Islam - What's your view on it?

[TexRex]

That is what I tried to say in the past several pages, yet I failed it seems. Maybe it is because English is not my native language and we both lost in the nuance of the topic.

Bull. You have demonstrated yourself perfectly capable of wielding the English language for the purpose of this discussion.

What you seem to have difficulty doing is responding to questions about your own remarks without diving deep into what others think, say and do, and I suspect this is because the remarks I've called you on are absolute crap.

 

[PocketZeven]

Bull. You have demonstrated yourself perfectly capable of wielding the English language for the purpose of this discussion.

What you seem to have difficulty doing is responding to questions about your own remarks without diving deep into what others think, say and do, and I suspect this is because the remarks I've called you on are absolute crap.

To be fair certain nuances do become lost in translation. I have experienced this firsthand.

 

[TexRex]

To be fair certain nuances do become lost in translation. I have experienced this firsthand.

To be fair, I'm not actually talking to you.

What's more, there is absolutely no nuance here. A nonexistent entity is incapable of action or inaction and an attempt to attack another entity, whether they exist or not, with such notions is stupid.

 

[Dobermann92]

To be fair, I'm not actually talking to you.

What's more, there is absolutely no nuance here. A nonexistent entity is incapable of action or inaction and an attempt to attack another entity, whether they exist or not, with such notions is stupid.

Then there is the disagreement with you. If it doesn't make sense to you then it isn't my problem, I won't mock you for it.

 

[TexRex]

Then there is the disagreement with you. If it doesn't make sense to you then it isn't my problem, I won't mock you for it.

What disagreement? What is there to not make sense?

It's babytown frolics; the supposed actions or inaction of a fictional character (as you suggested) have absolutely nothing to do with supposed actions of another, be they fictional or proven as having existed.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes, I've read both the Bible and the Quran. They aren't easy books, that's to be sure, for example one has several verses about the religious war called "jihad".

That's the bible, although obviously you've translated the word for a righteous war on infidels into Arabic for some reason.

 

[Dobermann92]

What disagreement? What is there to not make sense?

It's babytown frolics; the supposed actions or inaction of a fictional character (as you suggested) have absolutely nothing to do with supposed actions of another, be they fictional or proven as having existed.

If I grant you that Jesus was fully fictional, it still has an effect when comparing which religion is more peaceful. If everybody were atheists, that would be the best society, but that is a goal for the far future.

That's the bible, although obviously you've translated the word for a righteous war on infidels into Arabic for some reason.

Of course there are no harmful things said in the Quran, they probably take all of the bad things out of context, we all know it....(I used sarcasm, if you can't tell).

 

[UKMikey]

Of course there are no harmful things said in the Quran, they probably take all of the bad things out of context, we all know it....(I used sarcasm, if you can't tell).

It's ironic that you were mocking me earlier for a supposed strawman argument, because this appears to be a whopper.

 

[TexRex]

If I grant you that Jesus was fully fictional, it still has an effect when comparing which religion is more peaceful.

Nope. Fictional characters are equally incapable of doing and not doing. If something doesn't exist, it simply isn't. It doesn't be. It doesn't say. It doesn't do...and it doesn't not do. Supposed actions or inaction of fictional characters are of absolutely no consequence and are absolutely worthless for the purpose of comparison with other individuals, fictitious or real.

Religions are also equally incapable of being peaceful or violent. Those who follow a particular religion may be peaceful or violent, but there's a great deal internally determining those peaceful or violent actions. There's also plenty externally.

There are priests out there who diddle choir boys in the rectory. Do they do so because of the religion the espouse? I'd be inclined to say they're responsible for their own actions.

 

[mustafur]

Jesus is a Weird one, while it was along time ago, that period of time was relatively well recorded, yet details on Jesus is very patchy, no evidence of burial or even existence but areas where he was claimed to be are very much real and you even have another religion even confirming existence of him.

I think Religion's are Complete Hocus Pocus but unless their main living figure can be confirmed to even exist it delegitamizes the religion completely just comparing to other religions.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Jesus is a Weird one, while it was along time ago, that period of time was relatively well recorded, yet details on Jesus is very patchy, no evidence of burial or even existence but areas where he was claimed to be are very much real and you even have another religion even confirming existence of him.

Personally I'm pretty convinced that a man called Jesus existed in that time and place and that he's the same man upon whom the legend was built by his rebel Jewish followers.

It loses me at the Resurrection, which obviously is a bit of a deal-breaker.

 

[mustafur]

Personally I'm pretty convinced that a man called Jesus existed in that time and place and that he's the same man upon whom the legend was built by his rebel Jewish followers.

It loses me at the Resurrection, which obviously is a bit of a deal-breaker.

Your probably right, had it been say Pre Roman Era it would be much easier to fabricate an entire fake existence, but given Jesus Timeline was in a relatively well recorded time period in a Hotspot of Civilization at the time it's hard to fake the entire thing, the stuff that only Christians would confirm (like the resurrection stuff) is total crap though.

 

[TexRex]

Personally I'm pretty convinced that a man called Jesus existed in that time and place and that he's the same man upon whom the legend was built by his rebel Jewish followers.

It loses me at the Resurrection, which obviously is a bit of a deal-breaker.

What about walking on water or turning water into wine?

 

[mustafur]

That would probably be the world's first Magic Show Performance lol.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What about walking on water or turning water into wine?

Yes, I should have said everything from the visit of the angels onwards. The Resurrection's the other biggy. Apart from the stuff in the middle.

 

[TexRex]

What if Jesus was actually a warlock?

 

[Dotini]

Yes, I should have said everything from the visit of the angels onwards. The Resurrection's the other biggy. Apart from the stuff in the middle.

Several religions avow we are all a tiny piece of cosmic consciousness. Jesus was merely a slightly bigger piece. But we are getting somewhat afield of the thread topic. Angels and the resurrection should remain mysterious, taboo here.

 

[Imari]

You argue for your opinion, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Fair enough. Some would prefer to discuss their opinions politely and civilly first before jumping straight to argument, but I guess if an argument is what you're looking for on a discussion board then you can definitely find it.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. I don't believe that Jesus (if he existed) was ever a god.

To be fair, we're talking about religions here. If you're talking about Jesus in the context of religion, it's reasonable to assume that we're talking about the Jesus that those religions hold up as factual. In the case of Islam, that's a divinely inspired messenger. In the case of Christianity, that's an actual part of God Himself.

Both of those require that you accept that a deity exists. If you're sticking to atheism, then Jesus as Islam or Christianity sees him did not exist by definition. There may have been a guy called Jesus, but that's hardly news. There are guys called Jesus alive right now, and we're not hailing them as the Second Coming.

Jesus is a Weird one, while it was along time ago, that period of time was relatively well recorded, yet details on Jesus is very patchy, no evidence of burial or even existence but areas where he was claimed to be are very much real and you even have another religion even confirming existence of him.

Well recorded, but not that well recorded by modern standards. It seems pretty plausible that a guy called Jesus and roughly corresponding to some of the described behaviours may have existed, and then two thousand years of chinese whispers, exaggeration, and outright lies have made the story damn near unverifiable.

If there was a real man at the start of the whole story, it seems pretty irrelevant now as the man he was isn't almost certainly nothing like the man the religion has been built around.

If nothing else, that's something that I prefer about Islam. Mohammed was just a dude. He gets held up as a paragon of virtue, but however divinely inspired he may or may not have been he was just a dude. As a fellow human who is also just a dude, I find that a lot more relatable than the magic wielding immortal divine entity that is Jesus.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If nothing else, that's something that I prefer about Islam. Mohammed was just a dude.

Same with Musa/Moses, he was a human spoken to by god. The christians had to go one better.

 

[Imari]

Same with Musa/Moses, he was a human spoken to by god. The christians had to go one better.

I guess the Islamic form of one-upmanship was "Your prophets were OK, but our prophet is the bestest and final prophet for ever and all time no backsies".

I mean, if God had seen fit to be sending prophets from creation up until the 600s, I hardly think He'd suddenly stop. "Yep, the messages that I gave this member of a species that is routinely forgetful, deceitful and imaginitive will definitely be accurately recorded and transcribed into all languages, and no other information will ever be required to amply elucidate my commands for the rest of the future of the universe."*

If nothing else, sending a messenger every few hundred years would simply seem like being a good landlord. You know, check in with the tenants, see how they're going, make sure they haven't smashed up the place. Basic renting your universe 101.

*Except for the near-immediate schism once Mohammed died, I guess.

 

[TexRex]

Same with Musa/Moses, he was a human spoken to by god. The christians had to go one better.

That might explain why Jesus is so often depected as being absolutely shredded. Sure, he may not be a muscle-bound behemoth, but he's definitely got that wiry muscularity. It must be the...erm...Pilates.

 

[huskeR32]

Yes, I've read both the Bible and the Quran. They aren't easy books, that's to be sure, for example one has several verses about the religious war called "jihad".

Do you really expect anybody to play along with such transparently selective bull:censored:?

—

It's babytown frolics

Ten seasons in, and this remains one of the funniest scenes.

—

But we are getting somewhat afield of the thread topic. Angels and the resurrection should remain mysterious, taboo here.

Are we? Comparisons between Islam and Christianity don’t strike me as egregiously off-topic here, and that would inevitably bring up Christian themes, would it not?

 

[TexRex]

Ten seasons in, and this remains one of the funniest scenes.

The first season is still far and away the best in my opinion. While still entertaining, each successive season has been less so.

Still, I don't think I've laughed harder than at Krieger's distant "me too"s during the shower the gang threw for the wee baby Seamus.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I wonder how many times Farron or May have hosted or even attended the LGBT Pride event.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...atchell-parade-antidote-sadness-a7824006.html

Still doesn't mean he doesn't think gay sex is a sin, and still doesn't show that he's been asked that question that was put to two prominent Christian politicians (in 2017, a time when he was Mayor of a capital city with over 8 million residents)

But your entire post consists of Islam vs Christian comparisons. Are they only acceptable if they make Christianity look better by comparison?

I'm trying to show they are better and worse in different regards, and how it is that when Islam is discussed it is invariably compared to Christianity (and hardly ever other religions) to show they are both equal.

It can work the other way as I would put Islam above Christianity in terms of (thinking off the top of my head quickly):

- the fraternity bond and how this transcends nationalities
- looking after their elders

If Christianity is the religion of peace and Islam the religion of war then I don't understand why there are Islamic countries in the top twenty and Christian countries in the bottom twenty. Surely those numbers should be zero if it's an absolute truth? I had a read of this analysis but couldn't find the part that proved that Islam is the cause of world conflict and should be outlawed immediately even in peaceful countries.

http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Peace-and-Religion-Report.pdf

Shouldn't it be less skewed if they were equally peaceful, which I think is the default argument.

I'm aware it's a crude measurement, but the fact that Buddhism which accounts for 9-10% of the total world population is more represented in the top 20 countries than the 2nd largest religion is pretty telling....

100%? Which part references that in your link?

Edit: Clicked the wrong link. But it only says about 500 interviewed. also it was a survey.

Being anti LGBTQ is certainly not exclusive to islam.

edit 2: directly from the bible Leviticus: ‘If two men sleep with each other they will both have to be killed.'

I never said it was exclusive - but it is far from equal. Are you saying if you took 500 British Christians you would get an equal response?

If you look at the peace index it probably has more to with socio economic standing then religion. I dont see how you make the connection based on the global peace index?

Ahh, the old reliable "socioeconomic factors"

Yes, it plays a part.
And yes, religion does too.

Oh it is. The claim is that Sadiq Khan has never been asked that question. It's not up to me to prove it's true... and so I'm asking how the claimant knows that it's true. Thanks though.

That's bordering on the ridiculous. If we're going for semantics then, sure, he's never been asked by someone who would report it. But simple Google searches show that Farron has been asked multiple times and would bring up a Youtube video showing May being asked and her response. More detailed searches about Khan has revealed no such instances.

 

[TenEightyOne]

More detailed searches about Khan has revealed no such instances.

Obviously you'll have looked at his voting record in division, his comments on education around same-sex relationships, his comments about the place of the LGBT+ community in London, or the bit where he calls such relationships "healthy".

That took two minutes on the Googler, I'm not sure your detailed search had the will behind it. I think it also debunks your claim (I think you called the idea of proving it "ridiculous") that Sadiq Khan has never been asked that question. Not only has he been asked on numerous occasions but he's answered and gone on to stand up for his belief.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Obviously you'll have looked at his voting record in division, his comments on education around same-sex relationships, his comments about the place of the LGBT+ community in London, or the bit where he calls such relationships "healthy".

That took two minutes on the Googler, I'm not sure your detailed search had the will behind it. I think it also debunks your claim (I think you called the idea of proving it "ridiculous") that Sadiq Khan has never been asked that question. Not only has he been asked on numerous occasions but he's answered and gone on to stand up for his belief.

So my search had:

Tim Farron homosexual sin - 1st hit
Theresa May homosexual sin - 4th hit

Sadiq Khan homosexual sin - 0 hits
Sadiq Khan homosexual "sin" - 0 hits
Sadiq Khan homosexual sex - 0 hits
Sadiq Khan gay sex sin - 0 hits
Sadiq Khan gay sex "sin" - 0 hits
Sadiq Khan homosexual moral - 0 hits
Sadiq Khan homosexual "moral" - 0 hits

I mean if you found something that shows he's been asked by a reporter or anyone else who would publish it by all means produce it....

I know you want the issue to be what he has done for LGBT communities but I raised another question, one asked to 2 Christians and wondered why this was the case. Fact is your links don't show that he believes homosexual sex to be moral and not a sin.

 

[PocketZeven]

I never said it was exclusive - but it is far from equal. Are you saying if you took 500 British Christians you would get an equal response?


Ahh, the old reliable "socioeconomic factors"

Yes, it plays a part.
And yes, religion does too.

It is entirely dependant what part of britain they are from and how religious they are. The research does not specify. If I would do the same survey in a certain region in Alabama it wouldnt be that difficult to get a 100% on the same topic.

Ofcourse religion pays a part, but the socio economic situation for the majority plays the most important part. Also I made a point earlier that Tribal culture and ignorance play a more important role then religion itself. The average homicide rate in the most populous 19 muslim countries was 2.1 per 100.000. The US has 5.6 per 100.000. According to these stats Americans are more violent then muslims. Also keep in mind how many people have been killed in the name of christ vs in the name of Allah.

 

[UKMikey]

Still doesn't mean he doesn't think gay sex is a sin

Fact is your links don't show that he believes homosexual sex to be moral and not a sin.

Sounds like we should be preparing a ducking stool. The relevance of your line of questioning is making increasingly less and less sense to me.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Sounds like we should be preparing a ducking stool. The relevance of your line of questioning is making increasingly less and less sense to me.

So the relevance is there was a big bru-ha-ha about Farron's views on homosexuality after being repeatedly asked his thoughts on homosexuality and then specifically asked if he thought gay sex was a sin - most likely in an attempt to put him in a "got ya" type position. After he was asked this the leader of the Conservatives, and PM at the time, was asked the same question. At no point during this, or any other period was the Mayor of London, who identifies with a different religion, asked the same question.

 

[UKMikey]

Farron still thinks gay sex is a sin though:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/42638420

Meanwhile you'd have to have some kind of clearly defined agenda to go after Sadiq Khan after he's consistently spoken out in defence of gay people:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...n-2019-marchers-50-years-since-stonewall-live

For a change, how about coming up with some actual evidence that the mayor is actually a homophobe and his appearance at Pride was some kind of elaborate act?