Islam - What's your view on it?

[Encyclopedia]

Did I say it doesn't predate religion? Tricked you keeping count of the conclusions you jump to?

Husband and wife, not husband and husband. It doesn't have to mention children, it's implied. Oh wait that's right, nitpicking. Let's make a truth table for everything.

Husband OR wife.

Do gays have vaginas? Can they "marry" then by that definition?

For the record I never implied can't get married by the original non-religion definition.

Some gay people have vaginas yes.

 

[Famine]

Nope. Not by my definition.

Nope, nope and nope. But yeah let's move on.

You've already conceded it. No need to keep up the dissembling.

I did not.

We have a winner! Someone failed to read the big bold post!

Bahrain has no homophobic laws.

You've conceded that, by legally banning homosexuals from having sex because premarital sex is legally banned and homosexuals cannot marry, Bahrain has more homophobic laws than your other example of Texas, which does not.

You don't need to keep up pretending you said something else. It's right there.

Did I say it doesn't predate religion? Tricked you keeping count of the conclusions you jump to?

What conclusions?

Husband and wife, not husband and husband.

Nope. As I said, it doesn't mention genders - look:

The word predates religion and merely means "to provide with a husband or wife". It doesn't mention genders or children.

A man may be provided with a husband (who is thus also provided with a husband), or a woman with a wife (who is thus also provided with a wife). Or two men with a wife (who is thus also provided with a husband), or two women with a husband (who is thus also provided with a wife). Or any number of combinations.

It doesn't have to mention children, it's implied.

Where?

It doesn't mention sparrows, the Moon or the sense of smell either. Are they implied? If you're going to read random extra words into those that are already there, all notion of sensible discussion is out of the window.

What did it mean then, before the 20th century?

"To provide with a husband or wife."

Do gays have vaginas?

Yep. Gay women are renowned for vagina possession.

Can they "marry" then by that definition?

Yes, because that definition (the one before it was co-opted by religious institutions) doesn't mention the gender of the person receiving the husband or wife.

It doesn't say "To provide a husband with a wife, or a wife with a husband.". It says "To provide with a husband or wife."

It doesn't have to be

It does if you want to discuss it. If you don't, why are you posting in here? If you want to shout it repeatedly and never have it challenged, just go blog it.

Give my best to them.

Even though they're laughable?

Forgot to quote something from @Famine

If by other groups you mean incest marriage and necrophiliac marriage, yes I left those two out on purpose.

The dead can't consent, so that's not on the list. Incestuous I'm not all that bothered about - largely incest is just a decision of how far away is acceptable. Like us, you have a Royal Family and royal families are legendary for the closeness of their relational marriages. In some parts of the world, 1st cousins is acceptable (the children of brothers/sisters), in others it's 2nd cousins (the children of children of brothers/sisters). I'm not fussed really - my brother's an ugly arse anyway.

No, I meant bisexual, transsexual, transgender and polygamous. I assumed you were just not mentioning them because we were talking gays and straights and it wasn't a case of excluding them - you're down with "anyone should be able to boink anyone that can consent to being boinked", in which case 👍

 

[KSaiyu]

Does that include banning gay marriage? If so, then yes it's "homophobic".

No you're missing the point.

Here's an analogy.

There are two countries, A and B. A has no ban on people drinking water from a public fountain, B has a ban on everyone drinking. Both A and B make it illegal for anyone to build a public fountain.

White and black people drink freely from the fountains in A, but only white people drink freely from the fountains in B. If a black person is caught drinking from a fountain in B they are arrested.

Which is the more racist?

 

[BHRxRacer]

@Famine my love, I give up. The guy being choked by Chinese/Japanese has died 10 times over.


Let's get this thread back on topic and hear more of @GBO Possum 's ignorance-driven hatefulness.

No you're missing the point.

Here's an analogy.

There are two countries, A and B. A has no ban on people drinking water from a public fountain, B has a ban on everyone drinking. Both A and B make it illegal for anyone to build a public fountain.

White and black people drink freely from the fountains in A, but only white people drink freely from the fountains in B. If a black person is caught drinking from a fountain in B they are arrested.

