Stradlater Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Muloghonto said: Uhm, pretty sure i have been in more churches, mosques & temples than 99.9% of humanity......... Yeah for sightseeing probably. Yahan mudda alag h dhondu. UrmiSinhaRay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 Just now, Stradlater said: Yeah for sightseeing probably. Yahan mudda alag h dhondu. And that is not a valid reason because ?! You sure everyone who goes to a temple to pray are there so they can commune with said God/Gods and isn't just there coz their moms dragged them along ? You cannot judge intent. Switchblade 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stradlater Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 Just now, Muloghonto said: And that is not a valid reason because ?! You sure everyone who goes to a temple to pray are there so they can commune with said God/Gods and isn't just there coz their moms dragged them along ? You cannot judge intent. See Mulo you have problems with subtle distinctions which is understandable considering senility has probably started catching on. Thing is a religious place/shrine has some rules of it's own which should be respected by everyone. If they don't want you to enter then you should probably get along with it since every law has some reasoning behind it and also out of respect. Their religious sentiments should be prioritized over someone's inner travelling urges so that they can upload their pics on Instagram with hashtags of wanderlust and borntotravel. Switchblade 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikhil_cric Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 9 hours ago, Muloghonto said: No. Government has always superceeded religion and still does. Power lies with the government - whether its the 11th century king/sultan with an army, 18th century privateers with charters or modern military. And when government chooses to - it dictates what religions can/cannot thrive, what kind of power religion will have etc. The goverernment has always been a superior body of power to religion. This is a historically attested fact. This is completely unrelated.Iask you this - which liberal democracy has allowed - women to worship with men in mosques by superseding religion ? Or superrseeded the Catholic church to allow women as cardinals? Religious institutions have the right to exclusion and segregation for religious services and that is why they are religions. Interference with that , unless absolutely necessary, makes a state less secular and not more. flamy and sensible-indian 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 10 minutes ago, Stradlater said: See Mulo you have problems with subtle distinctions which is understandable considering senility has probably started catching on. Thing is a religious place/shrine has some rules of it's own which should be respected by everyone. If they don't want you to enter then you should probably get along with it since every law has some reasoning behind it and also out of respect. If they are a completely private property and private entity, sure. But they are not. This is not someone's personal temple, this is a public place. Therefore, i refuse to recognize any such restriction to a public building. 10 minutes ago, Stradlater said: Their religious sentiments should be prioritized over someone's inner travelling urges so that they can upload their pics on Instagram with hashtags of wanderlust and borntotravel. Nope. You have no right to dictate what the purpose of a public building is or why people should go there. Nobody does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said: This is completely unrelated.Iask you this - which liberal democracy has allowed - women to worship with men in mosques by superseding religion ? Or superrseeded the Catholic church to allow women as cardinals? Religious institutions have the right to exclusion and segregation for religious services and that is why they are religions. Interference with that , unless absolutely necessary, makes a state less secular and not more. Turkey during Ataturk's early years, allowed such for females. The cardinal question is inapplicable, since it is a title granted ONLY by the said religion. I am talking about access and civic rights. I am not saying who gets to be purohit or mullah or bishop, etc. The way i see it, as long as all religions are treated the same and has no influence on the government, it is secular. Doesn't matter if they are treated well or treated poorly. Secularism is not about good or bad treatment of religions, its simply about equal treatment of all religions and them having no influence over government functionings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stradlater Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: If they are a completely private property and private entity, sure. But they are not. This is not someone's personal temple, this is a public place. Therefore, i refuse to recognize any such restriction to a public building. Does that mean Saudi govt should lift the restrictions on non Muslims to enter M&M and let people of all creeds to wander about the holy cities, interfering with religious rites of Muslims and disturbing the whole haj decorum? Thankfully the world doesn't think that way and never would. 7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Nope. You have no right to dictate what the purpose of a public building is or why people should go there. Nobody does. You are a chutia and I'm done debating with you. UrmiSinhaRay and Switchblade 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikhil_cric Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 17 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Turkey during Ataturk's early years, allowed such for females. The cardinal question is inapplicable, since it is a title granted ONLY by the said religion. I am talking about access and civic rights. I am not saying who gets to be purohit or mullah or bishop, etc. The way i see it, as long as all religions are treated the same and has no influence on the government, it is secular. Doesn't matter if they are treated well or treated poorly. Secularism is not about good or bad treatment of religions, its simply about equal treatment of all religions and them having no influence over government functionings. I asked for a liberal democracy which does it . Atatürk's Turkey was not a liberal democracy by any stretch of the imagination not by contemporary standards anyway. If the Supreme Court indeed does open ALL religious institutions to women that would be a first i think for a secular democracy and would be , truly, a secular decision. but frankly that is not gonna happen and we all know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikhil_cric Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 37 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: If they are a completely private property and private entity, sure. But they are not. This is not someone's personal temple, this is a public place. Therefore, i refuse to recognize any such restriction to a public building. Nope. You have no right to dictate what the purpose of a public building is or why people should go there. Nobody does. I can see some merit in this argument that since this is a public place it should be open to all and that is ok. But im firmly against the government running any religious institution and i consider it immoral if the government to run temples especially Tirupati , sabarimala etc. simply because they generate somuch revenue. UrmiSinhaRay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 19 