I saw somebody say this on a thread a while back, and just remembered it, "It would be better to reign in hell that serve in heaven."
That's not word for word, and I don't remember who said it, but that is the just of it.
This seems ridiculous to me for several reasons. First, no one will reign in hell, not even Satan himself after God casts him back to hell permanently in the second coming. In hell, you will not have any other human contact, and be forever tortured with the worst pain imaginable, and every second will feel like an hour, and every day like a year. In heaven, you will be a servant of God, but you will want to serve Him. It will not be like being a slave, heaven will be perfect, everything you've ever wanted times ten, with no pain, sadness, or boredom.
In my opinion, that statement is horribly false, but what do you guys think?
No It is a hadith that everyone will like to b in heaven forever after but those who gave their lives for islam will b longing to go back in the battle field again.
And do you know why? I mean, does Allah have plans involving an army of war-thirsty spirits? Or is it simply stated as a fact and noone knows why?
No Allah dont have any kinds of plans for war thirsty spirits but this hadith tells about the glory in dying for Islam.
So, it tells us the glory for dying for your faith, which is typical for most religions. Does it tell you that you would long to go back to war? The two don't equate, but if it does, I'm not surprised that the West is suspicious and threatened by such fanaticism. You can't blame them.
No Allah dont have any kinds of plans for war thirsty spirits but this hadith tells about the glory in dying for Islam.
So, it tells us the glory for dying for your faith, which is typical for most religions. Does it tell you that you would long to go back to war? The two don't equate, but if it does, I'm not surprised that the West is suspicious and threatened by such fanaticism. You can't blame them.
Nope. Compare the likes of the war in Pakistan now with WWI, WWII, the Napoleonic Wars, the Vietnam War, Korean War, The Hundred Years War, The Crusades and you will see why it isn't.
Killing is so clean nowadays in comparison -- a bullet is made for damage, not for pain. The training is used for efficiency, not for honor -- lined up Musketeers trained to stay in their ranks when being shot at, to reload their (flintlock?) rifle and return fire. Not a pretty sight when you consider those unfortunate enough to be hit by these inaccurate machines of war would suffer a chunk of metal and lead in their body, amputation was often a necessity for survival by surgeons -- no painkillers either.
Worse yet they would need to undergo cauterization soon after.
Pakistan is a dirty place to be in right now -- but it's no hell compared to previous battles where intimate melee fighting would be the norm and there was very little you could rely on -- honor was one of the strongest binds -- especially in Asia.
Rephrase:- Pakistan is facing one of the worse conflicts of 21st century.(I got a little emotional back there)
It's definitely good that you feel for this -- and I agree that it's one of the worst conflicts.... although we are only 11 years through.
War is sweet to those who have no experience of it, but the experienced man trembles exceedingly at heart on its approach.
Sadly -- this is the case to a lot of people. I don't try and understand the measure war can push you through because I know I simply couldn't until at that same scenario -- as such I rarely if ever question someones actions when they're in a battle like such because of the influences around them. Others aren't so... sensitive to the situation.
Why is that so? You think you will take your war drive with you in your afterlife? Don't you believe that you will strap off such things when you die?
Well, it depends really -- I don't really think he would suffice to a change of character until he's actually there... He will almost certainly change before he dies and if he does meet into the afterlife he would hopefully shed that... aggressive mindset.
I would long to finish a fight that I realize is the only option -- but I would never swap to physical actions unless it's the only option in the first place, rarely do I see that kind of method to be successful in attributing your actual point or help proving the purity of it in the first place.
As for the glory in dying for Islam... ugh. It's a touchy subject so I apologize in advance for offending anyone (which, I likely will).
Can you really relate to someone putting their life on the line for something they don't know is true? Would you see glory in that kind of relentless action on something they might not even know much about? Do you visualize a good will from people who would die FOR that? -- Would you trust someone who relies more on their faith than their sword-arm?
No It is a hadith that everyone will like to b in heaven forever after but those who gave their lives for islam will b longing to go back in the battle field again.