Which is the more racist?

Country A and B are equally public-fountain-building-phobic. Racism was never in question.

 

[kennylmao]

Husband and wife, not husband and husband. It doesn't have to mention children, it's implied. Oh wait that's right, nitpicking. Let's make a truth table for everything.

But why does it have to be husband and wife? Why can't it be husband and husband?

Because it has always been that way as nature intended? Because religion?

Things change man. Meanings of words have changed. The world is changing.

 

[BHRxRacer]

But why does it have to be husband and wife? Why can't it be husband and husband?

Because it has always been that way as nature intended? Because religion?

Things change man. Meanings of words have changed. The world is changing.

Into the worse, which is why I don't plan on having children.

Anyway, never change the meaning of a word. Make up a new word for it instead. That's what I'm asking.

 

[Famine]

Anyway, never change the meaning of a word. Make up a new word for it instead. That's what I'm asking.

Then make up a new word to mean "an exclusively monogamous male/female version of marriage", because "marriage" is already taken.

 

[GBO Possum]

Back on topic. "What's my view on Islam?"

I find it deeply suspicious that a man went alone into a cave, and then comes out claiming to have met and spoken with an angel who claimed he was sent by a "god" and that this is claimed to be the basis of divine communication.

If a "god" truly wanted to communicate with humanity, this story makes the least amount of sense. The method itself has no credibility.

The resulting "holy book" (the Quran) is rife with ambiguity. Followers of this book proclaim that it has to be "interpreted correctly". This also makes no sense. This universe, allegedly created by Allah, only exists because of incredibly precise ratios of a physical nature. If Allah created this universe, then it is clear that this "god" was truly capable of being precise. To many, many decimal places! The resulting book, the Quran, has no credibility in that its very ambiguity makes it meaningless. And further consider (with a degree of incredulity) that it was written in only one language, a language with a narrow geographic currency.

The idea that a "god" who made this incredibly vast universe would choose to communicate with that universe through a single human in a cave on a mountain thousands of millennia after the emergence of humankind just boggles the mind. Further, the guy in the cave had no comprehension of the vastness of this "god created" universe, yet the message sent to him contained no facts about what this "god" had created, and it's only in the last few decades that the full beauty of this universe is emerging. And it's not coming from "divine revelation", it's coming from a lot of hard work by rational, educated people, not people who claim to have divine connections.

The fact that the writings which resulted from this fellow's solitary cave visits contain nothing that could not be made up by a lone ignorant guy in a cave and are really vague and ambiguous give us a hint that the man had one or more of the following characteristics. He might have been delusional, mentally ill, a charlatan or just held ambitions to gain control over other people. The gaining-of-control theory probably fits best with his subsequent behavior.

My view is that this chap was very persuasive (via word and sword) in an ignorant society, but that it is time to move on from ignorance.

 

[kennylmao]

That'd fit right in the God thread.

 

[GBO Possum]

That'd fit right in the God thread.

Yes, but there are thousands and thousands of gods eligible for the god thread, and they each have their own story of where they came from. Even if many are similar.

I'm dealing with Islam's god in this thread. And Islam's cave man.

 

[KSaiyu]

Back on topic. "What's my view on Islam?"

The fact that the writings which resulted from this fellow's solitary cave visits contain nothing that could not be made up by a lone ignorant guy in a cave and are really vague and ambiguous give us a hint that the man had one or more of the following characteristics. He might have been delusional, mentally ill, a charlatan or just held ambitions to gain control over other people. The gaining-of-control theory probably fits best with his subsequent behavior.

My view is that this chap was very persuasive (via word and sword) in an ignorant society, but that it is time to move on from ignorance.

 

[Carbonox]

Into the worse, which is why I don't plan on having children.

Anyway, never change the meaning of a word. Make up a new word for it instead. That's what I'm asking.

That's a quick change of attitude after I saw you constantly posting about your future kids (and shielding them from certain things) in that other thread.

