View Full Version : Meaning of Islam
Define islam.
What it means, submission
Created new thread for this topic. - Beskar
Pannonian
03-23-2016, 18:58
Define islam.
From the official statement by ISIS on the Brussels attacks:
"First we want to make it clear to all that what makes the kafir’s blood permissiable to spill is not him fighting the Muslims, rather it is his “KUFR” that necessitates his killing. So if one asks, can you kill a Kafir (who does not fight Islamand muslims)? the answer is a big YES."
In other words, nothing that we do or don't do will affect whether or not we will be targeted. Even if we do nothing whatsoever to upset Muslims and the middle eastern countries, the fact that we are "other" means we are legitimate targets for killing.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/03/official-isis-announcement-state-on-belgium-attacks-bombings-attack-brussels-paris-attacks-france-amaq-news-agency-terrorism-bombs-tweet-twitter-english-translation/
AE Bravo
03-23-2016, 19:05
What it means, submission
Wrong.
Wrong.
Nope, literally means it. I am glad most muslims are really nice but islam itself is sick, and as welcome as the inquisition
Snowhobbit
03-23-2016, 19:16
Nope, literally means it. I am glad most muslims are really nice but islam itself is sick, and as welcome as the inquisition
Isn't it one of those words with multiple meanings? I think it means peace as well as a bunch of other things.
AE Bravo
03-23-2016, 19:19
Nope, literally means it. I am glad most muslims are really nice but islam itself is sick, and as welcome as the inquisition
I'm sure you feel that way, but that's not what it literally means. Nobody would be thinking this if it wasn't for Van Gogh films, Geert Wilders, or other anti-Islam stuff.
Pannonian
03-23-2016, 19:21
I'm sure you feel that way, but that's not what it literally means. Nobody would be thinking this if it wasn't for Van Gogh films, Geert Wilders, or other anti-Islam stuff.
Or even the official statement from the group claiming responsibility for the attacks.
AE Bravo
03-23-2016, 19:27
Or even the official statement from the group claiming responsibility for the attacks.
Where does it say that Islam means submission?
I couldn't care less about what they say, but it probably doesn't say that.
I remember coming across as Islam as being "Submission before God/Allah", meant in a similar manner that a Christian is theologically submissive to God/Jesus.
A quick google search confirmed this. even one aptly named "Submission.org (http://submission.org/)" which describes it as the following:
Submission or Islam in the Arabic language is a meaning or a description rather than a name or a title. It describes the state of mind of anyone who recognizes God’s absolute authority, and reaches a conviction that God alone possesses all power; no other entity possesses any power or control independent of Him. The logical consequence of such a realization is to devote one’s life and one’s worship absolutely to God alone.
So, Submission (or Islam in Arabic language) is a spiritual state of mind and not a title of a religion that belongs to a specific group of people. ANYONE who submits and worships one God without idolizing other entities is a Submitter by definition (Muslim in Arabic language).
This state of mind basically conforms with God’s one and only message He delivered to man-kind through all of His messengers since Noah; worship God alone and avoid idolatry. Based on that, one can safely conclude that the message of Islam or Submission has been in existence way before the time of prophet Muhammad and way before Quran. All God’s messengers, since Noah, devoted their lives and worship to God alone and were Submitters to Him alone.
So Fragony is correct that "Islam" means "Submission" in this context However, the key word is Context. It does not mean that the role or goal of islam is to go out and make everyone submit (becoming Muslim) as what is being implied, but it named after the religious stance that the followers of Islam submit to the will of God/Allah.
As for the Peace, a Q&A website makes note of the following:
The Arabic word salaam (سلام) ("Peace") has the same root as the word Islam. One Islamic interpretation is that individual personal peace is attained by utterly submitting to Allah.
As in other Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, etc.), peace is a basic concept in Islamic thought.
The greeting "Salaam alaykum", favoured by Muslims, has the literal meaning "Peace be upon you". Muhammad is reported to have said once: "Not one of you believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself." (Great Muslim scholars have said that the words ‘his brother’ mean any person irrespective of faith.)
Pannonian
03-23-2016, 19:36
Where does it say that Islam means submission?
I couldn't care less about what they say, but it probably doesn't say that.
It says that the relations with the kufar begin with the default position of it being permissible, nay necessary, to kill us, not for what we've done, but for what we are. There may be various modifiers to this, but if in doubt, kill. And perhaps it would be a good idea to pay attention to what they say, since they're the ones acting and all.
I'm sure you feel that way, but that's not what it literally means. Nobody would be thinking this if it wasn't for Van Gogh films, Geert Wilders, or other anti-Islam stuff.
It means that, sorry I can't change that. Being anti-islam is just sane imho, but I will admit that Wilders and van Gogh are/were sometimes needlesly offensive
Sarmatian
03-23-2016, 20:03
It says that the relations with the kufar begin with the default position of it being permissible, nay necessary, to kill us, not for what we've done, but for what we are. There may be various modifiers to this, but if in doubt, kill. And perhaps it would be a good idea to pay attention to what they say, since they're the ones acting and all.
So, your big revelation is that a terrorist organization won't forbid its members from targeting civilians?
STOP THE PRESSES!
Not forbidding and demanding, bit of a difference
Pannonian
03-23-2016, 20:25
So, your big revelation is that a terrorist organization won't forbid its members from targeting civilians?
STOP THE PRESSES!
A group that claims all Muslims as part of its nation, which a fair number of our residents agree with, says that kufar should be killed by virtue of our being kufar. There is no political goal in terms of defining a location in which we're unfairly intervening, resulting in violence aiming to remove us from our interference in these matters. By their own words, by simply existing, we are already deserving to be killed. I'm not sure why you're looking to downplay this.
In other words, nothing that we do or don't do will affect whether or not we will be targeted.
:laugh4:
Wrong.
You could convert.
:laugh4:
Sorry, I had to.
AE Bravo
03-23-2016, 21:37
It means that, sorry I can't change that. Being anti-islam is just sane imho, but I will admit that Wilders and van Gogh are/were sometimes needlesly offensive
It's the way you presented it. You made it out to imply the forced submission of others when it actually means submitting yourself to higher power, which is exactly the opposite of telling people what to do.
Greyblades
03-23-2016, 21:39
If we're going to have this discussion we should bring out the big guns early.
http://youtu.be/TpcbfxtdoI8
And by big guns i mean informative and or propagandistic videos!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-23-2016, 21:52
Define islam.
Submission to Divine Will.
Next?
Pannonian
03-23-2016, 21:54
It's the way you presented it. You made it out to imply the forced submission of others when it actually means submitting yourself to higher power, which is exactly the opposite of telling people what to do.
Or, as the Caliphate defines it, and as it's been defined in practice, the divide is between those who are of their group, who deserve to live, and everyone else, who deserve to die. I can say that I will never be part of the first group.
AE Bravo
03-23-2016, 21:56
By "caliphate" standards me and every Muslim I know is a heretic. I would be beheaded before you are for being a fake Muslim.
AE Bravo
03-23-2016, 22:01
Most of you are a bunch of haters anyway, just forget what I said. Get a life too, and try fixing your problems instead of drumming them up.
Sarmatian
03-23-2016, 22:36
A group that claims all Muslims as part of its nation,
And the Chinese emperors claimed to be the rulers of the entire world for the last 2500 thousand years. Didn't affect your or mine ancestors all that much.
which a fair number of our residents agree with,
A grand total of a few hundred. If I were a betting man, I'd bet more of your residents believe Stonehenge was built by the aliens.
says that kufar should be killed by virtue of our being kufar. There is no political goal in terms of defining a location in which we're unfairly intervening, resulting in violence aiming to remove us from our interference in these matters. By their own words, by simply existing, we are already deserving to be killed.
If that was the case, they'd be trying to kill Bolivians and Mongols as well.
I'm not sure why you're looking to downplay this.
Because I refuse to hold 1.2 billion people responsible for the actions of the few? Because I'd hate if someone held me responsible if a member of my race/religion/nationality did something despicable? Why aren't you equating me with Mladic? He executed unarmed prisoners. I'm a Serb, a Christian, just like him.
Because I've seen what fear can do to people? Maybe it is because I would take my family away from the war and I wouldn't want someone to tell my I'm not allowed because of my name or religion. Or it could be that my best friend, who is a Muslim (culturally, in reality he's an atheist) had to give his son a Christian name so that he would actually be allowed on a plane. Because of the very vivid stories of how cruel can people be in the name of their faith or nation? Because I was raised in a very culturally diverse region and seen it work, even under pressure? Just a few days ago, a Hungarian fascist party Jobik tried to open up offices in northern Serbia (or Southern Hungary, just temporarily lost, as they like to refer to it). And who told them to **** off? Local Hungarians. Ah, it was beautiful to watch.
I don't know, really. Probably all of those reasons, and some that didn't come to mind instantly.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-24-2016, 00:26
Most of you are a bunch of haters anyway, just forget what I said. Get a life too, and try fixing your problems instead of drumming them up.
Funny, I think you're the third Muslim in a year to tell us all that - we're all haters of Muslims, regardless of what else divides us.
Anyway.
Islam means literally "submission" and in this context it means "submission to God".
This has a couple of implications - firstly it allows Muslims to expand their definition of "Islam" to include those who do not consider themselves Muslim but are monotheists. Historically this has meant Christians and Jews initially, followed by Zorastrians. HOWEVER, the long term goal it not only to bring everyone to a state of Submission, it is also to bring them into a "correct" form of Submission - i.e. to make them Muslims.
Muhammed did this by war - he destroyed idles (as IS has) and he forced people to submit to his interpretation of God's Law (as IS does).
The major difference between IS and the traditional depiction of those first Muslims Conquests is the level of brutality and the fact that monotheists are included among the Kafir.
"Submission to Divine Will" Not according some French Muslim scholars. I could try to put a link but it is in French, so would be lost. Roughly, the linguist explains that Islam as the same roots that "shalom" or "Salaam".
The "submission to Divine" explanation is favoured by the ones like Tarik Ramadan, grand son of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, but nothing comes to back-up his claim.
It's the way you presented it. You made it out to imply the forced submission of others when it actually means submitting yourself to higher power, which is exactly the opposite of telling people what to do.
How can I present it otherwise than it's litteral meaning. What you think you read is up to you, not me
Gilrandir
03-24-2016, 15:47
Just a few days ago, a Hungarian fascist party Jobik tried to open up offices in northern Serbia (or Southern Hungary, just temporarily lost, as they like to refer to it). And who told them to **** off? Local Hungarians. Ah, it was beautiful to watch.
Jobik didn't know its way about such things. They should have started with propaganda among the locals on how oppressed they are culturally and linguistically and how free and much better off economically they would be if they join the Greater Hungary. They should refer to Russia's experience as the most recent paragon of such policies.
AE Bravo
03-24-2016, 22:17
How can I present it otherwise than it's litteral meaning. What you think you read is up to you, not me
Read the post above you. The meaning is contested depending on whether you're moderate, brotherhood, etc.
Personally, I haven't met anyone who is comfortable saying his religion literally means "submission."
Read the post above you. The meaning is contested depending on whether you're moderate, brotherhood, etc.
Personally, I haven't met anyone who is comfortable saying his religion literally means "submission."
But it does really mean that, submission isn't the same thing as submitting if that is what you could feel uncomfortable with
Kralizec
03-24-2016, 23:04
Well, acknowleding a Creator Deity as your master ("submitting") is a central tenet of all the Abrahamic religions, and presumably some unrelated religions as well.
Making a point of that Islam has decided to use this concept as the name of the religion seems pretty....odd. If this thread is to have any meaning at all it had better move beyond semantics.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-24-2016, 23:58
"Submission to Divine Will" Not according some French Muslim scholars. I could try to put a link but it is in French, so would be lost. Roughly, the linguist explains that Islam as the same roots that "shalom" or "Salaam".
The "submission to Divine" explanation is favoured by the ones like Tarik Ramadan, grand son of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, but nothing comes to back-up his claim.
I've never heard it suggested that "Islam" does not literally mean "submission", but I have heard different interpretations of the implications.
Read the post above you. The meaning is contested depending on whether you're moderate, brotherhood, etc.
Personally, I haven't met anyone who is comfortable saying his religion literally means "submission."
Really?
So today's Muslims are uncomfortable proclaiming their submission to God. That almost makes me feel sorry for Muhammed.
AE Bravo
03-25-2016, 05:47
But it does really mean that, submission isn't the same thing as submitting if that is what you could feel uncomfortable with
It could mean one or the other or both, I don't know because I didn't invent Islam. What I do know is that you can't use it in a sentence to mean submission or peace, because the word is its own thing. So saying it literally means this one thing to prove a point is a fallacy.
It's a different word from salaam and istislam.
"I've never heard it suggested that "Islam" does not literally mean "submission", but I have heard different interpretations of the implications." I find it. The guys said if Islam means submission, why the word Islam is not use in other sentences (i.e, submission to the law or to a principal)?
https://youtu.be/wOQjLCEA5-4. @ 37 mn. "Islam" can be translated (needs periphrases) as "put yourself in confidence and peace in"
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-25-2016, 19:27
"I've never heard it suggested that "Islam" does not literally mean "submission", but I have heard different interpretations of the implications." I find it. The guys said if Islam means submission, why the word Islam is not use in other sentences (i.e, submission to the law or to a principal)?
https://youtu.be/wOQjLCEA5-4. @ 37 mn. "Islam" can be translated (needs periphrases) as "put yourself in confidence and peace in"
As with any translation you ultimately come out with a paraphrase - what striking about the word "Islam" is that it forms part of "istislam" which looks like a compound with "Islam".
The word "Submission" in English can have a number of meanings, the most current today is probably sexual, followed by the military context. However, the concept of "Submitting to God" carries neither of those connotations. If you're trying to nuance it make it sound like Islam is all about "Submitting to Allah" in a context of religious conflict then that's not the point, although it's equally dishonest to gloss over the religious motivation behind the early Muslim conquests.
"If you're trying to nuance it make it sound like Islam is all about "Submitting to Allah" in a context of religious conflict then that's not the point, although it's equally dishonest to gloss over the religious motivation behind the early Muslim conquests." No. I try to be intellectually honest. A you know, I am an atheist and I am not the last to tell that Islam (the Book) is the bed for fanatic Islamic murderers, as nothing they do is actually forbidden (if not prized) but the Holly Scriptures.
It is a debate I have with good friends, some being Muslim and believers.
As mentioned earlier, the submission to the Will of a deity is something inherent to all religion: a Christian will pray and tell to God "Your will be done".
So, even is Islam means "Submission", well, so be it and so what?
However, what the ones who want absolutely this is the idea that Islam can't be changed as it is Submission. Of course it is wrong historically as Islam had the same process than Christianity, and even has a process called annulment, adopted when the Koran was gathered and put on a written form, from the longest to the shortest Surat, proof if you need one that it was not written when God was given instructions to the new prophet, but this is another debate. Safalism is a reactionary movement to modernisation of Islam, created in order to come back to the "roots". meaning by definition Islam was moving (and still).
CrossLOPER
03-26-2016, 16:14
Nope, literally means it. I am glad most muslims are really nice but islam itself is sick, and as welcome as the inquisition
Ah, so you are an authority figure? Do you have credentials? Several PhDs in Arabic, Islamic studies and whatnot? Perhaps some peer-reviewed literature? I mean you wouldn't claim to know something just because you heard something from some bloke, right? That would be dumb.
Ah, so you are an authority figure? Do you have credentials? Several PhDs in Arabic, Islamic studies and whatnot? Perhaps some peer-reviewed literature? I mean you wouldn't claim to know something just because you heard something from some bloke, right? That would be dumb.
Few courses to harvest points, I only got degrees in psycholigy history and politoligy, convenient mix because of overlapsing
edit LOL I spelled politoici wrong, I must have been taking it very seriously, did it again just for fun
Ah, so you are an authority figure? Do you have credentials? Several PhDs in Arabic, Islamic studies and whatnot? Perhaps some peer-reviewed literature? I mean you wouldn't claim to know something just because you heard something from some bloke, right? That would be dumb.
Showtime and CrossLoper haven't submitted anything of value to this thread and judging by Showtimes post history never will. Showtime cant swallow the Truth, CrossLoper is a fool I dont have to be Chef to Cook great food and i certainly dont have to say the shahada to comment on Islam. CrossLoper is a hypocrit I've read some of the quran and it has more to say about Kuffars and unbelievers, people like me than anything else over 56 percent i believe, had to put it down and you can guess why
Please dont submit to their idiocy like they probs have to Islam.
Islam means Submission end of story.
Islam means peace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrP63lbp8Wk
AE Bravo
03-26-2016, 18:41
Showtime and CrossLoper haven't submitted anything of value to this thread and judging by Showtimes post history never will. Showtime cant swallow the Truth, CrossLoper is a fool I dont have to be Chef to Cook great food and i certainly dont have to say the shahada to comment on Islam. CrossLoper is a hypocrit I've read some of the quran and it has more to say about Kuffars and unbelievers, people like me than anything else over 56 percent i believe, had to put it down and you can guess why
Please dont submit to their idiocy like they probs have to Islam.
Islam means Submission end of story.
I see nothing of value in this post either, honestly.
Gotta say you're weird, pic and name says it all. You "probs" have to get it together, son.
Snowhobbit
03-26-2016, 18:54
I see nothing of value in this post either, honestly.
Gotta say you're weird, pic and name says it all. You "probs" have to get it together, son.
He is not wierd, he is simply the arbiter of our beloved forum. He has judged you not worthy, and thus we must banish you to the lands beyond our borders. What is wierd about that? :D
Islam means peace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrP63lbp8Wk
Ever considered that 'islam is peace' really means 'submit or don't have it'.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-26-2016, 20:30
Islam means peace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrP63lbp8Wk
Intellectually dishonest - even more so than saying it means "submission".
Ever considered that 'islam is peace' really means 'submit or don't have it'.
Is that a question or a statement?
Intellectually dishonest - even more so than saying it means "submission".
From an expert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09PsIC-l19w
Greyblades
03-26-2016, 21:25
...he posted a video of a bunch of college age dweebs saying islam means peace... and you guys think he's being serious?
Strike For The South
03-27-2016, 19:09
Husar can't be adequately engaged on these issues, because he is a communist who values the idea of the nation state very little.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-27-2016, 20:19
Is that a question or a statement?
From an expert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09PsIC-l19w
So, in fact, it does not mean "peace".
I said it meant "Submission to Divine Will", perhaps I should have sait "Concordance with Divine Will" os something like that.
I stand by what I said, Islam means neither "peace" not "submission" in the mundane context - so cleave to one definition implies pacifism, the other militarism, and neither are correct.
Husar can't be adequately engaged on these issues, because he is a communist who values the idea of the nation state very little.
The nation state of Islam that we are talking about I certainly value very little.
So, in fact, it does not mean "peace".
I said it meant "Submission to Divine Will", perhaps I should have sait "Concordance with Divine Will" os something like that.
I stand by what I said, Islam means neither "peace" not "submission" in the mundane context - so cleave to one definition implies pacifism, the other militarism, and neither are correct.
I wasn't saying you're wrong, just that "Islam means Submission end of story." is probably a bit too simple.
The original question was also merely meant to have Fragony define Islam because he often uses it in a way 99% of the world's people do not use the word. Which means that he only agrees with ISIS and disagrees with the >90% of muslims who I assume do not want to kill us, telling them that they should if they want to be faithful. Either way, someone confused "define" with "translate" and here we are. ~;)
My mouth isn't big enougn to fit so many words
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-29-2016, 00:13
The nation state of Islam that we are talking about I certainly value very little.
I wasn't saying you're wrong, just that "Islam means Submission end of story." is probably a bit too simple.
The original question was also merely meant to have Fragony define Islam because he often uses it in a way 99% of the world's people do not use the word. Which means that he only agrees with ISIS and disagrees with the >90% of muslims who I assume do not want to kill us, telling them that they should if they want to be faithful. Either way, someone confused "define" with "translate" and here we are. ~;)
Wait...
Are we agreeing?
That makes no sense!
We must BOTH be wrong.
It depends what you mean by "true Islam".. As an Atheist, I believe only historians would guess what exactly happened at 6th century. Probably Mohammad was a wise guy who learnt a lot about Buddhist Mythology, and decided to create a philosophy.. And he wanted to keep it stronger by settling it as a religion instead. Or he actually created a philosophy, but it became a religion after he died. Or I don't know, he just wanted to rule a clan and made all these up just to have fun in Harem... Probably it's a mixture of all of these.
So just like all religions, it's rules are brutal for today's world. In Christianity, you must kill homosexuals, in Judaism you must cut the head of a virgin girl to prove yourself as a man, and in Islam, you can cut the head of an entire population, and take their wives.
And also like all religions, it become modernized. So the modern version of Islam is acceptable, but still a book of 6th century still affects some of the behaviors.
Hard part is it is a social and psychological argument, instead of logical. Moslems can live a modern life, just like Christians and Jews, because we are capable of showing illogical behaviors.
In christianity you must KILL HOMOSEXUALS, Judaism must cut off the head off a Virgin,. I dont think i want to wade through let alone step in your Bullshit.
In christianity you must KILL HOMOSEXUALS, Judaism must cut off the head off a Virgin,. I dont think i want to wade through let alone step in your Bullshit.
Um, I don't understand your negative reaction, those are completely acceptable behaviors of their time. I am not judging anything by the ethic rules of today.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-31-2016, 17:51
Um, I don't understand your negative reaction, those are completely acceptable behaviors of their time. I am not judging anything by the ethic rules of today.
They're not accurate representations of the religions in question, nor are they actual prescripts of said religions. Perhaps you're re confusing a "Virgin's Head" and "Maidenhead".
Go take an anatomy class, in that case.
The only one you got right was the one about Islam with killing an entire tribe's men and taking all the women and children hostage - but that wasn't a directive so much as something we are told happened.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-31-2016, 19:13
...
The only one you got right was the one about Islam with killing an entire tribe's men and taking all the women and children hostage - but that wasn't a directive so much as something we are told happened.
This is the natural end result of a war. All efforts to make war less than this are well-intentioned but at least partially futile. History is replete with examples of such a result being the de facto norm.
Pannonian
03-31-2016, 20:05
This is the natural end result of a war. All efforts to make war less than this are well-intentioned but at least partially futile. History is replete with examples of such a result being the de facto norm.
It's called sacking.
rory_20_uk
04-01-2016, 09:25
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.
~:smoking:
They're not accurate representations of the religions in question, nor are they actual prescripts of said religions. Perhaps you're re confusing a "Virgin's Head" and "Maidenhead".
Go take an anatomy class, in that case.
The only one you got right was the one about Islam with killing an entire tribe's men and taking all the women and children hostage - but that wasn't a directive so much as something we are told happened.
Um, all of them are correct.
In fact there was an activist group who reads passages from Bible on the streets of Amsterdam, and claims they are from Quran. Most people commented as "It's horrendously violent book and it must be banished." Then they reveal that these are actually from Bible.
So as I said, you must kill homosexuals to follow the true Christianity. But you will just follow the modern version of it. Just don't read Bible, it might mess your head.
So as I said, you must kill homosexuals to follow the true Christianity.
Explain why because I don't think that is correct.
Pannonian
04-01-2016, 19:36
Um, all of them are correct.
In fact there was an activist group who reads passages from Bible on the streets of Amsterdam, and claims they are from Quran. Most people commented as "It's horrendously violent book and it must be banished." Then they reveal that these are actually from Bible.
So as I said, you must kill homosexuals to follow the true Christianity. But you will just follow the modern version of it. Just don't read Bible, it might mess your head.
Europeans are considerably more passionate about their football than about their bible, and even there there are universally acknowledged limits and niceties. There are probably more supporters of any of the big clubs in England than there are regular churchgoers in the whole of England.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-02-2016, 00:34
Explain why because I don't think that is correct.
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.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-02-2016, 00:36
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.
~:smoking:
Memes are just a theory, or more accurately a belief because there's no way to test Dawkins' theory.
Gilrandir
04-02-2016, 14:39
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.
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. :dizzy2:
Gilrandir
04-02-2016, 16:47
That's like saying we should burn all history books or else violence and slavery will always be part of our culture. :dizzy2:
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
04-02-2016, 17:08
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
04-02-2016, 17:10
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.
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
04-02-2016, 21:40
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
04-02-2016, 22:06
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
04-02-2016, 22:28
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.
~:smoking:
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
04-02-2016, 23:18
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
04-03-2016, 00:41
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.
Can we close this thread now
Gilrandir
04-03-2016, 05:34
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? :dizzy2:
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
04-03-2016, 10:25
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).
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
04-03-2016, 11:19
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
04-03-2016, 13:02
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
04-03-2016, 13:45
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
04-03-2016, 15:59
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?
... 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?
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 :laugh4:
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)
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
04-04-2016, 11:34
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
04-04-2016, 12:03
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.
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
04-04-2016, 14:48
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.
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
04-04-2016, 23:06
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 :laugh4:
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.
AE Bravo
04-05-2016, 00:06
Even though I'm Muslim, I'll be the first to admit that each of these religions contain vile material. Those who are critical of Islam simply cannot distinguish between Muhammad and the Qur'an because, as non-believers, they naturally see them as one in the same obviously. It wouldn't be a problem to see it that way as a non-Muslim, but if it interferes with your analysis of modern Islamic thought then you are not qualified to talk about it altogether. Ibadis see the Qur'an as a (flawed) creation rather than a revelation, some Shia sects believe that god intended for Ali to be the prophet, and most Sufi texts make no distinction between a Muslim and non-Muslim.
Considering Jesus enabled PFH the street preacher to speak about other religions with a high horse, I'd imagine his three-headed God is capable of spawning as much bad as it does good. Lets not forget that this hydra constantly butts heads with itself.
Pannonian
04-05-2016, 00:25
Even though I'm Muslim, I'll be the first to admit that each of these religions contain vile material. Those who are critical of Islam simply cannot distinguish between Muhammad and the Qur'an because, as non-believers, they naturally see them as one in the same obviously. It wouldn't be a problem to see it that way as a non-Muslim, but if it interferes with your analysis of modern Islamic thought then you are not qualified to talk about it altogether. Ibadis see the Qur'an as a (flawed) creation rather than a revelation, some Shia sects believe that god intended for Ali to be the prophet, and most Sufi texts make no distinction between a Muslim and non-Muslim.
Considering Jesus enabled PFH the street preacher to speak about other religions with a high horse, I'd imagine his three-headed God is capable of spawning as much bad as it does good. Lets not forget that this hydra constantly butts heads with itself.
It's their followers that make each religion as vile or as insignificant as they are. The texts are pretty much an irrelevance by this stage. It's what their believers do in their name that matters. And as such, a far larger proportion and numbers of Muslims have turned Islam into an atrocity. If the Muslim world were overwhelmingly like Ataturk, I'd call Islam an enlightened and modern culture. But it's not. It's moving against what Ataturk believed in, and towards what he feared Turkey would become if not secularised and westernised.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-05-2016, 01:11
Even though I'm Muslim, I'll be the first to admit that each of these religions contain vile material. Those who are critical of Islam simply cannot distinguish between Muhammad and the Qur'an because, as non-believers, they naturally see them as one in the same obviously. It wouldn't be a problem to see it that way as a non-Muslim, but if it interferes with your analysis of modern Islamic thought then you are not qualified to talk about it altogether. Ibadis see the Qur'an as a (flawed) creation rather than a revelation, some Shia sects believe that god intended for Ali to be the prophet, and most Sufi texts make no distinction between a Muslim and non-Muslim.
Considering Jesus enabled PFH the street preacher to speak about other religions with a high horse, I'd imagine his three-headed God is capable of spawning as much bad as it does good. Lets not forget that this hydra constantly butts heads with itself.
High Horse?
Pah.
I made a general statement about similarities between Islam, Christianity and Judaism. These similarities are well documented. Prior to that I said that "Islam" means "Submission to Divine Will" which is an explanation of the word entirely compatible with Islamic teaching which is largely about following rules laid down by God and conveyed by Muhammed and the other Prophets, and about dividing actions into those which God deems permissible and not permissible.
Now, I'm not saying that's all Islam is and I took the time to point out that "Submission to Divine Will" is not the same as "submission" or surrender in an earthly context.
As to separating Muhammed and the Koran, one notes that the Koran is God's Word as transmitted by Muhammed - and as God's ultimate messenger Muhammed is surely an example of all Muslims just as Jesus is to Christians or Abraham and the Patriarchs are to Jews.
I'll note that you couldn't restrain yourself from insulting my view of God despite the fact that I have tried not to insult yours. A while back you said we're all haters but it seems to me you're the one with a chip on your shoulder about Christians if you're saying we worship a Hydra.
I worship one God who created the Earth as the Father was Revealed as the Son and is Present as the Holy Spirit.
Didn't your Prophet say that Allah has 99 names? Why is it then so hard for you to accept that Christians see God from three perspectives depending on how he interacts with His Creation?
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.
Well our well educated smartass Turkish youth decided that: "Yeah, no need to idealize Mustafa Kemal, who are you, an idiot just like a North Korean Citizen? He was good soldier but at the end he was just a dictator, he messed a lot of things, especially by putting pressure on Islamist, since they are not evil people who want to take over the country, but people who want to live their religion." And they gave Islamist and Kurdish people a chance.
Now they all horrified the results, and "Oh my God... He actually was the greatest guy ever, who gave us the life we have today..."
But I believe the youth of Turkey deserved this.
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.
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.
I am not an expert on the subject, but your words "he just doesn't want you to kill them anymore" is exactly what I was looking for. Even though you can have an updateable religion, the first one issued suppose to be the original one.
But it's really good to have a Pope to reorganize things. I heard that few years ago he said "You don't have to be Christian to go to Heaven." It's the best update ever! You couldn't say it like a thousand years ago for example, or you would get beheaded.
I think Gilrandir's words are not even crossing with mine, because I am judging the religions, not people. Human behavior is illogical. Of course you can be a Moslem who counts women are equal with men. All you have to do is not read the book! :yes: I am laughing but not joking though. Most Moslems doesn't read the book.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-05-2016, 11:38
You couldn't say it like a thousand years ago for example, or you would get beheaded.
Funny how Muslims spend all their time saying Islam and Christianity are different religions, but then can't tell the difference between them.
A thousand years ago saying non-Christians could go to heaven would get you a stern telling off from the Bishop, 500 years ago it might have got you hanged or - if you were important enough - get you burned at the stake.
Christians didn't start killing each other over their religious beliefs until after the First Crusade.
Gilrandir
04-05-2016, 11:40
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.
So prophesies said something like: "Follow our religion which is the only religion and all its tenets are the only/best tenets. But the day will come when some tenets will change, so stand by for further notices?" And how come only SOME tenets changed while others didn't? For instance, homosexuality has stopped being a sin (as modern tendencies even among clerics seem to show) while incest hasn't? Isn't it a whim of the moment? And who is to determine which tenets are to be slackened and which should be followed as strictly as ever?
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".
Not just mentioning violence, but attributing it to God who thus punishes the dissident or the recalcitrant and - which is more important - takes a deal of pleasure in it. It has been quite a time since I read Bible last, but an episode from it is still carved in my memory. Someone with a better knowledge of the Scripture may provide a reference from it when he recognizes the story: God was walking squashing humans under his feet and his cloak was purple with blood. Describing such acts of violence with a kind of gloating is not a direct call to it, but a question may arise: If God does it (and not without satisfaction), why humans can't follow in the wake of their deity?
Saying that god doesn't like homosexuality makes a religion violent or are we changing goal posts now?
It doesn't. It shows divergence between the proclaimed tenets and modern perception of the phenomenon. If the clerics tend to agree with the modern view (and say that you must love thy fellow even if he is gay), doesn't it make the religion in question fickle?
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.
As I have remarked once: there is no correct or incorrect understanding of Bible. No one (except the author) can prove that my or your understaning is better/worse. So I might as well say that it is you who don't understand anything. Generally, it is the last argument (bar calling someone names - nazi is especially favored) when one can't prove his stance.
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.
So your advice is to heed the overall message and to ignore those dubious statements? And what are they there for? In the book which is ostensibly HOLY IN ITS ENTIRETY?
It's their followers that make each religion as vile or as insignificant as they are. The texts are pretty much an irrelevance by this stage. It's what their believers do in their name that matters. And as such, a far larger proportion and numbers of Muslims have turned Islam into an atrocity.
This is what I have been saying all the time.
Pannonian
04-05-2016, 11:46
Well our well educated smartass Turkish youth decided that: "Yeah, no need to idealize Mustafa Kemal, who are you, an idiot just like a North Korean Citizen? He was good soldier but at the end he was just a dictator, he messed a lot of things, especially by putting pressure on Islamist, since they are not evil people who want to take over the country, but people who want to live their religion." And they gave Islamist and Kurdish people a chance.
Now they all horrified the results, and "Oh my God... He actually was the greatest guy ever, who gave us the life we have today..."
But I believe the youth of Turkey deserved this.
When Blair talked about praying, he was seen as a bit of a loon who had no business talking about his religion and his job in government in the same sentence. Brown supposedly came from a strict Methodist background, but it's the language of socialism that he used in politics, most notably in the run up to the Scottish referendum. We almost universally despise the former (religion). There's still a fair chunk who believe in the latter (socialism, or secular politics in general), and even its opponents pay lip service. Any country that moves towards acknowledging religion in government is wrong. Compared with other religions, it's overwhelmingly Muslim countries that do this, especially after long term dictators have been removed. Iraq should have been the object lesson. Instead, we've seen liberal idealists raging against the dictatorships of Qaddafi and Assad, with results that I could have predicted 10 years ago (that Saddam predicted even longer ago). Idiots on both sides, although I'll give our side credit for being idealistic idiots, rather than malicious scum like ISIS and their supporters.
Gilrandir
04-05-2016, 11:47
Christians didn't start killing each other over their religious beliefs until after the First Crusade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raskol#Uprisings_and_persecution
And this is only one to mention off the top of my head. I believe other instances could be referrred to.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-05-2016, 14:43
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raskol#Uprisings_and_persecution
And this is only one to mention off the top of my head. I believe other instances could be referrred to.
That's about 550 year after the First Crusade, so supports my point.
So prophesies said something like: "Follow our religion which is the only religion and all its tenets are the only/best tenets. But the day will come when some tenets will change, so stand by for further notices?" And how come only SOME tenets changed while others didn't? For instance, homosexuality has stopped being a sin (as modern tendencies even among clerics seem to show) while incest hasn't? Isn't it a whim of the moment? And who is to determine which tenets are to be slackened and which should be followed as strictly as ever?
First of all, don't confuse the Catholic Church with biblical teachings, because they also have a tendency to pick what they like.
You also never heard about the prophecies of the Messiah?
http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-Christ.html
Jews obviously do not accept that Jesus is the Messiah while Christians do, but that's a different topic.
However, if you accept him as the Messiah and the Messiah says the way people should go about things changes, how is that a surprise?
Remember that he did not change what is a sin, he just said his followers should not punish sinners because God will do that on judgement day.
As for the interpretations of "modern clerics", a while ago they "interpreted" that people could pay money for forgiveness of their sins, I just wouldn't count them as the most christian christians. Neither would I say though that Jesus advocated for a theocracy where homosexuals are punished, his message was more along the lines of love everyone but hate the sin.
Not just mentioning violence, but attributing it to God who thus punishes the dissident or the recalcitrant and - which is more important - takes a deal of pleasure in it. It has been quite a time since I read Bible last, but an episode from it is still carved in my memory. Someone with a better knowledge of the Scripture may provide a reference from it when he recognizes the story: God was walking squashing humans under his feet and his cloak was purple with blood. Describing such acts of violence with a kind of gloating is not a direct call to it, but a question may arise: If God does it (and not without satisfaction), why humans can't follow in the wake of their deity?
First of all, that he enjoys crushing sinners is not entirely correct: http://www.jba.gr/Articles/jba2004_02.htm
It is God that expresses His heart and feelings here. It is God that was provoked to anger with their images and it He that wanted to leave them and cry endlessly because they didn’t know Him. God was terribly sorrowful for the sin of His people. And God is sorrowful when we sin. The New Testament tell us clearly “to grieve not the holy spirit of God, by which we were sealed for the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30). The spirit of God can be grieved. God IS sorrowful when we reject Him. When we willfully forsake His way to walk somewhere else, due to personal passions, wills and ambitions. When instead of bowing down to Him and say “your will be done and not mine” we move ahead carelessly and without fearing Him. The spirit of God is not indifferent but sorrowful in such cases.
However, God, for reasons I'm not aware of and that may not be mentioned, seems to enforce some kind of sterility and paradise in the end by disposing of all sin. See sin as some kind of dirt in God's world and in the end he wants the place to be sterile. You could even go meta and say maybe he has no choice for reasons we are not aware of, but that is beside the point. Also note that due to free will it is your own fault if he has to punish you.
As for people punishing other people for being sinners, it is simply not for us to decide if that sinner gets another chance or not and Jesus said that God is love and his followers should embrace love by even loving their enemies. Killing someone for being a sinner goes fundamentally against that, instead one should teach them about the love of God and save their soul, again fundamentally different from damning them by killing them and removing their chance to repent.
Things like cleansing sin with fire seem made up to me because Jesus said the only way to the father is through him, i.e. accepting him as your saviour so that he will forgive your sins.
Again, you have to justify your claims and not vaguely recall things.
It doesn't. It shows divergence between the proclaimed tenets and modern perception of the phenomenon. If the clerics tend to agree with the modern view (and say that you must love thy fellow even if he is gay), doesn't it make the religion in question fickle?
No, again, love the sinner but hate the sin. Loving the fellow does not mean you cannot tell him that what he does is a sin according to God. You can tell him that in a friendly manner and still hang out with him even if he decides not to listen. You can also pray to God to open his eyes so that you can help save his soul from eternal damnation. There is no conflict until you begin throwing expletives at him or try to kill him for being a sinner.
The modern perception is mostly atheist and the catholic church and sometimes the protestant church goes along with it because it depends on all the semi-atheists giving it money. ~;)
I've said before that the argument of "the catholic church should recognize this or that because it's modern" only shows a fundamental lack of belief in an all-powerful god because a human can never change the basic rules of such a god, no matter how unfair or outdated he deems them. You can complain all day but in the end you get crushed anyway, either you comply or you day. I'm not calling that an ideal scenario but IF it is a reality, then it is the reality and the Christian god also promises you eternal happiness and love if you do comply, so it's not all doom and gloom.
As I have remarked once: there is no correct or incorrect understanding of Bible. No one (except the author) can prove that my or your understaning is better/worse. So I might as well say that it is you who don't understand anything. Generally, it is the last argument (bar calling someone names - nazi is especially favored) when one can't prove his stance.
Except that you have apparently hardly read the book, much less heard people interprete it directly. Yet you claim to have a better understanding. :inquisitive:
So your advice is to heed the overall message and to ignore those dubious statements? And what are they there for? In the book which is ostensibly HOLY IN ITS ENTIRETY?
What dubious statements? I've already explained what some stories and orders are there for. It's called context. If you only read the New Testament, you miss a whole lot of the context as the appearance of Jesus makes little sense and the way God thinks and what he considers a sin are also partially missing. To go out on a limb a bit, the New Testament is about how to be a good Christian and the old testament is about why to do all that and how God and people acted before he sent the Messiah.
If you want a fun "fact", I'm not aware of anywhere in the bible saying that God wants us to live monogamous.
Funny how Muslims spend all their time saying Islam and Christianity are different religions, but then can't tell the difference between them.
A thousand years ago saying non-Christians could go to heaven would get you a stern telling off from the Bishop, 500 years ago it might have got you hanged or - if you were important enough - get you burned at the stake.
Christians didn't start killing each other over their religious beliefs until after the First Crusade.
I am not Muslim, and I don't even understand why it's related. They both are religions, they both are false, so, so what they are the same or not?
Christians stopped killing people or burning them after they "modernize" the religion. Which shouldn't be a part of the religion.
It's exactly the same for Islam as well.
The advantage of Christianity is, you have a Pope to make the modernization "legal for a religion". He speaks the word of God. Which is illegal for Christianity as a religion, but since everything is illogical in religion, I think it's a really nice feature.
And to be honest, I like the Christian fanatics doesn't kill others, but the commit mass-suicide instead. Still sad, but not so harmful.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-05-2016, 18:47
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.
While I'd say the ban is more on aggressiveness than contrary to reasonable self defense, PVH is spot on in noting that the New Testament (which specifically asserts itself as superseding the Old) does NOT call on believers to kill homosexuals. It refers to homosexuality as being sinful and wrong and asserts that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom, but stops short of calling for persecution.
AE Bravo
04-05-2016, 22:06
PFH - I remember your heavy-handed opinion of Islam. In this thread you bring up the ban on idolatry, "genocide" which didn't exist, and enslavement of people to condemn the prophet, thereby condemning Islam because (according to you) he is the manifestation of it. I distinctly remember that I had nothing bad to say about Christianity because it had to allow its people to be beaten to a pulp if it hoped for a future (considering they were against a powerful establishment). But for some reason it didn't sit well with you that Jesus was a rebel, or like you more accurately put it a disturber of the peace.
So because Islam became highly politicized and was able to make a stand for itself in its earliest phases you present the logic of your beliefs to it in order to paint it as a morally inferior faith.
Pannonian
04-05-2016, 22:18
PFH - I remember your heavy-handed opinion of Islam. In this thread you bring up the ban on idolatry, "genocide" which didn't exist, and enslavement of people to condemn the prophet, thereby condemning Islam because (according to you) he is the manifestation of it. I distinctly remember that I had nothing bad to say about Christianity because it had to allow its people to be beaten to a pulp if it hoped for a future (considering they were against a powerful establishment). But for some reason it didn't sit well with you that Jesus was a rebel, or like you more accurately put it a disturber of the peace.
So because Islam became highly politicized and was able to make a stand for itself in its earliest phases you present the logic of your beliefs to it in order to paint it as a morally inferior faith.
What it does mean, is that current Muslims who highlight the combative part of Islam in today's world makes Islam, as it currently is, more violent than Christianity, as it currently is. Which also makes Muslims unwelcome here in today's generally peaceful world. If you want to believe in the righteousness of jihad, go and do it in your own world, away from the civilised world which we prefer to live in.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-05-2016, 22:20
I am not Muslim, and I don't even understand why it's related. They both are religions, they both are false, so, so what they are the same or not?
You sound like a Muslim, and you talk about Christianity in comparison to Islam - Muslims cut the heads off heretics, Christians burn them.
If you're not a Muslims I'm guessing you were raised in a "Muslim" context the same way Husar was raised in a "Christian" one.
Christians stopped killing people or burning them after they "modernize" the religion. Which shouldn't be a part of the religion.
It's exactly the same for Islam as well.
No, it's not, because if you read the Christian Bible you see that the early Christians are pacifists, they "modernised" when they accepted that it was OK to be Christian and a soldier in the Roman Army, then they "updated" again when they decided it was OK to wage a Holy War against Muslims, and later such Holy War was extended to Christian heretics.
That's not to say that Christianity is somehow inherently better but Christianity and Islam have not followed the same evolutionary path.
The advantage of Christianity is, you have a Pope to make the modernization "legal for a religion". He speaks the word of God. Which is illegal for Christianity as a religion, but since everything is illogical in religion, I think it's a really nice feature.
That's not how it works. Not everyone, even in the Western Church, recognise the Pope's authority and even those who do don't necessarily recognise his ability to speak "Ex Cathedra" (From his Throne) and make pronouncements on the Faith.
While I'd say the ban is more on aggressiveness than contrary to reasonable self defense, PVH is spot on in noting that the New Testament (which specifically asserts itself as superseding the Old) does NOT call on believers to kill homosexuals. It refers to homosexuality as being sinful and wrong and asserts that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom, but stops short of calling for persecution.
None of the early Christian martyrs defended themselves, Jesus would not even allow others to defend him. Good Christians are pacifists.
AE Bravo
04-05-2016, 22:24
What it does mean, is that current Muslims who highlight the combative part of Islam in today's world makes Islam, as it currently is, more violent than Christianity, as it currently is. Which also makes Muslims unwelcome here in today's generally peaceful world. If you want to believe in the righteousness of jihad, go and do it in your own world, away from the civilised world which we prefer to live in.
Stop projecting in every thread. I never said I want jihad and you don't know me or what I believe.
Pannonian
04-05-2016, 22:43
Stop projecting in every thread. I never said I want jihad and you don't know me or what I believe.
That's what a lot of Muslims believe in though. And as someone who doesn't believe in any religion, what religions are to me is defined not by their texts, but by their believers, and what they choose to define their religion by. And what early Christians and Muslims did isn't nearly as significant or meaningful as what current Christians and Muslims do. Living here in a supposedly Christian country, a devout Christian PM was despised for talking about his Christian beliefs and government in the same sentence. Which is how I like it. Then you have the examples of Muslim countries vocally bringing Islam into their government and state. Which to me isn't civilisation. And as the various Islamist states bear out, is usually downright barbaric.
You sound like a Muslim, and you talk about Christianity in comparison to Islam - Muslims cut the heads off heretics, Christians burn them.
If you're not a Muslims I'm guessing you were raised in a "Muslim" context the same way Husar was raised in a "Christian" one.
No, it's not, because if you read the Christian Bible you see that the early Christians are pacifists, they "modernised" when they accepted that it was OK to be Christian and a soldier in the Roman Army, then they "updated" again when they decided it was OK to wage a Holy War against Muslims, and later such Holy War was extended to Christian heretics.
That's not to say that Christianity is somehow inherently better but Christianity and Islam have not followed the same evolutionary path.
That's not how it works. Not everyone, even in the Western Church, recognise the Pope's authority and even those who do don't necessarily recognise his ability to speak "Ex Cathedra" (From his Throne) and make pronouncements on the Faith.
None of the early Christian martyrs defended themselves, Jesus would not even allow others to defend him. Good Christians are pacifists.
That's correct! I raised from a Muslim family, so it probably makes a difference. It's what we call "Cultural Moslem". No matter how atheist you become, there are things you can't get back.. (Like your circumcision ~:mecry: )
As I said, I talk about Christianity without any knowledge, I think you talking about the first 13 Christians who died in a cave, without any resistance. From what I heard the first martyrs were pacifist, but once they get enough power, things were changed. (The part that Roman army comes in) You simply stripping that part of Christianity, because it's not "nice" anymore.
I don't wanna offend any of the martyrs by the way, maybe I am wrong and they were truly pacifist. I am just logically assumuing, because it's exactly what Islam did. Moslems were pacifist for like good 15 years, until they become capable of raising an army.
Since the whole Jesus story is on debate as well, let's say you are right, maybe the "True Christianity" is even nicer than Buddhism... It actually doesn't matter because I am not against religion because it's violent, but because it's scientifically false.
You see, the problem here is we are dealing with people, not any logical or scientific problem. The first version of them doesn't matter. It's only a nice toy for history geeks like us. So it's possible to have "Nice Moslems", just ike you have nice Christians. Turkey is a good example,he just forced people to modernization, and now we have Good Moslems in Turkey, who doesn't read the book, doesn't think about it much. (Moslems in Europe are just horrible though, as I heard.)
As I said, I talk about Christianity without any knowledge, I think you talking about the first 13 Christians who died in a cave, without any resistance. From what I heard the first martyrs were pacifist, but once they get enough power, things were changed. (The part that Roman army comes in) You simply stripping that part of Christianity, because it's not "nice" anymore.
No, it's simply not possible to justify this "kind of Christianity" using the bible without ignoring most of what Jesus said.
If you base your Christianity on the teachings of everybody but the Christ who gave Christianity it's name, I'd say it's safe to assume that you just use the name for your own gain or simply aren't a true Christian.
The "problem" I have with Islam in this regard is that I haven't read the book or heard many people preach about it and so I can't decide whether ISIS or my friendly neighborhood hijabi has the "correct" as in intended interpretation. What I can say is that I certainly prefer the one of the friendly hijabi and would rather claim that to be the true interpretation and promote it rather than the other one.
rory_20_uk
04-06-2016, 11:28
Who knows what the "Correct" interpretation is? The Canon was formed hundreds of years after Jesus died for the first time and much of what was written was suppressed actively by the church. When Islam swept through the region, vast amounts of what had been written was also destroyed.
~:smoking:
Pannonian
04-06-2016, 11:40
No, it's simply not possible to justify this "kind of Christianity" using the bible without ignoring most of what Jesus said.
If you base your Christianity on the teachings of everybody but the Christ who gave Christianity it's name, I'd say it's safe to assume that you just use the name for your own gain or simply aren't a true Christian.
The "problem" I have with Islam in this regard is that I haven't read the book or heard many people preach about it and so I can't decide whether ISIS or my friendly neighborhood hijabi has the "correct" as in intended interpretation. What I can say is that I certainly prefer the one of the friendly hijabi and would rather claim that to be the true interpretation and promote it rather than the other one.
The one of the friendly hijabi isn't doing much to counter the one of the beheadings though. Every time we've removed a dictator in a Muslim country, a Wahabbist state has sprung up as a replacement. The natural conclusion is that this is the current tendency of the Muslim world. Anyone who wants to argue that the Islam of the friendly hijab is the true Islam has to explain why it is, that whenever Muslims are given the freedom to choose whatever regime they like, they revert to the Islam of the beheadings.
rory_20_uk
04-06-2016, 12:01
The one of the friendly hijabi isn't doing much to counter the one of the beheadings though. Every time we've removed a dictator in a Muslim country, a Wahabbist state has sprung up as a replacement. The natural conclusion is that this is the current tendency of the Muslim world. Anyone who wants to argue that the Islam of the friendly hijab is the true Islam has to explain why it is, that whenever Muslims are given the freedom to choose whatever regime they like, they revert to the Islam of the beheadings.
Because Saudi Arabia has the most cash to splash. They bankroll their version all over the world and to a degree that swamps everyone else.
~:smoking:
Who knows what the "Correct" interpretation is? The Canon was formed hundreds of years after Jesus died for the first time and much of what was written was suppressed actively by the church. When Islam swept through the region, vast amounts of what had been written was also destroyed.
I was talking about the bible that Christianity has supposedly been based on since it has been based on the bible. If you want to claim that the Jesus in that bible somehow promotes violence I would appreciate it if you could actually substantiate that with more than a single quote taken out of context. Otherwise we may perhaps conclude that Christianity is or should be based on the delivered teachings of a man who preached love and nonviolence.
Whether that is the ultimate truth of the universe or everybody who calls himself a Christian follows these teachings 100% are different questions.
The one of the friendly hijabi isn't doing much to counter the one of the beheadings though.
Why would they have to? Should Christians have jumped in front of NRA guns to prevent them from besmirching the image of their religion?
And how would you know the hijabi is not condemning the attacks? Did you talk to her about it?
Every time we've removed a dictator in a Muslim country, a Wahabbist state has sprung up as a replacement. The natural conclusion is that this is the current tendency of the Muslim world. Anyone who wants to argue that the Islam of the friendly hijab is the true Islam has to explain why it is, that whenever Muslims are given the freedom to choose whatever regime they like, they revert to the Islam of the beheadings.
So when British politicians' daddies have fake companies in Panama, we can safely assume that all British people are corrupt thieves?
And who left and then supported the dictators in these countries in the first place? Oh right, that was usually us, too.
rory_20_uk
04-06-2016, 12:15
Which Bible? There are over a dozen different ones. What they contain differs extensively - this is before the different versions of what is the same Bible.
I do not think that any version of the Bible espouses violence - why most hold on the the Old Testament is a mystery to me since Christians seem to have to spend a lot of time explaining why everything it says should be ignored.
~:smoking:
Pannonian
04-06-2016, 12:19
Why would they have to? Should Christians have jumped in front of NRA guns to prevent them from besmirching the image of their religion?
And how would you know the hijabi is not condemning the attacks? Did you talk to her about it?
And I remember the largest demonstration in British history turning out to argue against an invasion of Iraq. 1 million+ on the streets of London, apparently the largest outdoor crowd in the capital since 1945.
Pannonian
04-06-2016, 12:22
Because Saudi Arabia has the most cash to splash. They bankroll their version all over the world and to a degree that swamps everyone else.
~:smoking:
I loathe Saudi Arabia and anyone who supports their export of Wahabbism. ISIS is the current spearhead, but Saudi Arabia is the wellspring of all that is vile about modern Islam.
Greyblades
04-06-2016, 12:26
Which Bible? There are over a dozen different ones. What they contain differs extensively - this is before the different versions of what is the same Bible.
I do not think that any version of the Bible espouses violence - why most hold on the the Old Testament is a mystery to me since Christians seem to have to spend a lot of time explaining why everything it says should be ignored.
~:smoking:
I think it is because parents and priests find some of the stories and parables contained within the old testiment useful when teaching children morality.
I do not think that any version of the Bible espouses violence - why most hold on the the Old Testament is a mystery to me since Christians seem to have to spend a lot of time explaining why everything it says should be ignored.
Why then ask which version if they're all the same in the aspect that matters to the discussion?
As for the explanations, that's because people like you only cherry-pick the attackable quotes. Maybe if asked about a part that is not taken out of context or outdated, such as Psalm 51:10 or Deuteronomy 10:12-19, you'd get a different answer.
And I remember the largest demonstration in British history turning out to argue against an invasion of Iraq. 1 million+ on the streets of London, apparently the largest outdoor crowd in the capital since 1945.
That's great, unfortunately also a bit late and didn't quite work out.
Gilrandir
04-06-2016, 12:59
That's about 550 year after the First Crusade, so supports my point.
Sorry, got the dating wrong.
First of all, that he enjoys crushing sinners is not entirely correct: http://www.jba.gr/Articles/jba2004_02.htm
You again resort to referring to interpretations. :no: Let me quote Rory on that:
Who knows what the "Correct" interpretation is? The Canon was formed hundreds of years after Jesus died for the first time and much of what was written was suppressed actively by the church.
I don't know whether the word "enjoy" is applicable, but informing in all details what befell those God didn't like is close to gloating. Like having a separate verse for each of the Egyptyan plagues, or desribing how Sodom and Gomorrah died, or repeating several times to Noah how every single human (except him) would be terminated.....
And you say that
Killing someone for being a sinner goes fundamentally against that, instead one should teach them about the love of God and save their soul, again fundamentally different from damning them by killing them and removing their chance to repent.
and
love the sinner but hate the sin.
Or is this rule made for human use only and God has a monopoly on killing sinners (and in most cruel way too)?
a human can never change the basic rules of such a god, no matter how unfair or outdated he deems them.
The God changes rules himself!!!
Do you remember that Lot had children by his two daughters (or do I have to quote it)? So the incest was OK? And the offspring of both lived happily ever after until today. WTF?
Except that you have apparently hardly read the book,
I thought that after all my references to Bible (in this thread and elsewhere - remember our discussion of Jesus ordering a robbery of the donkey?) I am exempt from such charges. But qualifying an opponent as ignorant is a good argument. In my case it isn't valid, sorry to say. It is true, though, that I read it about 15 years ago (and found it extremely tedious), so some episodes are rather abraded in my memory. But what struck me back then is still there. You may not believe me, but I thought it to be Brenus' previlege.
much less heard people interprete it directly.
You know what I think of interpretations (see above the message by Rory).
Yet you claim to have a better understanding. :inquisitive:
Now read carefully once again what I wrote:
No one (except the author) can prove that my or your understaning is better/worse.
Which is to say that neither my nor your interpretation is better. Nor anyone else's, btw.
What dubious statements?
One may call it encouraging plunder, or marauding:
Exodus 3
Moses and the Burning Bush
21 “And I will make the Egyptians favorably disposed toward this people, so that when you leave you will not go empty-handed. 22 Every woman is to ask her neighbor and any woman living in her house for articles of silver and gold and for clothing, which you will put on your sons and daughters. And so you will plunder the Egyptians.”
If you want a fun "fact", I'm not aware of anywhere in the bible saying that God wants us to live monogamous.
If it is so, it is one more reason to take what is said in the Bible cum grano salis.
No one (except the author) can prove that my or your understaning is better/worse.
Which is to say that neither my nor your interpretation is better. Nor anyone else's, btw.
Ok, good, then what was the problem again?
Ah yes, God apparently said to kill the gay. Well, he meant to kill the gay inside yourself and your interpretation is not better than mine so there you go, problem solved.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-06-2016, 13:25
That's correct! I raised from a Muslim family, so it probably makes a difference. It's what we call "Cultural Moslem". No matter how atheist you become, there are things you can't get back.. (Like your circumcision ~:mecry: )
Actually, you can get your foreskin back, but it's expensive. I confess though, I cheated because I knew you were Turkish.
As I said, I talk about Christianity without any knowledge, I think you talking about the first 13 Christians who died in a cave, without any resistance.
The first Christian Martyr was a man named Stephen, a Deacon stoned to death in Jerusalem -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Stephen.
It's not that you have no knowledge of Christianity, it's that you have whatever knowledge is passed down in Muslim societies. The Muslim version of Jesus' ministry is very different to the Christian one. In the orthodox Christian account (and most heretical ones) Jesus dies on the cross, is entombed and then returns to life after three days, then after 40 days he ascends to Heaven. In the Muslim account another man takes Jesus' place on the cross and he later ascends to Heaven alive as Elijah did before him.
Totally different emphasis in the story.
From what I heard the first martyrs were pacifist, but once they get enough power, things were changed. (The part that Roman army comes in) You simply stripping that part of Christianity, because it's not "nice" anymore.
All the early Martyrs were pacifists up until the First Crusade. Christians had long dispensed with Pacifism generally, about the time Roman Senators started to join the Church, but Martyrdom was reserved for those who suffered and died for the faith without resistance until the Pope preached a sermon in 1089 that fighting the Infidel in defence of Christians was a way to Heaven.
I don't wanna offend any of the martyrs by the way, maybe I am wrong and they were truly pacifist. I am just logically assumuing, because it's exactly what Islam did. Moslems were pacifist for like good 15 years, until they become capable of raising an army.
The religion changed as it gathered adherents. The early Christians were pacifists but as more people joined it changed, became less of a fringe cult and more mainstream. As that happened the commitment to Pacifism was weakened so that they could justify admitting soldiers and officials. So it was less about military capacity or need and more about being able to admit people to the cult who had lives incompatible with it. Wealthy is also not compatible with Christianity as preached by Jesus, but many Kings and merchant princes have been Christians.
I don't think Muhammed was a Pacifist, and like Abraham he led military expeditions. I know that Islam values peaceful conduct but it also permits violence and its prophet fought wars.
Since the whole Jesus story is on debate as well, let's say you are right, maybe the "True Christianity" is even nicer than Buddhism... It actually doesn't matter because I am not against religion because it's violent, but because it's scientifically false.
Well, you're free not to believe in a religion but it's wrong to say they are "Scientifically false" because science has nothing to do with God or any of the things religions touch generally.
You see, the problem here is we are dealing with people, not any logical or scientific problem. The first version of them doesn't matter. It's only a nice toy for history geeks like us. So it's possible to have "Nice Moslems", just ike you have nice Christians. Turkey is a good example,he just forced people to modernization, and now we have Good Moslems in Turkey, who doesn't read the book, doesn't think about it much. (Moslems in Europe are just horrible though, as I heard.)
A few years ago the more fringe Christians in the US were all wearing bracelets with WWJD - What Would Jesus Do.
If a man slapped him what would Jesus do? If a man asked for money what would Jesus do?
You're right that just pointing to the "First believers" in any religion doesn't mean an awful lot but at the same time the foundation story is important. What happens to your "Good Muslims" if you get them reading the Koran? Do they then become "Bad Muslims"? If the Koran said something different would that make Muslims different?
Gilrandir
04-06-2016, 13:29
Ok, good, then what was the problem again?
A problem appears when someone tries to persuade another that only his interpretation of a very contradictory text is correct and accuses the opponent in cherry-picking and being ignorant.
Ah yes, God apparently said to kill the gay.
You said he didn't. :dizzy2:
A problem appears when someone tries to persuade another that only his interpretation of a very contradictory text is correct and accuses the opponent in cherry-picking and being ignorant.
So when someone claims that his interpretation is that a text is contradictory when another interpretation says it is not contradictory and the guy cannot even substantiate his claim other than by saying "no interpretation is correct", then this guy has a problem? I agree. :2thumbsup:
You said he didn't. :dizzy2:
I said Christ didn't and the former statement is not relevant for Christianity which is based on following the teachings of Christ wherever they contradict older statements. The older statements are in there for historical relevance and context, one usually does not explain the relevance of a change without explaining how things were before the change to have a contrast to how things are now after the change.
Gilrandir
04-06-2016, 15:21
So when someone claims that his interpretation is that a text is contradictory when another interpretation says it is not contradictory and the guy cannot even substantiate his claim other than by saying "no interpretation is correct", then this guy has a problem? I agree. :2thumbsup:
When there are two interpretations of a text it means that the text is contradictory and allows multiple interpretations.
As for "no substantiation": I gave many and you just disregard them, calling them out-of-context cherry-picking of a person who doesn't understand anything and hasn't even read the text under discussion.
I said Christ didn't and the former statement is not relevant for Christianity which is based on following the teachings of Christ wherever they contradict older statements.
So you admit the contradiction(s)? The problem solved.
And as far as I understand, Christ is a son of God, thus God himself.
The older statements are in there for historical relevance and context, one usually does not explain the relevance of a change without explaining how things were before the change to have a contrast to how things are now after the change.
This is your interpretation of the function of the older texts which is not neccessarily the correct one. I repeat: we are talking of a HOLY BOOK IN ITS ENTIRETY, so the older parts are not just a context, they are holy messages whose importance is no less than that of the newer ones.
When there are two interpretations of a text it means that the text is contradictory and allows multiple interpretations.
I interprete that as you saying I was right all along.
As for "no substantiation": I gave many and you just disregard them, calling them out-of-context cherry-picking of a person who doesn't understand anything and hasn't even read the text under discussion.
[...]
So you admit the contradiction(s)? The problem solved.
I've explained already that a Christian is not a follower of Abraham. There is no contradiction if you know whose word has precedence and why.
And as far as I understand, Christ is a son of God, thus God himself.
Yes, and?
Are you saying that it's not fair if the Allmighty decides to change the rules of how to get into heaven?
Again, he is allmighty and all-knowing and AFAIK you are not, so unless you want to claim to know better than he does, what is your point?
I repeat: we are talking of a HOLY BOOK IN ITS ENTIRETY, so the older parts are not just a context, they are holy messages whose importance is no less than that of the newer ones.
This is your interpretation of the function of the older texts which is not neccessarily the correct one.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-06-2016, 17:43
This is your interpretation of the function of the older texts which is not neccessarily the correct one. I repeat: we are talking of a HOLY BOOK IN ITS ENTIRETY, so the older parts are not just a context, they are holy messages whose importance is no less than that of the newer ones.
Except the newer bits say not to follow the older bits.
Think of Judaism like a Roleplaying game (ugh) and think of Christianity like a Rules Update (ugh).
So you bought the shiny core rulebook (Torah) and all the Supplementals (rest of the OT) and now the game-dev has released his big magisterial rules update and re-writes a lot of stuff in the Core Rules.
So when you buy the Rules Update it actually re-writes most of the Core Rules.
Get it?
"Get it?" Nope, because:
"Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Mark 7:13). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18)."
"Get it?" Nope, because:
"Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Mark 7:13). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18)."
http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_OldTestamentLaw.htm
By the time of Jesus, the great moral principles God had given to Moses in the Ten Commandments had been turned into hundreds of ceremonial rules. People thought they were living holy lives if they just obeyed all those rules. But Jesus disagreed. He said people found enough "loopholes" to obey all the rules and still live wicked and greedy lives (Matthew 23:23-28).
Jesus made one statement about the Law that often causes confusion:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)
Christians have struggled to understand exactly what Jesus meant. At first reading, this seems to say that all the Old Testament rules and rituals must still be observed. But Jesus and His disciples did not observe many of those rules and rituals, so it could not mean that.
It is frequently pointed out that the term "the Law" could have many different meanings at the time of Jesus:1,2
The ceremonial laws including "clean" and "unclean" lists, sacrifices, dietary restrictions, ritual washings, etc.
The civil law regulating social behavior and specifying crimes, punishments and other rules
The moral and ethical laws, such as the Ten Commandments
The Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible)
The scribal law - the 613 rules (mitzvot) formulated by the scribes that everyone was expected to obey
The Scripture as a whole
Jesus did not abolish the moral and ethical laws that had been in effect from the time of Moses. He affirmed and expanded upon those principles, but He said obedience must be from the heart (attitudes and intentions) rather than just technical observance of the letter of the law (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-42, 43-44, etc.).
However, Jesus and His disciples did not observe the strict scribal rules against doing any work on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14, Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6, Luke 6:1-11, 13:10-17, 14:1-6, John 5:1-18). Neither did they perform the ritual hand washings before eating (Matthew 15:1-2). In contrast to the dietary rules of the Law, Jesus said no food can defile a person; it is bad attitudes and actions that can make a person unholy (Matthew 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-23). Jesus frequently criticized the scribal laws (Matthew 23:23, Mark 7:11-13) and some aspects of the civil law (John 8:3-5, 10-11).
Therefore, Jesus may have been specifically teaching that the moral and ethical laws in the Scripture would endure until the end of time. That would be consistent with His actions and other teachings. Through His teachings and actions, Jesus revealed the true meaning and intent of the Law.
It is also pointed out that Jesus, Himself, is the fulfillment of the Law (Matthew 26:28, Mark 10:45, Luke 16:16, John 1:16, Acts 10:28, 13:39, Romans 10:4) The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross ended forever the need for animal sacrifices and other aspects of the ceremonial law.
Emphasis mine.
You're a bit quick with what "the law" means and just assume it means all the rules that someone may have mentioned somewhere when he could just be referring to the ten commandments for example. Yes, it is not directly clear from the way it is written but as the quote says, you just have to look at what he did to see that he certainly wasn't referring to the rule not to do anything on a sabbath and so on.
Gilrandir
04-07-2016, 09:47
Are you saying that it's not fair if the Allmighty decides to change the rules of how to get into heaven?
Again, he is allmighty and all-knowing and AFAIK you are not, so unless you want to claim to know better than he does, what is your point?
There was a discussion on who "ordered to kill" gays. Yesugey thought it was God, you said it was Jesus. I tried to heal the schism by equating God and Jesus.
This is your interpretation of the function of the older texts which is not neccessarily the correct one.
This is what I've been trying to show - there is no correct interpretation of Bible and everyone may stick to what he sees in it.
http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_OldTestamentLaw.htm
You're a bit quick with what "the law" means and just assume it means all the rules that someone may have mentioned somewhere when he could just be referring to the ten commandments for example. Yes, it is not directly clear from the way it is written but as the quote says, you just have to look at what he did to see that he certainly wasn't referring to the rule not to do anything on a sabbath and so on.
You again resort to quoting "authorities" which is useless (remember: no one has an exclusive right to consider his interpretation of the Bible correct). And since you admit the bolded, I reserve the right to interpret the words myself.
Except the newer bits say not to follow the older bits.
I would like to see an explicit statement where it is mentioned. And even if there is one, this hardly makes the case logical. One is to learn what is said in the Old Testament to forget about it when he starts on the New one? If we continue our goods metaphor: A manufacturer says: "Do you remember our exquisite high quality Thingy we have been producing for quite a while? Now we are proud to present an updated version of it which is much better and advanced. When you buy and start using it you will understand that the old one is absolute crap, so throw it away." Will there be any trust to the manufacturer and the Thingies (both the new and the old one)? What if the newest one is on the way - why should I enjoy the second edition if still a better one is (hopefully) yet to come?
There was a discussion on who "ordered to kill" gays. Yesugey thought it was God, you said it was Jesus.
Really? Can you quote me saying that with the post number?
This is what I've been trying to show - there is no correct interpretation of Bible and everyone may stick to what he sees in it.
Really? Can you show me where you said that and which words you used?
You again resort to quoting "authorities" which is useless (remember: no one has an exclusive right to consider his interpretation of the Bible correct).
It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling because someone shares my interpretation, do you want to deny me that?
I thank you for showing me why climate change is a hoax, 99% of scientists agreeing with something is useless because the interpretation of the data by the climate change deniers is just as valid.
I reserve the right to interpret the words myself.
Just remember that you do not have the exclusive right to consider your interpretation of the Bible correct, therefore everything you said on the topic is irrelevant and useless.
Gilrandir
04-07-2016, 10:37
Really? Can you quote me saying that with the post number?
Sorry, it was you who claimed God said to kill the gay.
Post # 121:
Ah yes, God apparently said to kill the gay. Well, he meant to kill the gay inside yourself and your interpretation is not better than mine so there you go, problem solved.
And Yesugey claimed that killing the gay one follows true Christianity (thus it is what Jesus said):
Post # 57
So as I said, you must kill homosexuals to follow the true Christianity. But you will just follow the modern version of it.
My mistake, forgot which of you referred to which deity.
Really? Can you show me where you said that and which words you used?
Post #120
Now read carefully once again what I wrote:
No one (except the author) can prove that my or your understaning is better/worse.
Which is to say that neither my nor your interpretation is better. Nor anyone else's, btw.
And pay attention, the post itself contains a reference to an older one.
It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling because someone shares my interpretation, do you want to deny me that?
You feelings have nothing to do with providing arguments in a discussion. You may indulge yourself in whatever brings you pleasure, which, however, won't help you to succeed in an argument.
I thank you for showing me why climate change is a hoax, 99% of scientists agreeing with something is useless because the interpretation of the data by the climate change deniers is just as valid.
:laugh4: Nice dodge - trying to equate a scientific discussion of things we witness in the real world with the bickerings of idle laymen on how to understand the contents of a literary piece.
Just remember that you do not have the exclusive right to consider your interpretation of the Bible correct, therefore everything you said on the topic is irrelevant and useless.
The first clause doesn't presuppose the second. My interpretation of the Bible may not be correct because THERE IS NO CORRECT INTERPRETATION. So you might as well apply the second clause to ANY interpretation (including yours and the ones you bring in to prove something). Thus, the second clause refers to you as well.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I'm sorry, I will stop now. We've had enough fun for one thread.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-07-2016, 17:37
Gilrandir, I give up.
Which is not to say I think you're right, I just have no idea how to explain it in a way you will understand
rory_20_uk
04-08-2016, 09:30
Gilrandir, I give up.
Which is not to say I think you're right, I just have no idea how to explain it in a way you will understand
Given the Christian Church has had schisms for the best part of 2,000 years I'm not that surprised you've not managed to address it on an online discussion board.
~:smoking:
AE Bravo
04-08-2016, 20:38
This is why this thread was more interesting in its semantics phase, at least you get straight answers and not what people want to believe for themselves. Crowbarring your overly rosy picture of your faith at every turn is a sign of insecurity in that faith. "That's God's way of interacting with his creation back then" with the OT isn't good enough.
https://i1381.photobucket.com/albums/ah226/fjalhosani/e8a5w9s_zpsncbvonfw.gif (http://s1381.photobucket.com/user/fjalhosani/media/e8a5w9s_zpsncbvonfw.gif.html)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-09-2016, 00:22
I read my Bible, it says I'm a terrible person.
It's not so rosy.
I read my Bible, it says I'm a terrible person.
It's not so rosy.
But christian doctrine (and islam too) both say that god(/allah) is merciful and forgiving. He doesn't expect you to be perfect, only that you try, and he will embrace you as a son/daughter in the afterlife to spend eternity with him.
"He doesn't expect you to be perfect,", which is nice from Him as he is the creator, so I see a little bit of self indulgence here.
"as a son/daughter" Daughter? Where? The bloody women are not in paradise unless to be the prize for the Martyrs... And should be happy to serve their lust... Comn'on be realistic!!!
Greyblades
04-09-2016, 09:07
Am i correct in believing that it is the hadiths not the quran that are used to provide legitimacy to the less savory activities of radical islam?
Greyblades
04-09-2016, 12:42
Sorry for the double post, I came across this video that I wish to throw it into the proverbial pit and see what happens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceGqB4raTZo
Gilrandir
04-09-2016, 13:54
Gilrandir, I give up.
Which is not to say I think you're right, I just have no idea how to explain it in a way you will understand
You are right. I don't understand many things in the Bible.
For example: God set his mind on destroying Sodom and Gomorrah (after a prolonged "bargaining" with Abraham (I think) on how many righteous people is enough to leave the cities intact). Since Lot turned out the only righteous man, he (with his family) was "advised" to escape. On the way of escape his wife committed a terrible sin of looking back - and was turned to a mineral. When the other escapees were far enough from the place of the catastrophe Lot's daughter's got their father drunk, had sex with him and conceived.
So, I don't understand how a righteous man could get himself so drunk to sleep with his daughters? And do you think there was any punishment for him and his daughters? No! They all were "punished" by becoming forefather and foremothers of whole ethnicities. So when an (apparently) righteous woman looks back it is a sin worth punishment by death, and when three people indulge in incestuous sex, it is "punished" by proclaiming them worthy ancestors who begot a whole nation? :dizzy2:
And how can people charge Mohammed with pedophilia when the Bible has stories like that?
It reminds me of a joke when a little boy saw through the keyhole his parents having sex and remarked to himself: "And those are the people who forbid me to pick my nose!"
Bottomline: holy books were written aeons ago by HUMANS, compiled by HUMANS and meant to be read by HUMANS (who were mostly illiterate and easy to manipulate back then), otherwise inconsistencies in them can't be explained. In view of such inconsistencies, people nowadays tend to pick out of the books what chimes with their worldview. So reasons for anything that people do afterwards (both good and evil) should be sought in their inner souls, but not blamed on the books they read.
Sorry for the double post, I came across this video that I wish to throw it into the proverbial pit and see what happens.
Seems like some of the muslims now join in the leftist self-flaggelation. :sweatdrop:
Is this News agency in the Saudi lands if so why isnt she wearing a burqa or hijab at least??
Can we please make a difference between muslim and islam? Mate of mine is muslim, his little brother is even the captain of Marocco's national team. But said mate doesn't give a crap he just wants to run his (now broke) nightclubs and (now broke) coffeeshops. His family does nothing, nice standards
AE Bravo
04-09-2016, 18:49
Sorry for the double post, I came across this video that I wish to throw it into the proverbial pit and see what happens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceGqB4raTZo
Wow I can't believe this exists. Of course, I disagree with her that I should feel ashamed but a breath of fresh air nonetheless.
Probably going to be a boatload of fatwas against her by the Saudi committee.
Can we please make a difference between muslim and islam? Mate of mine is muslim, his little brother is even the captain of Marocco's national team. But said mate doesn't give a crap he just wants to run his (now broke) nightclubs and (now broke) coffeeshops. His family does nothing, nice standards
There is already a distinction between islam and islamist, asking the entire world to adapt to your different interpretations or definitions is not very helpful.
There is already a distinction between islam and islamist, asking the entire world to adapt to your different interpretations or definitions is not very helpful.
Would be if people would. People would stop despising all muslims if the difference would be made very clear. Not all muslims submit to islam that's just a difference that must be made. I say so with nothing but good intentions.
No i disagree, not all muslims submit to Sharia law instead for instance muslim girls wearing hijabs listen to justin beiber/western music and some men partake in vices like smoking, If you call yourself a muslim you submit to Islam or most of the tenants of it,
A muslim is just someone born with a muslim background, nothing more, most aren't very serious about it. Ramadan seems to be the only thing all participate in.
A muslim is just someone born with a muslim background, nothing more, most aren't very serious about it. Ramadan seems to be the only thing all participate in.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/04/islamic-state-publishes-hit-list-of-muslim-brotherhood-linked-muslim-leaders
Cool to see this is still a hot topic after all these years.
A lot has happened all these years, especially this year, you should be glad that a hot topic is still cool as things are heating up
Gilrandir
04-22-2016, 15:57
Unlike Islam, Christianity is a religion of peace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4-aD3bgpvw
In the video, a Russian Orthodox priest from Novosibirsk (together with his brother) asserts his right to take the parking space he fancies. And shows the meaning of "turning the other cheek" simultaneously. It is true, though, that he was defrocked a year ago, but still wears his robe and considers himself a priest.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.