Do they get to go back into battle? If so how is this a peaceful afterlife? If not they are then force to have a longing they can never quench, again leaving them restless. This doesn't sound at all like glory but more like a form of torment for these souls, a torment issued onto them for following their religion.
I've missed a couple pages of comments, so I'm going to go back to the homosexuality part around page 4 or 5.
A lot of you are arguing about God messing up by making homosexuals born sinners. However, this is going off the opinion that people are born homosexual. This is not a scientific fact, and I don't believe this is the case. I think it a choice.
About the longing for war in Heaven, I don't think it will all be singing songs and sitting in rocking chairs with nothing but peace. Because my God is not weak, I think there will be adventure in heaven, just not the kind we are used to on earth.
However, this is going off the opinion that people are born homosexual. This is not a scientific fact, and I don't believe this is the case. I think it a choice.
but believe it or not. its not a choice. when did you chose to be streight? never, you are born that way. you can one day decide that you like eating apples. you dont choose your likes and dislikes. and i doubt anyone would choose to go through what gay people have to. they have to go through so many things. if we could all choose what we are trust me, life would be much easier.
People who shun and hate gay people deserve to live in hell because gay people are like you and me. Let's put it like this: What if you hated all the gay people and then you suddenly choose to be gay. You'd have to go through all the pain you caused gays in their eyes. Wouldn't be funny, now would it?
It is. Of course as a homosexual you can if you want, or you have to if you're born into a strict religious family, act straight and even have children with a wife; or at least try. But you'll be going against your sexuality, all the time, like if you had to lead a gay life because your religious family would not tolerate you being straight; just think the other way round to know how they would feel.
actually there IS a religion (cant remember the name though) in which they choose a baby that is born to have a 3rd gender. they are boys but have to wear girl clothes and do girly activities. they called the 3rd gender a different name as well. and they believe that the babies that are chosen to be that gender are pure and holy.
im guessing you wouldnt want to be one of those babies would you? XP
This is not a scientific fact, and I don't believe this is the case. I think it a choice.
Easy enough experiment to conduct for yourself to determine if it is or not, try to make that choice for a while. Choose to have sexual feelings towards those of the same sex as you. If you are unable to this would indicate that it is not a choice.
Besides this simple experiment we do have other forms of evidence that indicates that it's not simply a choice.
but believe it or not. its not a choice. when did you chose to be streight? never, you are born that way. you can one day decide that you like eating apples. you dont choose your likes and dislikes. and i doubt anyone would choose to go through what gay people have to. they have to go through so many things. if we could all choose what we are trust me, life would be much easier.
I am not denying that -- but is there any chance you have sources or can explain (in whatever detail) how people are born gay? I know someone in my school who knows he is and he is a boss (I'm not homosexual myself but his personality, humor, tolerance / security and confidence is pretty astonishing) and I would think if it were a choice believe it to be a worse one being as you can't reproduce...
Looking for an explanation basically, because it's just... something I'm honestly curious about.
It is. Of course as a homosexual you can if you want, or you have to if you're born into a strict religious family, act straight and even have children with a wife; or at least try. But you'll be going against your sexuality, all the time, like if you had to lead a gay life because your religious family would not tolerate you being straight; just think the other way round to know how they would feel.
Aside from the obvious cultural rejection of being gay (that is easing a huge amount)... and the inability to reproduce -- what is actually wrong with homosexuality? I am heterosexual I'm sure but I don't necessarily see why the case is that same-sex couples would be shunned, or even "sexual acts" (kisses / hugs etc -- basically some of the intimate things a teenage couple might do) so highly disapproved. O.o They're not always sexual of course.
Besides this simple experiment we do have other forms of evidence that indicates that it's not simply a choice.
i use my logic and explain it so no i have no sources. but i do remember reading that there is a gay gene or something like that. i also have to go now so i cant look it up and im sure that mage can find a better source anyway. bye now
