems that claim to be the truth. They make alterations from the original, and some how that's Creator ordained.
Was the Creator suffering from Alzheimer's when he first presented his truths?
Joseph Smith's prophecies have been eliminated, changed, modified hundreds of times since the 1830's.
.....
I want a God that has, unalterable, omnipotent communication with His creation, and doesn't have to constantly modify/change His message in order to be more "clear", "right", or "truthful".
.......
The Dead Sea Scrolls proved strongly that Judeau Christian truths allegedly given to man via prophets, has not changed in intent or in grammatical presentation in thousands of years.
......
I think this is the great dividing point between systems of religious belief.
........
I'm for an infallible God, that doesn't make mistakes communicating the first time-around. I'm for a God who is omnipotent, and therefore has total control over his transmitted communications with his creation(man). He(God) is strong(omnipotent) enough to protect the accuracy of His communications throughout the ages and doesn't need to add addendums, Latter Day Prophets, correct mistaken for wrong treatment in value between the female and male components of His created humanity. He sees each race of humanity, as one color, and doesn't, doesn't exclude one from special service in the church due to color of skin, or race.
Any religion that has to change it's the original doctrine as handed down by their alleged prophets of God, is actually telling the world that their god, is not omnipotent, and can't be trusted to be the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. That's shakey ground to put trust in.
.....
Isn't the definition of a true prophet or prophetess of God that they must be 100% correct in all that they communicate to mankind as "Word/s" from God? That 100%, means throughout their entire lives of speaking God's messages? One bad prophesy, and they are considered a false prophet. Every they have said previously must be brought into question. How does that square with latter day prophets that have changed dictums from God more than once, and now call that the "truth"?
Now, what can we say about these latter day prophets that came hundreds or maybe a thousand or more years after Christ's ascension, and the original apostles had passed away?
Did the work of Christ, and the original Apostles need addendums, modifications, etc. to clearly communicate God's nature? Did they need the work of latter day prophets who refuted the original nature of Christ, and changed his status from divine to just human and nothing else? Or did we take a step of progress by changing Christ from divine but to merely one of a myriad of smaller gods, or prophets? Did we take a step of progress by saying that the crucifixion was but a ploy, and never happened in history?
It boils down to this. Is God able to communicate to man clearly the first time, or is God fallible, and weak. If He was fallible, I would be jumping ship. I don't believe He's weak, and needs a myriad of additional newer religions/prophets that strip Christ's divinity away, and place man at the helm, and also covertly, communicate that God is fallible, and not really 100% in control of His creation.
I can't look out at night, marveling at the infinite universe, and think that God, needed correction and couldn't handle it the first time around. The God of Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Isaiah, Mark, John, Paul, or Barnabus, is good enough for me. He's not contradicted Himself through the ages, and He can't and won't in the latter days either.
Eightball said:This new covenant with the Gentiles doesn't void God's covenant with Israel does it?
Doesn't the last book(Revelations) of the New Testament pretty much nail that fact down, as God preserves a remnant 12,000 from each tribe; 144,000 in the end? The beast and his cohorts try as they may to destroy Israel, but God will have nothing of that?
Does the one covenant necessarily supercede the other, or is one covenant for a different purpose, or less encompassing purpose?
The Covenant through Christ appears to me to cover all of mankind, Kosher or Gentile, while the earlier covenant is involved in the protection, and preservation of the nation of Israel?
...
Whats this say about all religions?
First of all, a belief system is supposed to be Creator spawned/authored. Right?
Secondly, why would the system/tracts/verses have to be eliminated or changed to mean something different, new or better?
The one basic fact of Islam is that all Muslims believe that the Koran is the the last literal true word of God and is the only religious text that has never been changed and has never been touched by the hand of man. In it's original Arabic, the Koran is perfect.
The Hadiths, however, are another story. The difference between a Shiite and a Sunni Muslim are in which Hadiths each sect considers "valid". There's a lot more to it than that, but that's a basic enough description for this discussion. The different sects of Islam dispute each other over who was Muhammad's rightful heir and successor. Since the Hadiths are witnessed, reported, and narrated by these successors, each sect has no problem dismissing any of them based on who wrote what. So any Hadith can be ignored based on the opinion of the ignorer.
The Koran, on the other hand, cannot be disputed by any Muslim, no matter what his sect is. The Koran is the last literal true word of God and can never be amended or changed. But since no Muslim can interpret the Koran on his own, he has to rely on the interpretation of others to tell him what it all means, and those people get their interpretation from the Hadiths.
Nice racket, huh?
Hey--don't worry
Islamo facism is no threat to America--ask a Democrat.
Ask 99% of the Western world.
If I read one more quote from some idiot who says Islam has been "hijacked" I'm gonna toss my cookies.
They we all peaceful and loving until Bush screwed them around.
He MADE them the haters that they are !!!!!!:teeth: