Meaning of Islam

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All religions are Memes. So, the ultimate aim is to create more of oneself. Different religions do this by a mix of different vectors. For example, in early Christianity, there are other sects that were nowhere near a successful as Catholicism was since they restricted membership to Jews only. The Cathars were doomed by being pacifists and didn't stand a chance faced with violent Catholics.

Judaism is laced with examples of where the Jews slaughtered their way through other tribes. If not they might have gone the way of all the other extinct religions down the ages.

So with Islam there are many different strains competing with each other for hosts. Those that become too attenuated tend to loose out to the more aggressive ones.

I imagine the meaning of a religion varies almost by as many followers of the religion there are. We have (openly) gay Catholics now so people's ability to be flexible in their interpretation of the inflexible is great.

Memes are just a theory, or more accurately a belief because there's no way to test Dawkins' theory.

[Gilrandir]

It's demonstrably false - he's taking passage from Leviticus and trying to apply it to Christianity whilst ignoring the fact that "true" Christianity places an absolute ban on violence.

Bibile is full of violence done in the name of God. If the Old Testament is not a part of Bible and not to be revered any longer, let the Church officially repudiate it and exempt it from the holy texts. Unless it is done, such charges as Yesugey's will always have ground.

[Husar]

Bibile is full of violence done in the name of God. If the Old Testament is not a part of Bible and not to be revered any longer, let the Church officially repudiate it and exempt it from the holy texts. Unless it is done, such charges as Yesugey's will always have ground.

That's like saying we should burn all history books or else violence and slavery will always be part of our culture.

[Gilrandir]

That's like saying we should burn all history books or else violence and slavery will always be part of our culture.

History is full of violence yet no historian proclaims such stories holy.

It is stupid for apologists of Christianity to proclaim it religion of peace and fraternal love (unlike other religions) and keep violence-related messages in its core book. Either get rid of them (as a part of HOLY TEXTS) or stop pretending your religion is better than others.

[Pannonian]

History is full of violence yet no historian proclaims such stories holy.

It is stupid for apologists of Christianity to proclaim it religion of peace and fraternal love (unlike other religions) and keep violence-related messages in its core book. Either get rid of them (as a part of HOLY TEXTS) or stop pretending your religion is better than others.

I'm not a Christian, and I'm with the majority of Englishmen in this, and I support a football club, and I'm with the majority of Englishmen in this, and the club I support is notoriously meek and family-friendly. Does that count? Do I get to despise the barbarism of Islamists with a clean conscience?

[Snowhobbit]

I'm not a Christian, and I'm with the majority of Englishmen in this, and I support a football club, and I'm with the majority of Englishmen in this, and the club I support is notoriously meek and family-friendly. Does that count? Do I get to despise the barbarism of Islamists with a clean conscience?

I think it depends on if you are white or not. White people don't have the privilege of criticising the actions of people who are not white.

[Lizardo]

I think it depends on if you are white or not. White people don't have the privilege of criticising the actions of people who are not white.

I sure hope that is sarcasm Mr. Swede

[Snowhobbit]

I sure hope that is sarcasm Mr. Swede

Have the black helicopters not taken you away yet Mr. Escapee from an insane asylum? Or did the police arrest you after you broke into 10 Downing Street?

[AE Bravo]

I'm not a Christian, and I'm with the majority of Englishmen in this, and I support a football club, and I'm with the majority of Englishmen in this, and the club I support is notoriously meek and family-friendly. Does that count? Do I get to despise the barbarism of Islamists with a clean conscience?

No because some other Englishmen who doesn't like football as much as barbarism probably prevented them from enjoying their own clubs like you do.

[rory_20_uk]

Memes are just a theory, or more accurately a belief because there's no way to test Dawkins' theory.

They are as much a belief as money is a belief. To describe ideas in such terms is just to quantify something that is there.

[Husar]

History is full of violence yet no historian proclaims such stories holy.

It is stupid for apologists of Christianity to proclaim it religion of peace and fraternal love (unlike other religions) and keep violence-related messages in its core book. Either get rid of them (as a part of HOLY TEXTS) or stop pretending your religion is better than others.

The stories are there because some of the messages are still relevant while others are outdated. If you rip out the outdated parts, the relevant ones lack context. Your point makes little sense because the book clearly says the violent messages are not to be followed anymore, so please explain why it is supposedly okay then to claim that Christianity demands violence against certain people when it clearly doesn't? I can also look for the violence in buddhist "holy texts again" after you claimed that it's all peaceful. According to your argument now that must clearly make it a violent religion then?

I'm not a Christian, and I'm with the majority of Englishmen in this, and I support a football club, and I'm with the majority of Englishmen in this, and the club I support is notoriously meek and family-friendly. Does that count? Do I get to despise the barbarism of Islamists with a clean conscience?

What do the holy texts of your club say about violence?

[Pannonian]

What do the holy texts of your club say about violence?

Dunno, but they blare music whenever we score a goal, which isn't very often, and we're generally respected among other smaller clubs for capturing a sizeable young fanbase, through concessions, chaperoned package away trips, etc. Away fans (barring the obvious) praise the friendly atmosphere, which can be seen as something of a barbed compliment. Never mind violence, even a hostile atmosphere is barely conceivable.

Note that, unlike religion (and Islam generally has a greater number of fanatical followers than other religions), the above is the language that the average Brit (and probably average European) speaks. Not defending this text or that that justifies violence, but looking for enjoyable places to go to to pass one's leisure time. Pointing to this paragraph or that of the Old Testament to defend the right of Islamists to behave the way they do misses the point. Scarcely any believe in religious texts to guide their behaviour in life. Free healthcare at the point of service probably has more fanatical supporters than the Old Testament as directed by christians.

No because some other Englishmen who doesn't like football as much as barbarism probably prevented them from enjoying their own clubs like you do.

This does not parse.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bibile is full of violence done in the name of God. If the Old Testament is not a part of Bible and not to be revered any longer, let the Church officially repudiate it and exempt it from the holy texts. Unless it is done, such charges as Yesugey's will always have ground.

The Lord said that he has fulfilled the Law, he does not require us to kill, he requires us not to.

[Lizardo]

Can we close this thread now

[Gilrandir]

The stories are there because some of the messages are still relevant while others are outdated. If you rip out the outdated parts, the relevant ones lack context. Your point makes little sense because the book clearly says the violent messages are not to be followed anymore, so please explain why it is supposedly okay then to claim that Christianity demands violence against certain people when it clearly doesn't?

I'm afraid you can't evaluate ideological/religious tenets piecemeal. Rip out of Lenin's extension of Marxism parts on the neccessity of Red Terror and destroying bourgeoisie as a class and it will seem the best ideology to follow.

The same with Christianity. It reveres Bible AS A WHOLE because it is a collection of holy messages which was purported to be given by God unto humans. How God could have given messages which could ever become outdated? Aren't they universal truths to be followed once you are on the path of God? Or should each of us choose which of the messages are outdated and which are still relevant? And what if my choice turns out to be different from yours and I decide that the violent parts of Bible have become relevant again? Too many unpleasant questions.

I can also look for the violence in buddhist "holy texts again" after you claimed that it's all peaceful. According to your argument now that must clearly make it a violent religion then?

I have a cursory awareness of Buddhism. But as Rev. Brenus taught us, Buddhism is not a religion and it doesn't have holy texts. So if you manage to find some and prove your claim, I will consider your arguments.

The Lord said that he has fulfilled the Law, he does not require us to kill, he requires us not to.

So he informed us about what terrible things he had allowed in the past to show that we can't do them any longer? He has changed his mind on the issue of violence? If he did, he indirectly admitted he had made a mistake? Can God make mistakes? What if he made other mistakes? What those mistakes could be? Left handers? Homosexuals? Centepedes? Nazis? If those were not mistakes, than God has created them on some purpose? What was the purpose of creating nazis? To unleash more violence?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Pointing to this paragraph or that of the Old Testament to defend the right of Islamists to behave the way they do misses the point. Scarcely any believe in religious texts to guide their behaviour in life. Free healthcare at the point of service probably has more fanatical supporters than the Old Testament as directed by christians.



This does not parse.

Just to say....I don't think anybody is referring to Old Testament stories and sayings in order to defend the rights of "Islamists"* to "behave the way they do". It is to show that all religious books, of all religions, have within them violence. The idea that Islam is somehow different and inherently despicable is nonsense.

*Islamists? Is that like Christianites? The vast majority of Muslims (ie they who identify themselves as being followers of Islam) do not justify violence in the name of Islam and are as opposed to those fundamentalist terror groups as the vast majority of Christians (ie self-avowed followers of Christianity).

[Lizardo]

This is what alwayc happens when people debate the Quran some will deflect and point to Christianity. NO Islam and Christianity are two separate Religions we are debating what Islam means not Christianity. The only way Christianity links in with Quran is Christians must pay the Jizya tax and must know they are second class citizens otherwise known as Dhimmis the Angel Gabriel and the recognition of Isah/Jesus. Close the thread and open a new one discussing Christianity then.

[Pannonian]

Just to say....I don't think anybody is referring to Old Testament stories and sayings in order to defend the rights of "Islamists"* to "behave the way they do". It is to show that all religious books, of all religions, have within them violence. The idea that Islam is somehow different and inherently despicable is nonsense.

*Islamists? Is that like Christianites? The vast majority of Muslims (ie they who identify themselves as being followers of Islam) do not justify violence in the name of Islam and are as opposed to those fundamentalist terror groups as the vast majority of Christians (ie self-avowed followers of Christianity).

Islamists are people who reject the existing secular state in favour of moving towards a state based on Islamic teachings. Within Europe, I can't think of any countries that reject the secular state in favour of moving towards a state based on Christian teachings. Among the west, the closest I can think of is the US, but even there the constitution is regarded as more holy than the Bible. Among Muslim countries, even in the most rigorously secularised of them all (Turkey), there has been a move towards Islamism. Among homegrown European Muslims, there are quite a few who support the Islamist activism espoused by Muslim countries, most notably Saudi Arabia. If you don't want to call these homegrowns Islamists, that's fine by me. Traitors would be equally accurate.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Islamists are people who reject the existing secular state in favour of moving towards a state based on Islamic teachings. Within Europe, I can't think of any countries that reject the secular state in favour of moving towards a state based on Christian teachings. Among the west, the closest I can think of is the US, but even there the constitution is regarded as more holy than the Bible. Among Muslim countries, even in the most rigorously secularised of them all (Turkey), there has been a move towards Islamism. Among homegrown European Muslims, there are quite a few who support the Islamist activism espoused by Muslim countries, most notably Saudi Arabia. If you don't want to call these homegrowns Islamists, that's fine by me. Traitors would be equally accurate.

So "Islamist" is an invented term, used to describe a subset of Muslims who believe in the implementation of Sharia law? Ok.....so that doesnt address the point I was making; that you seem to believe that the Old Testament references are being used to defend the rights of these notional "Islamists", but are being used to show how ridiculous it is to try and paint Islam as, of itself, more violent than another religion.

but...as usual with semantic sleight of hand, you then go on to define Islam more generally by the terms of the notion of "Islamist" so that, actually, your alleged subset is now creeping toward a synonymous usage as with "Muslim".

For example you make the (weasel) statement that "Among homegrown European Muslims, there are quite a few who support the Islamist activism espoused by Muslim countries, most notably Saudi Arabia." I say weasel because...what does "quite a few" mean? You have issued forth a statement that suggests a value without ever offering one. What is "quite a few"? 15? 2000? Maybe percentages would be more useful.

[Pannonian]

So "Islamist" is an invented term, used to describe a subset of Muslims who believe in the implementation of Sharia law? Ok.....so that doesnt address the point I was making; that you seem to believe that the Old Testament references are being used to defend the rights of these notional "Islamists", but are being used to show how ridiculous it is to try and paint Islam as, of itself, more violent than another religion.

but...as usual with semantic sleight of hand, you then go on to define Islam more generally by the terms of the notion of "Islamist" so that, actually, your alleged subset is now creeping toward a synonymous usage as with "Muslim".

For example you make the (weasel) statement that "Among homegrown European Muslims, there are quite a few who support the Islamist activism espoused by Muslim countries, most notably Saudi Arabia." I say weasel because...what does "quite a few" mean? You have issued forth a statement that suggests a value without ever offering one. What is "quite a few"? 15? 2000? Maybe percentages would be more useful.

Weasel words, you say. If you want evidence, perhaps one way of putting it would be that there are enough to mount large scale attacks in Europe. One this year in Belgium, two last year in France, at least a couple in 2005 in the UK, one in Spain in 2004, etc. And that's not counting 9/11 in America.

As for painting Islam as more violent than another religion, I have no intention of doing so. Not believing in any religion at all, they're all the same to me. However, Muslims have a greater tendency to want to replace secular state with religious state. Since I don't believe in any intrinsic values of any particular religion, what a religion is to me is painted by their believers. And as such, to me Islam is defined by Muslims, who in turn derive their views from their religious text. I'd see any western leader who looks to Christianity for guidance in government as equally loony, but then I've not seen any here. Barring the US, so-called Christian western countries are nothing of the sort when it comes to actual government. Looking to Islam for guidance in government is practically mainstream in Muslim countries.

[Gilrandir]

Just to say....I don't think anybody is referring to Old Testament stories and sayings in order to defend the rights of "Islamists"* to "behave the way they do". It is to show that all religious books, of all religions, have within them violence.

... and it is people who decide what to choose from a religious book to guide them - whether a violent part or otherwise.

Within Europe, I can't think of any countries that reject the secular state in favour of moving towards a state based on Christian teachings.

The Vatican?

[Husar]

... and it is people who decide what to choose from a religious book to guide them - whether a violent part or otherwise.

So I can choose the words of your posts that I want to live by and if I end up an evil person we can blame you for having written these words?

[Yesugey]

It's demonstrably false - he's taking passage from Leviticus and trying to apply it to Christianity whilst ignoring the fact that "true" Christianity places an absolute ban on violence.

To be honest I don't even know which passage I am talking about

Yes, by "true" Christianity you mean the modernized version of Christianity. At past, the other one was "True" Christianity.

It's exactly the same with Islam, I am Turkish and most Turkish people lives the modern version of Islam. For example, Moslems are allowed to take 4 wives, yet most Turkish people never even consider this because we modernized the religion. (And it's illegal)

[Yesugey]

Bibile is full of violence done in the name of God. If the Old Testament is not a part of Bible and not to be revered any longer, let the Church officially repudiate it and exempt it from the holy texts. Unless it is done, such charges as Yesugey's will always have ground.

Thanks, that's what I meant. I am not "Charging" anyone though, violence was a part of life back then. I believe religions did a very good job for their time, and bring us to this day. They are just obsolete now.

[Gilrandir]

So I can choose the words of your posts that I want to live by and if I end up an evil person we can blame you for having written these words?

First of all, I'm in no way a creator of a new religion or ideology.

Second of all, you drew a conclusion which is completely opposite to what I meant. Let me re-phrase my statement: whatever source you may read is not responsible for the your consequent behavior. One may read Mein Kampf, but one may never start hating Jews let alone start killing them. And vice versa, he may start doing this, but in such a case it will be this very person to blame, not the book. Like if you buy a knife you may use it for carving Christmas turkeys - or stabbing people in the street, yet the knife is not to blame. Something about which O'Henry said: "It ain't the roads we take; it's what's inside of us that makes us turn out the way we do."

It is especially true with books of versatile messages and multiple understanding such as Bible.

[Pannonian]

Thanks, that's what I meant. I am not "Charging" anyone though, violence was a part of life back then. I believe religions did a very good job for their time, and bring us to this day. They are just obsolete now.

Which is why the trend of Muslim countries moving to acknowledging religion as an influence in government is absolutely stupid. Muslim countries should be looking to Mustafa Kemal as their role model, not Mohammad. Infinitely more so for Muslims living in secularised western countries.

[Husar]

Yes, by "true" Christianity you mean the modernized version of Christianity. At past, the other one was "True" Christianity.

Not really, if someone follows the commands of the old testament that go against Christ's teaching, how can he be a christian, i.e. a follower of Christ? It's not that God likes homosexuals now, he just doesn't want you to kill them anymore.

The new testament basically says you should leave the judgment to God and not judge people yourself. Before Jesus came that was different indeed, but that's judaism and not christianity.
Jesus said things such as "he who is without sin shall throw the first stone", how that can be interpreted as or even brought into accordance with "you have to kill the gays" is something you need to explain to me.

First of all, I'm in no way a creator of a new religion or ideology.

Second of all, you drew a conclusion which is completely opposite to what I meant. Let me re-phrase my statement: whatever source you may read is not responsible for the your consequent behavior. One may read Mein Kampf, but one may never start hating Jews let alone start killing them. And vice versa, he may start doing this, but in such a case it will be this very person to blame, not the book. Like if you buy a knife you may use it for carving Christmas turkeys - or stabbing people in the street, yet the knife is not to blame. Something about which O'Henry said: "It ain't the roads we take; it's what's inside of us that makes us turn out the way we do."

It is especially true with books of versatile messages and multiple understanding such as Bible.

So you agree that Yesugey is wrong when he says christians must kill the gays and your entire argument against my point was for nothing?
Good to know, so we can go back to blaming the terrorists for what they do instead of claiming christianity demands violence against gays.

[Gilrandir]

It's not that God likes homosexuals now, he just doesn't want you to kill them anymore.

So God can change his attitude to things? He is becoming more advanced and politically correct? How nice and thoughtful of him. Way to go. I think it is time "The new testament: a revised version" was presented urbi et orbi. Perhaps we will learn from it that God is gay?

The new testament basically says you should leave the judgment to God and not judge people yourself. Before Jesus came that was different indeed, but that's judaism and not christianity.

Once again: unless it is obliterated from the holy book of CHRISTIANS, it is still Christianity.

And if it is judaism as well - then it is a violent religion too - thus no exception among others.

So you agree that Yesugey is wrong when he says christians must kill the gays and your entire argument against my point was for nothing?

I don't know whether there is an actual order/prescription in any Testament to kill gays, so let those who want to dispute it find the pertaining quotation. So I don't know if Yesugey is correct in wording it, but what he is right in is that Bible contains explicit censure of homosexuality. But, like I have said, Bible (in its entirety) is full of dubious and even mutually exclusive recommendations. Whether to follow all of them (and if not all - which to follow) everyone must decide for himself.

[Husar]

So God can change his attitude to things? He is becoming more advanced and politically correct? How nice and thoughtful of him. Way to go. I think it is time "The new testament: a revised version" was presented urbi et orbi. Perhaps we will learn from it that God is gay?

As sad attempt at ridicule because that is not exactly what I said.
And yes, of course there were changes, before Jesus people had to kill lambs to get forgiveness for their sins and afterwards, only Jesus can grant forgiveness for their sins. And this change is not some whim of the moment change either like you make it out to be, there are prophesies in the old testament that relate to it.

Once again: unless it is obliterated from the holy book of CHRISTIANS, it is still Christianity.

And if it is judaism as well - then it is a violent religion too - thus no exception among others.

You still confuse having stories about violence with actually demanding or promoting violence, unless "violent religion" simply means "there are mentions of violence in the holy texts somewhere".

I don't know whether there is an actual order/prescription in any Testament to kill gays, so let those who want to dispute it find the pertaining quotation. So I don't know if Yesugey is correct in wording it, but what he is right in is that Bible contains explicit censure of homosexuality. But, like I have said, Bible (in its entirety) is full of dubious and even mutually exclusive recommendations. Whether to follow all of them (and if not all - which to follow) everyone must decide for himself.

Saying that god doesn't like homosexuality makes a religion violent or are we changing goal posts now?
And yes, if you do not understand the difference between the OT and the NT and have absolutely no idea how the religion works, then it is easy to say that it contains statements that confuse you. I may agree on there being some questionable things, but you use big words for something you apparently just don't understand. People who just pick some statements to follow and ignore others have completely missed the overall message of Jesus, which is relatively clear from some reading and a bit of study.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is what alwayc happens when people debate the Quran some will deflect and point to Christianity. NO Islam and Christianity are two separate Religions we are debating what Islam means not Christianity. The only way Christianity links in with Quran is Christians must pay the Jizya tax and must know they are second class citizens otherwise known as Dhimmis the Angel Gabriel and the recognition of Isah/Jesus. Close the thread and open a new one discussing Christianity then.

Actually, the relationship between Christianity, Judaism and Islam remains a topic of debate. Christianity is unambiguously a splinter-sect of Judaism but the situation with Islam is far more complex. At various points in history Islam has been seen as a heretical sect of Christianity because of Christ's central role in both religions, or as a sect of Judaism which incorporates elements of Christianity, or as a synthesis of the two, or even as a separate "pre-Jewish" monotheistic splinter religion which Muhammed fused with various Christian and Judaic teachings.

As to why people bring up Christianity in these debates, it's usually as a point of comparison - Islam is used as a yard-stick for "badness" and the closer you can pull Christianity to Islam the "worse" it is as a religion/system of thought/way to live your life.

To be honest I don't even know which passage I am talking about

It shows - you're not quoting any part of the Bible.

Yes, by "true" Christianity you mean the modernized version of Christianity. At past, the other one was "True" Christianity.

No, I mean the first "True" Christians who chose to die rather than take up arms against the Romans. Jesus forbade his followers to do violence even to their enemies. When a Jew asked "who is my brother?" Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan to show that even heretics are our brothers. When one of his disciples struck the ear from one of the Chief priest's servants in defence of Jesus Jesus rebuked his disciple and healed the man he struck.

It's exactly the same with Islam, I am Turkish and most Turkish people lives the modern version of Islam. For example, Moslems are allowed to take 4 wives, yet most Turkish people never even consider this because we modernized the religion. (And it's illegal)

In this you are correct, today Christians fight wars and execute criminals - these acts are anathema to Christ's teachings.