What’s the view of turkeys going to heaven?

Having a debate at work, do turkeys go to heaven or not? One Catholic was categorical in stating that there is no soul ergo no Heaven.One Muslims thought that that they dont but then another one said that the pictures of heaven showed animals and trees and stuff. The Hindu’s had a different view. The Buddhist said yes, they go to heaven definitely but there are different views about whether or not heaven exists. So we googled and came across this site.

I definitely think animals go to heaven.

Pet Heaven: Faiths have differing views about animals in the afterlife
Lynn Arave ("Deseret News," November 26, 2010)

Salt Lake City, USA - Do pets and animals go to heaven?

This is a widespread question on the Internet, with more than 4.3 million sites trying to address the issue in some fashion.

A fido paradise or kitty heaven isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible and so every religion has its own beliefs.

Animals were present and peaceful in the Garden of Eden, though. The future for animals is also promising — according to the Bible — as the lion shall eat straw like the ox in the Millennium and the wolf, leopard and sheep are also mentioned as existing on earth and living peacefully then (Isaiah chapter 11).

Here's a sampling from various faiths on the animals in heaven topic:

According to the Catholic Answers Forum (forums.catholic.com), "Animals have a material soul that ceases to exist when they die. Humans have a spiritual soul that continues to exist after death," Michelle Arnold, a Catholic Answers apologist, stated.

"But does this mean that animals will not be present in the afterlife? That is a question to which we do not have an answer. There does however seem to be hints that God will restore the universe at the end of time. As animals are part of the 'visible universe,' it seems possible that they too might share 'their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.' It might be possible that God might also re-create those animals who have been a pleasure and comfort to man in his earthly journey. We don't know in this life, but it is something for which we can hope."

She also said that if pets are needed for our perfect happiness in heaven, then pets will be there.

The catechism of the Catholic Church does not directly address the question of pets going to heaven, according to Dr. Richard Geraghty, PhD, of EWTN, the global Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network. He says that while all living beings have a soul, the soul of a plant or animal goes out of existence when they die, while a human soul does not.

Animals lack the intelligence which allows them to choose either God's will or their own will and are thus not accountable for their actions, he argues.

"The church will demand that animals be respected as part of creation while at the same time insisting that the dignity owed a human being should never be given to an animal," Geraghty stated.

Zen Buddhists simply have no specific belief in an afterlife for animals.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the entire earth will be a sanctuary in the eternities and that includes being a peaceful place for animals.

An official statement from the Seventh-Day Adventist Church states:

"Although human beings are the pinnacle of creation, all creatures are the handiwork of God and thus are deserving of our esteem and protection. Because we are sinful, we sometimes forget our obligations to other creatures. Ecosystem and species destruction are visible evidence of our sinfulness."

While it does not address the possibility of animals in heaven, the statement warned: "How we treat animals reveals our true nature."

There is no Jewish tradition with regard to pets and heaven. However, most western Jews believe that all love comes from God and will return to God. This could therefore include faithful companions, like man's best friend, going to heaven too.

According to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, the question of animals going to heaven is a "cautious 'maybe.'"

The Rev. John Brug stated in 1995 in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod publication, "Since animals do not have immortal souls, we might think the answer is no. Several facts, however, make one hesitant to be satisfied with a simple 'no.'"

He said there may be plants and animals in the new earth as there were in the first earth.

"If there are animals on the new earth, they will be good creatures of God as the animals of the first earth were."

Information on the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. Web site — www.pcusa.org — appears to argue that logically God would not exclude creatures in the afterlife who were part of his original paradise in the Garden of Eden.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a strong belief for pets/animals in paradise.

The Prophet Joseph Smith said animals — varied creatures — will be found in heaven ('Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,' pages 291-292).

According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, "Latter-day Saints believe that animals, like humans, have spirits. Mortal and subject to death, animals will be saved through the Atonement of Christ."

The short answer to the question, "Do animals go to heaven?" is "yes, and only to the celestial kingdom," Brett H. Latimer, a Brigham Young University professor said during a Campus Education Week presentation at Brigham Young University in 2008.

He also suggested that how their owners care for them may have something to do with their owners' salvation.

Gerald E. Jones, former director, Institute of Religion, Berkeley, Calif., in a March 1977 Ensign magazine answered many animal queries in the "I Have a Question" section:

"— Do animals have spirits and are they resurrected? Yes. The Prophet Joseph Smith received information concerning the eternal status of animals. Answers to questions he posed are in the 'Doctrine and Covenants,' section 77. He also spoke about the resurrection of animals in a sermon but did not expand on the subject. ('History of the Church,' 5:343.)

"— To what degree of glory do animals go? The scriptures speak only of animals being in the celestial kingdom. Whether they go to other kingdoms is a matter of conjecture. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith on one occasion said the distribution of animals into all three degrees of glory is 'very probable,' (Improvement Era, Jan. 1958, pp. 16–17.) To my knowledge, no other prophet has published an opinion on the subject.

"— Are animals judged and resurrected according to their obedience to laws? According to Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, animals do not have a conscience. They cannot sin and they cannot repent, for they have not the knowledge of right and wrong. ('Man: His Origin and Destiny,' Deseret Book Co., 1954, pp. 204–5.)

"— Can animals be with their owners in the hereafter? There is no revealed word on this subject. Reason would tell us that a rancher or farmer may not want all of the cattle he has owned during his life. On the other hand, emotional ties may be honored and family pets may well be restored to their owners in the resurrection. Elder Orson F. Whitney wrote that Joseph Smith expected to have his favorite horse in eternity. (Improvement Era, Aug. 1927, p. 855.)

"— Just what is the relationship between men and animals? Men are children of God. Animals are for the benefit of man. This does not mean, however, that man is not to have a concern for this part of his stewardship. The prophets in all ages have indicated that man will be accountable for his treatment of animals and that justice and mercy should be exercised concerning them ..."

Career Choices and Education

Son

I came across this article. I quote:

Laurel O’Gorman is one of the faces of Occupy Toronto. She believes the capitalist system has robbed her of her future. At 28, she’s studying for a master’s degree in sociology at Laurentian University in Sudbury. She’s also the single mother of two children. “I’m here because I don’t know what kind of job I could possibly find that would allow me to pay rent, take care of these two children and pay back $600 each month in loans,” she said.

Here’s Boston resident Sarvenaz Asasy, 33, who has a master’s degree in international human rights, along with $60,000 in student loans. She dreamed of doing work to help the poor get food and education. But now she can’t find a job in her field. She blames the government. “They’re cutting all the grants, and they’re bailing out the banks. I don’t get it.”

Then there’s John, who’s pursuing a degree in environmental law. He wants to work at a non-profit. After he graduated from university, he struggled to find work. “I had to go a full year between college and law school without a job. I lived at home with my parents to make ends meet.” He thinks a law degree will help, but these days, I’m not so sure.

There are 3 examples of people who are picking up some serious amounts of debt but have no idea how to get a job or to pay for it. At this moment, they are in trouble. So the question that comes up is, what is the link between the course you do and the job you get? Its vital to think about that piece otherwise you will end up like people mentioned here, people with debts, responsibilities and a degree which is useless for any kind of job. So what happens? They protest. Not good.

Persian Views

I am studying Farsi. Its now been couple of months that I have been attending classes. First of all, its not easy for an empirical positivist like me to understand the rather free flowing mechanism of learning languages. Grammar rules, punctuation, vocabulary are all foreign bodies to me. But interestingly enough, I read this article:

“Urdu is a mixture of Persian, Arabic and Turkish words formed with the intermingling of invading Muslim armies and local Hindi-speaking Hindus. It’s a Turkish word which means Army camp, hoard, etc.”

Almost everyone who knows something about the Urdu language knows this statement, which is logically incomprehensible, historically incorrect and linguistically misleading. Irrespective of the fact as to who made this statement, why it was made and when it was initiated for the first time, one thing can be said with utmost certainty that it has profound socio-political and socio-linguistic impact in the Indian Subcontinent for the last 150 years, i.e., with the advent of British Raj in this region.

One can draw a few inferences from this falsehood which has shaped our perception, consciously and sub-consciously that Urdu is not a native language of the Indian Subcontinent rather it’s a language of foreign invaders. Consequently it must be disowned if not hated.

Historically it is incorrect because the Muslim rulers did not introduce any new language. Instead they gave a new script (Persio-Arabic or Nastaliq), which was comprehendible to the spoken language of India. They even invented and introduced new signs or letters for the new sounds which are utterly local to the existing Persio-Arabic script, i.e., all the aspirated sounds of Bha, Pha, Tha, Gha, Dha, Rha, Lha and retroflexed sounds like Rah, Taa, Daa, etc. Hence all the tens of thousands of words spoken in Urdu containing these sounds have their origin in the early Vedic or middle Vedic era, i.e., 400 to 600BC.

In addition to that all the infinitives (Masader) ending on Na sound like Aana, Jaana, Khana, Peena, Uthna, Baithna, Perhna, Likhna, Sona, Jagna, Chalna, Bhagna, Larna, Dhukna, Boolna, Sunna, Kehna, etc. All are words of this language being spoken as the vernacular of early Vedic and middle Vedic period.

The process of loaning words from other languages is a sign of a living and progressing language. Urdu is one such language.
All the speakers of Urdu neither became Muslim by including Persian or Arabic words nor are they now converted to Christianity by including English words in its words corpus. On the contrary, perhaps, the Indian ruling elite believe that they will become Muslims if they use Arabic and Persian words, so they are making conscious efforts to replace most of these words with Sanskrit words. This policy may have socio-political advantages albeit not without socio-political repercussions.
As a student of linguistics only one comment can be made on this current policy of India that such a policy leads into secluding more people and ethnic groups rather than integrating them.

Lets analyse a few historical facts. The Turks started converting to Islam in 920AD with the invasion of Arabs. The Arabs put their foot on the soil of Sindh in 711AD but they were in constant contact with the Indian Subcontinent for centuries prior to Islam. The Ottoman Turk Empire was established in 1299. Lahore was under the rule of Mahmud Ghaznavi in 1254AD.
However, the interaction of Persian speaking people with India via trade goes back to the before Christ (BC) era. In short, the cultural association of Persian and Arabic-speaking people with the Indian people predates Islam.

Arabic, Persian and Turkish vocabularies were brought to India by traders, invaders and preachers. Turkish is the only language which was restricted to invaders or rulers whereas Arabic was introduced by traders as well as early invaders which remained restricted to present day Sindh and southern Punjab. Persian, the most influential of the three, remained the language of invaders, traders and preachers over the centuries. Interestingly, the language of preachers and Sufis and early Muslim poets in India always remained Persian … neither Turkish nor Arabic.

Coming to the misstatement mentioned in the beginning of this article, let’s analyse the empirical data as to how many words of Turkish are borrowed by Urdu? Based on this data the inference will be made on whether Turkish has any part in the making of Urdu. Leaving aside the syntax and grammar of the two, which are completely different, many people believe the theory of Urdu’s derivation from Turkish, and a few have attempted to prove it too.

One such attempt was made by Mr Purdil Khattak who wrote Urdu aur Turki Kay Mushtarik Alfaz published by Muqtedarah Qaumi Zuban (1987), Islamabad. He did make a great effort and was able to enlist only 2,608 words, which are commonly spoken by a Turkish speaker and an Urdu speaker. If we take this statement as it is even then in a language which has over 3,00,000 words with the base of more than 80,000 Lexemes (as contained in 21 volumes of Urdu Lughat of Urdu Lughat Board Karachi, a meticulous work completed in 25 years), 2,608 words means 0.8 per cent of the total words, which itself means nothing to that claim that Turkish contributed in the formation of Urdu.

The most interesting part of this research is that the list of 2,608 words common in Turkish and Urdu only contains 24 words which are pure Turkish. The rest are either Arabic, Persian or English words used commonly by Turks and Urdu speakers.

This list contains 1,546 pure Arabic words most of them are Quranic words such as ayat (Quranic verse), bait (house), azeem (great), barq (thunder), jahil (illiterate), jannat (heaven), jamal (beauty), jaib (pocket), jehad (holy war), dakhil (interior), jurm (crime), dalil (proof), deen (religion), ambiya (prophets), ahim (important), fatwa(religious decree), atraf (sides), fashi (eloquent), ghafil (indolent), fikr (thought), khaber (news), hakim (ruler), haal (present), khalis (pure), khas (special), harb (war), hilal (crescent), khilaf (opposite), hudood (limits), and so on.

In the same list, 485 words are pure Persian, borrowed from Turkish such as aab-o-hawa (weather), ambaar (heap), asoodah (well off), ashiyana (home/nest), arzoo (desire), arasta (decorated), badan (body), bahaar (spring season), bohran (crisis), buland (high), badter (worst), Beyzar (dejected), kahkasan (galaxy), kiswar (country), kutubkhana (library), madad (help), marasim (relations), masroor (ecstatic), mard (man), maakhana (pub), medaan (ground), murdar (dead), etc.

But there are so many words that I grew up with that I find common. Angur (grapes), rooz (day), hafte (week), maa (month), saal (year), jangal (forest), manzil (house), raah (path / road), yek baar (once), do bar (twice), sefed (white), buzugh (big/elder), nazik (thin), tazeh (fresh), khaley (empty), khoub (good), nerem (soft), ananas (pineapple), peyaz (onions), lobeya (beans), bird (perendeh), sheyer (lion), lebas (clothes) and so on and so forth.

While I am struggling with the verbs, the compound verbs, the issue that the sentence structure is Subject Object Verb, but the words are quite common, i am surprised at this level of similarities between Hindi and Urdu with Persian. But I guess I shouldnt be surprised. Fascinating. I am also heavily struggling with writing left to right and the damn diacritical marks. The punctuation/ diacritical marks are so important, you have to be precise and remember what the hell it is. Not just that, you could have the same letter but it could be a vowel or it could be a consonant. And one letter can have three pronunciations. Just kill me. Why the hell did I have to pick this up? I should have picked up something simpler, like mine clearing..

Divorce at marriage ceremony

BRAVO BRAVO.

Excellent news, this woman needs to be congratulated. These morons and idiots who demand dowry, these people who are genitally challenged should be forced to sleep with flea infested camels and then a bucket of warm spit poured over them while being kicked with hob nailed boots will only realise when they are publicly mocked. Bastards. May he never be able to sustain an erection. So there. And for his aunt, may your hair fall out in clumps and warts grow on your nose. So there even. Detest these bastards and witches. Bah, but what a great woman, now that’s courage for you. Attagirl.

I quote:

A bride has divorced the bridegroom for demanding dowry on the very day of marriage.
The bride, Farjana Yasmin, is the daughter of Khalilur Rahman of Kalipura village under Kukua union council of Amtali upazila of the district. She recently completed her Masters in Social Welfare from Dhaka's Eden College, securing first class.
The bridegroom, Shawkat Ali Khan alias Hiran, is headmaster of a government primary school at Kalapara upazila in Patuakhali district. He is the son of Shah Alam Khan of Madrasah Road area in Kalapara municipality.
Farjana told bdnews24.com that she was married to Shawkat on Friday morning.
"As they were about to leave our house along with me, his (Shawkat) aunt Tahmina Begum demanded a TV set, refrigerator, motorbike and some other things as dowry in presence of the guests," she said.
As Shawkat also supported his aunt's demand, Farjana divorced him then and there.
"He who demands dowry can never be my life partner. I'm divorcing him in your presence," she told the guests.
The relatives of the bridegroom tried to solve the row until 9:45pm, but Farjana stuck to her guns.
The relatives of the bridegroom left the ceremony humiliated.
Farjana told bdnews24.com, "In my student life, I was an anti-dowry activist and generated awareness against it among the people. But now I have myself become its victim."
"I think women should stand against dowry."
Contacted, Shawkat's mobile phone set was found switched off.
Tahmina is the headmistress of a government primary school of Kalapara Sadar upazila.

Sarcasm bewilders me

I have to admit that sarcasm bewilders me, usually I cant understand it and take it for face value. So people usually have to say <sarcasm font> or wave a flag. But looks like I am missing a trick..

From Smithsonian Magazine:

Sarcasm seems to exercise the brain more than sincere statements do. Scientists who have monitored the electrical activity of the brains of test subjects exposed to sarcastic statements have found that brains have to work harder to understand sarcasm.

That extra work may make our brains sharper, according to another study. College students in Israel listened to complaints to a cellphone company’s customer service line. The students were better able to solve problems creatively when the complaints were sarcastic as opposed to just plain angry. Sarcasm “appears to stimulate complex thinking and to attenuate the otherwise negative effects of anger,” according to the study authors.

And:

Sarcasm so saturates 21st-century America that according to one study of a database of telephone conversations, 23 percent of the time that the phrase “yeah, right” was used, it was uttered sarcastically. Entire phrases have almost lost their literal meanings because they are so frequently said with a sneer. “Big deal,” for example. When’s the last time someone said that to you and meant it sincerely? “My heart bleeds for you” almost always equals “Tell it to someone who cares,” and “Aren’t you special” means you aren’t.

Or else since this was done in Israel, this could well be a zionist plot <sarcasm font>

I hate Narendra Shenoy urf Kolaveri

He got me hooked on this song. Go read the background to this here. 

And I am not tamil either. I liked the holy cow business. Narendra made a rip of this here.

Now this damn Kolaveri business is rattling around in my head like two vicious tasmanian devils fed on marmite and with their tails on fire. Nice birds on the video, mind you. And I was happy to note that the guys still have mustaches. Good chaps.

Saudi moral committee threatens to cover “tempting” women’s eyes

First the story:

Women with sexy eyes in Saudi Arabia may be forced to cover them up, according to the spokesperson of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) in the conservative Gulf kingdom.

Spokesman of the Ha’eal district, Sheikh Motlab al-Nabet said the committee has the right to stop a women whose eyes seem “tempting” and order her to cover them immediately.

Saudi women are already forced to wear a loose black dress and to cover their hair and in some areas, their face, while in public or face fines or sometimes worse, including public lashings.

The announcement came days after the Saudi newspaper al-Watan reported that a Saudi man was admitted to a hospital after a fight with a member of the committee when he ordered his wife to cover her eyes. The husband was then stabbed twice in the hand.

/facepalm

While in Israel, this is what’s being pushed around.

That Orthodox Judaism forbids a man from hearing a woman sing. These soldiers adhere to the strict interpretation of the expression “Kol B’Isha Erva.” This might translate as, “the voice of a woman is like nakedness.” Or as, “the voice of a woman is like her vagina.”

And these are men? MEN? They are barbarians, molluscs would hesitate to associate with them, the morons. Truly frightening idiocy of the first order, that they read something in some medieval book, park their brains in the basement, and go forth to do this kind of Neanderthal crap.

No wonder all the prophets had to be born in the middle east, look what they had to work with, God has had to work overtime on these muppets.