 

[GBO Possum]

You may find this account of how Gabriel "revealed" god's word to be "interesting".

http://www.al-islam.org/restatement...r-razwy/birth-islam-and-proclamation-muhammad

Yes, it's a pro-Islam website.

I particularly enjoyed this

He was in Hira when one day the Archangel Gabriel appeared before him, and brought to him the tidings that God had chosen him to be His Last Messenger to this world, and had imposed upon him the duty of leading mankind out of the welter of sin, error and ignorance into the light of Guidance, Truth and Knowledge. Gabriel then bade Muhammad to “read” the following verses:

“Read in the name of thy lord and cherisher who created: Created man out of a clot of congealed blood. Read!And thy lord is most bountiful, He who taught the use of pen; Taught man that which he knew not”.

These five verses were the earliest revelation, and they came to Muhammad on the “Night of Power” or the “Blessed Night” in the month of Ramadan (the ninth month of the Islamic calendar) of the 40th year of the Elephant. They are at the beginning of the 96th chapter of Al-Qur’an al-Majid. The name of the chapter is Iqraa (Read) or ‘Alaq (the Clot of Congealed Blood).

I bolded the word "Last" since it was a clever way of closing the door behind him such that no one else could later claim to have been spoken to by Gabriel or even a god!

Edit:- if you were ever in doubt about the "prophet's" motivation being the desire for control over others, consider the official name - "The Night of Power". Celebrated by the "holy" month of Ramadan during which the power play continues to this day by forcing Muslims to fast during daylight hours. Seriously, you can't make this sort of thing up! (And if you did, they'd lock you up!)

 

[ShiftingGears]

I view Prophet Mohammed as I would any other warlord not averse to torture, enslavement or paedophilia.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I view Prophet Mohammed as I would any other warlord not averse to torture, enslavement or paedophilia.

Ouch. I can argue against this, but then it will devolve into a bunch of circles with nothing getting accomplished. Man is dead anyway. Like any criticism is going to affect him now.

Anyway, Ramadan is coming to a close @SalmanBH, and suffice to say it wasn't that bad considering we are going to be doing this in the spring/summer months for the next 5-7 years. It actually went by pretty quick. It's slated to end this 28th according to lunar calender and Sheikh Google bin Internet.

 

[PeterJB]

Ouch. I can argue against this, but then it will devolve into a bunch of circles with nothing getting accomplished. Man is dead anyway. Like any criticism is going to affect him now.

Anyway, Ramadan is coming to a close @SalmanBH, and suffice to say it wasn't that bad considering we are going to be doing this in the spring/summer months for the next 5-7 years.

Isn't it in the Summer now?

 

[sumbrownkid]

Isn't it in the Summer now?

Yes, I mean that the month of Ramadan will fall in the Spring/Summer months of the Gregorian calender in the Northern Hemisphere at least for the next couple years. Because the Islamic calender is 11 days shorter, Ramadan starts 11 days earlier according to Gregorian calender with each passing year.

 

[PeterJB]

I suppose once the Summer months are done you've got 15 years or so before it's back there again.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I suppose once the Summer months are done you've got 15 years or so before it's back there again.

Damn I will be 39 by then.

 

[PeterJB]

I'd have thought it's better in the Winter. Less heat, more feasting-filled darkness.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I'd have thought it's better in the Winter. Less heat, more feasting-filled darkness.

When I used to live in Chicago we had Ramadan during the winter and suffice to say as a teenager with a voracious appetite, it was awesome breaking fast at around 4:30.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I love how @GBO Possum dodged my reply. Did it hurt? At least you'll read your own sources next time.

Then make up a new word to mean "an exclusively monogamous male/female version of marriage", because "marriage" is already taken.

You're right, it is taken. You have no right to take it out of context and re-interpret it. The Romans, earliest that used the language, didn't recognize same sex marriage(until much later?). They OBVIOUSLY meant provide (a) husband (for a wife) or (a) wife (for a husband) but hey, if you'd like to treat words like F1 teams treat the regulations, just say so.



That said, I'm very interested to know how you'd feel about incest. More precisely, parent-child, or siblings. marriage. Thread coming.

You may find this account of how Gabriel "revealed" god's word to be "interesting".

http://www.al-islam.org/restatement...r-razwy/birth-islam-and-proclamation-muhammad

Yes, it's a pro-Islam website.

I particularly enjoyed this

I bolded the word "Last" since it was a clever way of closing the door behind him such that no one else could later claim to have been spoken to by Gabriel or even a god!

Edit:- if you were ever in doubt about the "prophet's" motivation being the desire for control over others, consider the official name - "The Night of Power". Celebrated by the "holy" month of Ramadan during which the power play continues to this day by forcing Muslims to fast during daylight hours. Seriously, you can't make this sort of thing up! (And if you did, they'd lock you up!)

Once again you've failed to demonstrate how that in any way relates to Islam being hateful or dangerous. Do you retract your earlier statement?

Is it hatefulness and danger, or is it the ********* origin story?



*As you imply.

 

[Spurgy 777]

@BHRxRacer I'm pretty sure Famine has said before, that the Romans had gay marriage up until Christianity came around, so you couldn't be more wrong. Also, definitions are definitions, you can't say "they actually meant this...". If the definition is "to provide with a husband or wife", that's it, that means a marriage is when someone or something is provided with a wife or husband.

As for Islam being and dangerous, it's a religion, which makes it inherently dangerous for promoting irrational thinking and blindly believing what people say.

 

[BHRxRacer]

@BHRxRacer I'm pretty sure Famine has said before, that the Romans had gay marriage up until Christianity came around, so you couldn't be more wrong. Also, definitions are definitions, you can't say "they actually meant this...". If the definition is "to provide with a husband or wife", that's it, that means a marriage is when someone or something is provided with a wife or husband.

As for Islam being and dangerous, it's a religion, which makes it inherently dangerous for promoting irrational thinking and blindly believing what people say.

Romans didn't have gay marriage until a later point in history, then it was banned by Christianity.

As for Islam, I understand. My question is, why is Islam being singled out?

 

[ShiftingGears]

Ouch. I can argue against this, but then it will devolve into a bunch of circles with nothing getting accomplished. Man is dead anyway. Like any criticism is going to affect him now.

We both know why criticism of Mohammed is pertinent to this discussion.

 

[Spurgy 777]

As for Islam, I understand. My question is, why is Islam being singled out?

Well at the very least it's because it's the religion causing the most problems in the world, especially with regard to violence. And it's not like it's being completely singled out either, we pick on Christianity too, but that's under control in most places.

 

[Scaff]

You're right, it is taken. You have no right to take it out of context and re-interpret it.

Then why do you?

The Romans, earliest that used the language, didn't recognize same sex marriage(until much later?).

Citation required.

Oh and while Famine is using the Romans as an example plenty of other (and earlier) civilizations such as Mesopotamia had same sex marriage ceremonies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

They OBVIOUSLY meant provide (a) husband (for a wife) or (a) wife (for a husband) but hey, if you'd like to treat words like F1 teams treat the regulations, just say so.

Who's reinterpreting now?

 

[Scaff]

Well at the very least it's because it's the religion causing the most problems in the world, especially with regard to violence. And it's not like it's being completely singled out either, we pick on Christianity too, but that's under control in most places.

I disagree. I see it more of an issue whenever religion (take your pick) has to relate to any other religion or form of secular attitude, in most cases these lead to some form of (often violent) friction.

The reason why Islam is being singled out in this case is the rather obvious fact that Islam is the subject of this thread!

 

[Spurgy 777]

I disagree. I see it more of an issue whenever religion (take your pick) has to relate to any other religion or form of secular attitude, in most cases these lead to some form of (often violent) friction.

I'm not entirely sure what you disagree with, the rest of your post doesn't seem to contradict anything I said, but I could be reading it wrong, could you elaborate?

The reason why Islam is being singled out in this case is the rather obvious fact that Islam is the subject of this thread!

I'd hoped he meant in general and not specifically this thread

 

[Famine]

*argues that you can't redefine and reinterpret language to suit*

*redefines and reinterprets language to suit*

The jig is up. We can all see through you.