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said: I can see some merit in this argument that since this is a public place it should be open to all and that is ok. But im firmly against the government running any religious institution and i consider it immoral if the government to run temples especially Tirupati , sabarimala etc. simply because they generate somuch revenue. Well i am firmly for the government running everything that is a public space and public property. Religion is no exemption- the government is ultimate authority in charge of running a land, creating its laws and dispensing justice. Religion falls under those categories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 49 minutes ago, Stradlater said: Does that mean Saudi govt should lift the restrictions on non Muslims to enter M&M and let people of all creeds to wander about the holy cities, interfering with religious rites of Muslims and disturbing the whole haj decorum? I'd say yes. 49 minutes ago, Stradlater said: Thankfully the world doesn't think that way and never would. You are a chutia and I'm done debating with you. LOL at name-calling. The world is trending towards putting all these hocus pocus religious nonsense in the dustbin, buddy. Because the world is slowly waking up to the reality that just like how we don't let amazon tribals to dictate how we should live our lives, the same applies for religions who's founders/major figureheads are all high school flunkies by today's standard. Switchblade 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikhil_cric Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Well i am firmly for the government running everything that is a public space and public property. Religion is no exemption- the government is ultimate authority in charge of running a land, creating its laws and dispensing justice. Religion falls under those categories. Would agree only if government runs all temples, churches and mosques not a select few as they please. UrmiSinhaRay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moochad Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 Disgusting interference by courts in matters that don't concern them. There is no way if something similar in the reverse happened, that this would be okayed. UrmiSinhaRay and Stradlater 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 6 hours ago, Muloghonto said: I'd say yes. LOL at name-calling. The world is trending towards putting all these hocus pocus religious nonsense in the dustbin, buddy. Because the world is slowly waking up to the reality that just like how we don't let amazon tribals to dictate how we should live our lives, the same applies for religions who's founders/major figureheads are all high school flunkies by today's standard. They were thinking about how we came about to exist and the meaning of time, your scholars are busy involved in kiki, tide pod and ice-bucket challenge. Switchblade, UrmiSinhaRay and Laaloo 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 1 hour ago, coffee_rules said: They were thinking about how we came about to exist and the meaning of time, your scholars are busy involved in kiki, tide pod and ice-bucket challenge. today's scholars think of the same and today's high school kids have a better understanding of the universe and how we came to exist than those illiterate 'sages'. Thats a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dial_100 Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 14 hours ago, coffee_rules said: I was commenting on the Christian core belief of a Virgin birth of Jesus. If it was not for birth from a Virgin mother, Jesus would not be born out of sin like all of us and hence he can't deliver us out of our born sin. This is the core belief. Scientifically, the only way a mother can give birth and still be a virgin is if Mary was a hermaphrodite. Forcing such beliefs would be blasphemous as well as unconstitutional. May I know who are the two deities that I offended with virgin birth remark? Ganesha ? You didnt offend me at all. No worries there. I said questioned which is ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 2 hours ago, Muloghonto said: today's scholars think of the same and today's high school kids have a better understanding of the universe and how we came to exist than those illiterate 'sages'. Thats a fact. You are incorrigible. You don't know anything about mind-sciences and talk through your rear most of the time. Waste of time. Switchblade 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: You are incorrigible. You don't know anything about mind-sciences and talk through your rear most of the time. Waste of time. Pfft. Mind sciences are 1000 times more advanced today than the age of so-called rishi-munis who did not even know how many planets are in the solar system, nevermind meaning of existence. Give me a clinical psychiatrist any day of the week over the hocus-pocus mumbo-jumbo speaking half-literate rishi-munis. You just can't handle the fact that children know more about our existence, biology, dna, the universe etc. than the writers of your religion. An average university science graduate knows more about math and sciences than the sum total of ancient Indian civilization. The average psychology graduate knows more about how the mind works than the totality of every single 'rishi muni, gyaani' of the past talking about mental faculties. So tell us, how are the thoughts of those with 0.00001% knowledge as us, are fit to be followed as an example ? Edited September 19, 2018 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dial_100 Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 19 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: You are incorrigible. You don't know anything about mind-sciences and talk through your rear most of the time. Waste of time. off-topic comment. I didnt know iggy was such a good feature of this forum. Switchblade 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 23 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Pfft. Mind sciences are 1000 times more advanced today than the age of so-called rishi-munis who did not even know how many planets are in the solar system, nevermind meaning of existence. Give me a clinical psychiatrist any day of the week over the hocus-pocus mumbo-jumbo speaking half-literate rishi-munis. You just can't handle the fact that children know more about our existence, biology, dna, the universe etc. than the writers of your religion. An average university science graduate knows more about math and sciences than the sum total of ancient Indian civilization. The average psychology graduate knows more about how the mind works than the totality of every single 'rishi muni, gyaani' of the past talking about mental faculties. So tell us, how are the thoughts of those with 0.00001% knowledge as us, are fit to be followed as an example ? Mind-science is not about Psychology/Psychiatry. Basic 101. Read about how western mind-scientists learnt the craft from yogis in India in the 60s and have digested it with their invented nomenclature. Search for Vipassana and how it is appropriated into what they call as Mindfulness etc. with some mumbo-jumbo modern words. I don't have the time to spare for you to cut and paste. These were thought about more than 2000 years ago. This is like arguing present day high school students know more than Galileo or Newton. BS. It is called learning what is already known, while we are talking about who pioneered the knowledge. Thinking was initiated by Indian civilization. Go figure! UrmiSinhaRay and Laaloo 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts